University of Connecticut University of UC Title Fallback Connecticut

Bylaws, Policies, and Procedures

Last update:  12-13-2016
This document is available as a PDF by clicking here.

Department of Geography, University of Connecticut

Preamble

This document contains the bylaws, policies and procedures of the Department of geography at the University of Connecticut as approved by its faculty on April 30, 2014.  Any University of Connecticut or College of Liberal Arts and Sciences bylaw, policy, or procedure supersedes that listed here if it is contradictory or otherwise in conflict.

According to the Bylaws of the University of Connecticut (http://policy.uconn.edu/?p=122):

Departments are organized in terms of subject matter areas. They bear definite cross-relationships, but their organization into distinct administrative units is intended to assure that the attention of small groups of faculty members will be centered on teaching, research, clinical activities, and/or service in these areas.

The functions of each department are to:

1.  Develop an educational program designed to meet the needs of the students in the various schools/colleges and of other individuals and groups served by the teaching, research, clinical, and/or service programs.

2.  Evaluate and improve its educational programs.

3.  Recommend to the faculty of its school/college changes intended to improve the work of the department.

4.  Secure the safety and proper inventory of all University property assigned to it.

5.  Integrate its program with the general program of the University and to foster effective coordination of effort.

 

I.  Organization

A.  Officers – The chief executive officer of the department is the Head. The Head is appointed by the Dean of CLA&S in conformance with the procedure described in the AAUP contract with the university.

Other officers include the Graduate Program Coordinator, the GIS Certificate Coordinator, and the Undergraduate Program Coordinator. Each of these officers is appointed by the Head after consultation with the members of the department.

B.  Standing Committees – The standing committees of the department include the Graduate Program Committee, Undergraduate Program Committee, Curricula and Courses Committee, Student and Alumni Relations and Outreach Committee, Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment (PTR) Committee, the GIS Certificate Program Committee, and the Advisory Committee. Committees meet at least one time per month during the academic year, with additional meetings on an “as necessary” basis. Committee membership incurs an obligation to be actively involved in meeting the committee’s charges.

C.  Ad hoc committees may be formed and charged at any time at the discretion of the Head.

 

II.  Operation

A.  Members of the department – as defined in UConn Bylaws, members of the department are all full-time professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors belonging to department as administratively organized, regardless of campus. All members on consecutive academic year appointments with PTR and merit homes in the department are eligible to vote on departmental initiatives including faculty hiring, PTR, and merit (as per department vote reported 6/4/12). All courtesy joint-appointments have voting rights on departmental initiatives except PTR and merit. All such voting members of the faculty are expected to serve on department committees.

B.  Faculty meetings – are called by the Department Head as required. All members of the department are expected to attend the meetings unless on sabbatical or leave.

C.  Committee compositions, charges, and activities

1)  The Graduate Program Committee has three members. It is chaired by the Graduate Program Coordinator, who is also normally Geography’s Field of Study representative to the Graduate School. The other members of the committee are appointed by the Head. Members must be part of the graduate faculty. Members should serve on a rotating three year basis with one member changing each year. The Head may also appoint or re-appoint a graduate student to the committee for a one year term.

Charges to the committee include initial screening of applications to the Graduate Program, recommendations of candidates for graduate program to the members of the department; providing programs of professional development for the department’s graduate students; evaluation, in concert with advisors and advisory committee members, of the degree progress of the graduate students in the department; and annual evaluation of the department’s graduate program with respect to its integration with the department’s strategic plan and college and university initiatives. The committee will also administer and analyze annual surveys of incoming, continuing and graduating students and maintain current records on each student in the program. Additional charges may be made at the discretion of the Head.

The committee will report to the members of the department at least once each semester. Additional reports will be made as requested by the committee or members of the department.

2)  The GIS Certificate Committee has three members. It is chaired by the GIS Certificate Coordinator. The other members of the committee are appointed by the Head.   Members should serve on a rotating three year basis with one member changing each year.

Charges to the committee include recruitment of students to the online certificate program; supervision of graduate student assistants affiliated with the program; supervision of curriculum and course improvements, and annual evaluation of the status of the online GIS certificate initiative. Additional charges may be made at the discretion of the Head.

The committee will report to the members of the department at least once each semester. Additional reports will be made as requested by the committee or members of the department.

3)  The Undergraduate Program Committee has three members. It is chaired by the Undergraduate Program Coordinator. The other members of the committee are appointed by the Head. One member of the committee should also be the department’s Honors Advisor.    Members should serve on a rotating three year basis with one member changing each year. The Head may also appoint or re-appoint a graduate student to the committee for a one year term.

Charges to the committee include recruitment of undergraduate majors; reception and initial advisement of new majors; annual evaluation of the department’s undergraduate program with respect to its integration with the department’s strategic plan and college and university initiatives; and nominating current students for various awards and scholarships and membership in GTU. The committee will also administer and analyze annual surveys of incoming, continuing and graduating students. Additional charges may be made at the discretion of the Head.

The committee will report to the members of the department at least once each semester. Additional reports will be made as requested by the committee or members of the department.

4)  The Curricula and Courses Committee has three members. The chair is appointed by the Head, who also serves as the department’s representative to the CLA&S Curricula and Courses Committee. The other members of the committee are also appointed by the Head, with at least one member representing the Graduate Program Committee, at least one member representing the Undergraduate Program Committee, and at least one member representing the GIS Certificate Committee. One member of this committee should also be a member of the University Senate Curricula and Courses Committee.   Members should serve on a rotating three year basis with one member changing each year.

Charges to the committee include the evaluation of solicited and unsolicited proposals from any member of the department for a new course or a significant change (by the standards of the registrar) in an existing course. Its reported evaluations are used by the members of the department in approving course proposals. Additional charges may be made at the discretion of the Head.

The committee will report to the members of the department at least once each semester. Additional reports will be made as requested by the committee or members of the department.

5)  The Alumni Relations, Outreach, Development, and Honors Committee has three members. The chair is appointed by the Head. The other members of the committee are also appointed by the Head.   Members should serve on a rotating three year basis with one member changing each year.

Charges to the committee include assisting the Head in planning the department’s colloquia and related events, assisting the Head in interacting with alumni and the public in representing and providing information about the activities of the department; assisting the Head in seeking external financial support of departmental activities, and nominating members of the faculty for various awards and honors both within and beyond the university. Additional charges may be made at the discretion of the Head.

The committee will report to the members of the department at least once each semester. Additional reports will be made as requested by the committee or members of the department.

6)  The Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment (PTR) Committee varies in size. It includes all members of the faculty who have achieved the rank or tenure status (or higher) for which a candidate is being considered. The PTR Committee’s chair is appointed by the Head.

The charge to the committee is to evaluate each PTR dossier and advise the Head as to the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and/or tenure.

7)  The Advisory Committee’s chair is the Head. The members of the committee are the Graduate Program Coordinator, the Undergraduate Program Coordinator, and the Chair of the PTR Committee.

The charge of the committee is to advise the Head on implementation of the department’s policies and procedures, and other matters as requested.

Actions of the Advisory Committee will be reported to the members of the department at the discretion of the Head.

 

III.  Mentorship

During the first month of employment, new faculty members will meet with both the chair of the PTR committee and the head to discuss the department’s expectations with respect to professional responsibilities in general and PTR in particular. At that time the new faculty member is encouraged to indicate any anticipated problems in fulfilling her or his professional responsibilities at the level of excellence necessary for reappointment and eventual tenure and promotion.

At that meeting or any other time during the probationary period a faculty member can request that the head appoint a specific, higher-ranking faculty member in the department as a mentor. The purpose of the appointment is to establish a close professional relationship between the two colleagues. The senior colleague will be a special source of advice in general and guide work toward the candidate’s improvement in areas that may require special attention. The tasks of the mentor could include, for example, suggesting timetables for specific research projects, the reading of drafts of papers, help in the creation of syllabi, and other agreed upon activities.

Mid-career faculty members are encouraged to seek mentorship from more senior colleagues as they prepare for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor. Such mentorship may also be valuable in preparing for other professional advancement, either in the institution or the discipline.

Mentoring in the department also occurs through the PTR process. The chair of the PTR committee shall meet with each PTR candidate prior to the submission of the PTR application. At that meeting, the chair and the candidate will discuss the PTR process and the rights and responsibilities of the candidate. When the PTR committee has completed its deliberations, the chair of the committee will meet with each candidate, provide them with a copy of the committee’s letter to the Head, discuss the committee’s recommendation, and provide advice. The head will meet with the candidate in a similar manner when the head’s review has been completed.

 

IV.  PTR Procedures

See Appendix 1 for bylaws and guidelines relating to PTR.

 

V.  Merit Procedures

See Geography Merit Process and Rating System approved September 3, 2014.

 

VI.  Faculty Responsibilities

According to the university’s Policy on Faculty Professional Responsibilities (http://policy.uconn.edu/?p=659) :

As a member of a scholarly community, every faculty member is expected to contribute to the shared responsibilities that support the varied educational mission at the department, college/school, and university level. These responsibilities are clearly set forth in Article XV.L.1. of the University Bylaws, which states, “While members of the professional staff of this University are employed for a variety of duties, as a general rule the University will expect to assign to each full-time member of the professional staff duties which are reasonable and consistent with good and effective teaching practices at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In conjunction with this, staff members will be expected to carry a reasonable amount of ordinary departmental duties and routine committee responsibilities and to undertake those activities of self-improvement and professional development that are part of every faculty member’s investment in his or her own future. Such assigned responsibilities as unusually heavy loads of student counseling, the chairmanship of committees that are unusually time-consuming, research projects which have been designated as a part of the staff member’s assigned load, unusually heavy enrollments in courses, and assigned administrative duties will be considered in determining the number of contact hours assigned to any individual.” In furtherance of these Bylaws’ professional staff loads provisions, individual faculty member’s responsibilities are determined in consultation with the department head, or dean in a non-departmental structure, and are based on the academic unit’s workload guidelines. These guidelines recognize discipline-specific standards that ensure that individuals fulfill all facets of the responsibilities of a faculty member in a research university.

On occasion, some specific faculty responsibilities may be defined in an individual letter of appointment (e.g., appointment of a faculty member to be a director of a center), or the individual faculty member may be given a joint appointment. These special circumstances will govern the activity of that faculty member within the context of relevant general guidelines.

Department heads, with appropriate input from the faculty and the advice of regional campus associate vice chancellors, are charged with setting an appropriate distribution of responsibilities for individual faculty that reflects that member’s particular strengths, the nature of his/her obligation to the University, and the needs of the academic unit. Annual meetings will be held between the department head and individual faculty. These meetings should serve to enhance the overall activities of the department as well as interdisciplinary research/scholarship, where appropriate. The department head will review and discuss the faculty member’s productivity and present and future professional activities. The department head and faculty member should also discuss any problems encountered by the faculty member in the performance of his/her duties. For regional campus faculty, similar meetings should occur with the appropriate regional Associate Vice Chancellor, as well as with the department head. Any adjustments in a regional campus faculty member’s activities must be made in concert with the faculty member’s department head.

These meetings may also be used, where appropriate, to accomplish, in consultation with the faculty member, proportional adjustments to the faculty member’s responsibilities. These annual assessments of a faculty member’s activity can include consideration of various measures commensurate with the unique constraints of creative endeavors or original research/scholarship. Such adjustments may be appropriate during a faculty member’s career and are an essential component in maintaining a department’s and the University’s overall effectiveness.

 

VII.   Amendments to the By-laws

Any of the bylaws, policy, and procedures may be amended or otherwise revised by approval of the majority of the voting members of the department.

 

 

APPENDIX 1

Amendments to Department Bylaws Relating to PTR.  Passed unanimously, February 6, 2015.  Revised, December 7, 2016

Most policies and procedures relating to promotion, tenure and reappointment (PTR) are set by the Provost, the Dean, UConn’s Laws and By-Laws, and the UConn-AAUP contract.  The Provost’s Office maintains a website that outlines major policies and procedures and provides links to key documents.  Found below is guidance on how these policies and procedures are applied in the Department of Geography.

PTR is awarded in recognition of faculty contributions to the mission of the University in the areas of: a) scholarship and research; b) teaching and advising of both undergraduate and graduate students; and c) service to the department, university, and discipline as well as to the many audiences outside of the UConn community.  While a successful candidate need not excel in every category, a candidate’s application must reflect significant and sustained scholarly productivity, a record of successful teaching, and a pattern of effective service.  The University of Connecticut is a leading research university, so a candidate’s record of sustained scholarly productivity is the most important factor in earning promotion, tenure, and reappointment.

The Department of Geography expects its faculty to achieve national or international prominence in their chosen field of research.  The factors that will be weighed in judging such accomplishments are the same as those detailed in the Department’s Merit Review Process and Rating System (http://geography.uconn.edu/info/merit/).

However, it is important to distinguish between the merit criteria and the merit pay review process.  Merit review is conducted annually to make annual salary decisions.  In contrast, PTR recommendations are conducted only by tenured faculty for the purpose of making promotion and tenure decisions. Hence, a record of consistent merit awards is important in signaling progress toward promotion, but annual salary increases do not alone imply that a candidate has reached the level of “substantial and sustained” work needed to earn promotion or tenure.  The PTR committee is charged with evaluating “substantial and sustained” research productivity over several years, not just a single year.

 

1.  Significant and sustained scholarly productivity

At each level of appointment from assistant, to associate, to full professor, candidates should demonstrate significant and sustained research productivity.  This implies that assistant professors develop one or more lines of research that extend beyond their doctoral research and make major, innovative contributions to their research fields.  Publications based upon the dissertation are encouraged, but our expectation is that candidates will develop new, equally productive projects as they move toward promotion.  For associate professors “significant and sustained” means developing or extending one or more lines of research beyond those for which they were awarded promotion and tenure.  Faculty at all levels are expected to maintain active programs of research.

The question often arises of how many publications are required to meet these standards. There is not a set number because establishing a reputation in a given field may involve different criteria.  In general, it is expected that candidates for promotion to the rank of assistant or of full professor will on average take a leadership role in more than one high quality publication each year in a major, highly-ranked journal in geography or a related field.  Overall in considering the various components of research productivity, the general rule is that more is better than less, but this is not simply a question of quantity because it also involves issues of publication quality, placement, and leadership among other factors.  The PTR file many include work done at UConn, in graduate school and at other institutions which together indicate substantial and sustained work for promotion to associate or full professor.

 

2. Schedule for preparing PTR files

Candidates for promotion and or tenure will prepare PTR dossiers as described by the Office of the Provost (http://guide.uconn.edu/promotion-tenure-reappointment/). PTR dossiers are generally prepared during the summer and are submitted to the Head and Chair of the PTR committee in August before the start of the start of the fall semester.  The Head and Chair check the file for completeness before it is forwarded to the PTR Committee for review at the start of the fall semester.

 

3.  The PTR committee and voting procedures

As noted above under item II.C.6, The Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment (PTR) Committee varies in size.  It includes all members of the faculty who have achieved the rank or tenure status (or higher) for which a candidate is being considered.  The PTR Committee’s chair is appointed by the Head.

The charge to the committee is to evaluate each PTR dossier and advise the Head as to the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and/or tenure.  The committee invites all members of the faculty (except the candidate) to sit in during any committee deliberation.  As noted in Section 9 of this Appendix, the candidate can also ask to address the committee.  However, the final vote of the committee on each case is secret and known only by the members of the committee.  A single final report is then prepared by the committee. The Chair of the PTR Committee will write the majority opinion in the final report of the committee; if there is a minority opinion, the members of the minority will write the minority opinion in the final report.  If the Chair is of the minority opinion, then another member of the committee will be appointed to write the majority opinion, and the Chair will write the minority opinion.  The final PTR report will be shared with the candidate by the Chair of the committee.

 

4.  Issues relating to external referees for tenure and promotion.

  1. In addition to suggesting five or more names for external reviewers, candidates have the option of listing potential reviewers with which they have potential conflicts of interest (beyond the typical conflict of interest relationships: advisor-advisee, collaborator, co-authors, etc.)
  2. Candidates for promotion have the option of preparing a statement detailing their research, teaching and service accomplishments to include in the packet of information sent to reviewers. This statement may be very similar to the responses included in the PTR form, but the PTR form is an internal UConn document and is not sent to external reviewers.  The purpose of the statement is to place the candidate’s accomplishments in the context of their overall record of research, teaching and service and to situate their work within broader disciplinary trends.
  3. Referees invited to evaluate PTR files can be re-invited in subsequent years if a candidate’s promotion is denied.

 

5. Feedback to associate professors moving toward promotion to full professor.

Associate professors may meet with the head or the department’s PTR Committee at any time to discuss progress toward promotion. However, it is recommended that associate professors meet with the head and the PTR Committee at least every third year beyond promotion to associate rank to discuss plans for further advancement. The suggested time for these meetings is in the late spring at the close of the merit review process.

 

6.  Faculty in joint appointments.

If a faculty member has a joint appointment with another campus unit, the director or head of that unit shall also serve as a non-voting member of the geography PTR committee and will be invited to all committee meetings in which the candidate’s dossier is discussed. If the director or head is unable to serve, that person shall nominate a colleague to serve on the geography PTR committee, to be approved by the PTR committee. That person shall also provide guidance to the PTR committee with respect to specialized journals in the joint field of study. The terms of memos of understanding (MOUs) and any amendments are considered by the PTR committee.

 

7.  Conflicts of interest for PTR committee members.

The PTR report should state whether members of the committee have possible conflicts of interest with the candidates being considered. Members of the PTR committee with a clear conflict of interest in a given case (according to relevant State of Connecticut or University of Connecticut rules) must recuse themselves from all discussion and voting on that candidate.  If the Department Head has a conflict of interest with the candidate, a senior member of the faculty will be appointed by the Dean’s Office to assume the Head’s duties.

 

8.  Use of impact factors, the immediacy index, H-scores, and other quantitative measures designed to assess scientific and scholarly productivity and impact.

 Candidates can refer to these scores and measures in the documents they submit to the PTR committee.  The PTR committee, on their own, can also use these measures in their evaluation of a candidate’s scholarly achievement. The committee is also free, as always, to consider the related issues of who cites a candidate’s work and how often it is cited; and the annual ratings of journals where candidates publish their work.

If quantitative scores or measures are used, the committee should make every effort to set them in the context of patterns of the discipline and of the subfield. Such scores, as well as patterns of citation vary across the subfields of geography and differ also from those of other disciplines. Such scores need to be contextualized to be meaningful.

 

9.  Addressing substantive negative findings.

Substantive negative findings are issues that would prevent one or more PTR Committee members from voting for a candidate’s promotion.  According to the Provost’s Guidelines, Section II, points 5 and 6, candidates may appear before the committee or submit written statements in response to these negative findings.  The candidate should be given the opportunity to respond to such negative findings before the committee votes.  Committee members may still oppose promotion but, if so, must record their dissenting votes in the Committee’s letter to the Department Head with supporting data.

If the Head is unable to support a candidate’s promotion, this also qualifies as substantial negative findings.  The reasons for the findings must be provided to candidate before the Head’s report is written.  The candidate may respond in person or in writing to these findings before the Head completes the PTR evaluation.

 

10.  Multiple measures and evidence of teaching effectiveness.

It is important to consider multiple measures and evidence of teaching effectiveness, for two reasons. First, colleagues deserve to be recognized for the effort they invest in their teaching. Second, feedback can help all faculty improve their approaches to teaching and mentoring students. It is also the case that useful evaluations of teaching and improvement must, almost of necessity, extend beyond a single course or a single semester’s teaching. A more comprehensive evaluation of teaching attempts to sample and analyze a variety of evidence concerning teaching activities. These may include:

i.  Peer Evaluation of Classroom Instruction. This is a common and useful form of assessment. Peer evaluation usually involves colleagues attending one or more lectures, and writing a review of lecture skills, use of visual aids or technology, and any other pertinent aspects of the instructional activity. Peer evaluations are most effective when they involve multiple courses and multiple evaluators so that trends can be identified.

ii.  Student Letters Solicited in an Unbiased Manner. Student letters are provide input on issues of teaching and learning. Unbiased solicitation may involve asking all students in a class or classes to write; contacting a sample of students from larger courses; contacting all majors or all graduate students in the program and asking for comment. The method of solicitation should be described in the dossier, and a copy of the solicitation letter should be included if one was used.

iii.  Trends and Patterns in SET scores. It is important to look at trends in SET scores through time–particularly in courses offered repeatedly by candidates. The focus here should be on whether the candidate is making improvements through time and is responding to feedback offered by students and faculty.

iv.  Assessment of Non-classroom Teaching. An important aspect of teaching in our department is graduate mentoring and individualized student instruction. This type of instruction is rarely represented in SET surveys. Do not overlook evaluation of this aspect of a faculty member’s teaching obligation.

v.  Classroom Interviews. This method is gaining in popularity because it provides a good synthesis of faculty perspective and student opinion, it filters out vindictive or irresponsible responses sometimes seen in anonymous SET results, yet it protects the confidentiality of students. A model of a class interview might be as follows:

a.  A faculty interviewer (or team of interviewers) arranges to use the last 15-20 min. of a candidate’s class period for purposes of an evaluation. At the appointed time the interviewer arrives and the faculty member under review is excused.

b.  The interviewer explains the purpose of his/her visit. Depending upon the size of the class, the interviewer divides the class into several groups of 5 or more students. Groups of less than four may be problematic.

c.  Each group is asked to discuss and reach consensus on two or three questions: These questions might include:

i.  “What is the most effective aspect of Professor X’s teaching?”

ii.  “How can Professor X most improve his/her teaching?”

iii.  “How would you rate Professor X’s interest in helping students to learn?”

d.  After several minutes of free discussion within each group, groups are asked to report their answer to each question. Only answers supported by the entire group can be reported out of the group. These responses are placed upon an overhead or board so that all members of the class can see all answers.

e.  If time allows, the interviewer may elect to lead a discussion or ask for clarification regarding group answers.

f.  The interview is concluded by asking all members of the class to vote on their favorite answer (of those listed on the board or overhead) to each question asked. Votes are recorded.

g.  The interviewer then submits a written report based upon the interview in which the questions asked, the group answers, and the rank order or vote on each answer is reported.

iv.  Student Interviews. A variation of the classroom interview method described above can be used to interview groups of graduate students or undergraduate students. This method similarly protects the confidentiality of students. Student interviews should probably be conducted in the presence of more than one interviewer so as to protect the interviewer from accusations of putting any particular “spin” on the discussion.

vii.  Committee Assessment of a Teaching Portfolio. The colleague under review may submit a portfolio of their teaching activities for review by the committee, or by a separate committee, who in turn writes an evaluative report to the dossier. The teaching portfolio can include any items felt to be relevant by the candidate or the evaluation committee. Common materials are sample syllabi, sample exams or quizzes, sample graded essays or term papers, student projects, Web-based or other materials developed for courses, textbooks written, abstracts of student theses, dissertations, or honors projects, or summaries of individualized instruction of students.

viii.  Direct Submission of a Portfolio to the Dossier. A faculty member under review may also choose to submit a portfolio of teaching activities in the dossier as an appendix. Candidates are strongly encouraged to be highly selective and concise in what is included in such a dossier. Only the most representative examples should be included. Candidates who overwhelm the dossier with portfolio material have the same effect on review committees that students who submit 40 page term papers have on instructors who made 15 page assignments. Candidates whose portfolios are large and not subject to abbreviation should utilize option 7 above, instead.

ix.  Student Comments on the SET Forms. The student comments made in the SET forms is generally considered to be a confidential communiqué between the student and the faculty member. Occasionally a faculty member may wish to include these comments in the PTR dossier. He or she may do so, of course, but all the comments for a particular course should be included for this strategy to have credibility. This way the PTR committee can consider all SET comments from a particular course or courses and provide a summary and interpretation.

x.  Evidence of Internal or External Grants Received for Improving Teaching. Demonstrating a willingness and success to acquire funds to improve or develop classes can provide very good evidence of teaching quality and ability.

xi.  Awards Received for Teaching. Document awards received for teaching and the nature of the selection criteria.

xii.  Publishing Research on Teaching and Learning Issues. Some colleagues research their own teaching and pedagogical approaches for publication in major journals both inside and outside geography. Although these projects will be noted in PTR dossier under research and publications, their link in teaching should also be noted.

xiii.  Unsolicited Student Letters. Faculty under review can contribute letters and email to their dossiers that they have received from students. These letters should be identified as contributed by the colleague under review. The value of such letters is difficult to judge but, in some cases, help to document the impact of teaching in unusual ways.

xiv.  Other Evidence. The list above is not exhaustive. Other evidence of teaching accomplishment can be submitted as part of the PTR file.

It is unnecessary for PTR candidates to collect material in all of these categories. This list is offered to highlight the range of materials that can be considered in PTR decisions rather than as a checklist of requirements for promotion.

At the same time, it is important for candidates consider these options so that they collect some type of evidence of teaching performance and effectiveness every semester. By collecting information every semester, candidates will have ample documentation of their teaching annually as well as for their mid-term and tenure reviews.

 

11.  Evidence of Service

All faculty members are expected to perform service activities within the department, college, university and discipline although these can vary substantially by rank and subfield. The minimum expectation is active contribution in one substantial departmental, college or university committee each year as well as continuing active participation in at least one national or international professional society or association.  Candidates seeking promotion to full professorship should take on additional service responsibilities such as being Chair of a major departmental committee (PTR, Undergraduate Coordinator, Merit, Search, etc.), being an active member of major college or university committee (Senate, C&C, College PTR, etc.), and/or having a leadership role in professional organizations.

UConn also values public engagement and community outreach by its faculty in which faculty expertise is used to inform and enrich awareness of issues in the larger community; so efforts made in this direction should be documented in the PTR file. Such service may include public outreach through presentations and testimony and/or work or research that result in presentations, reports, exhibitions, and other products that inform the general public.