 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
Information for Faculty and Staff
• Bylaws
• Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
• Visiting Scholar Courtesy Appointments
I. Composition
AALL is comprised of faculty working in numerous languages, including: Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hindi, Arabic, Hebrew, Yoruba, Akan, and Swahili. The department offers a B.A. in East Asian Languages and Literatures, and an I.D.S. B.A. in Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures (Arabic and Hebrew tracks). The department also offers a minor in African Studies, Arabic, Asian Studies, Chinese, Hebrew, and Japanese.
II. Membership
The members of AALL include full-time faculty of the University with appointments in AALL. Members also include faculty with partial appointments in AALL.
III. Administration (chair, associate chair, faculty)
1. The chair of the department is determined through a search process.
i. The department elects members of a chair search committee.
ii. The chair search committee establishes the process for consideration of candidates for chair.
1. Ordinarily, this involves a goals and positions presentation by each candidate, followed by a vote by a vote by each member of the department.
2. The committee submits its recommendation for chair to the Dean of CLAS for consideration. The committee’s recommendation is based on the departmental vote, and its evaluation of each of the candidates.
3. The Dean of CLAS selects the chair of the department, for a term of appointment subject to her/his discretion.
2. The associate chair of the department is appointed by the chair of the department.
i. The duties of the associate chair are to:
1. Attend meetings for the chair when the chair is unable to do so.
2. Advise the chair on departmental matters.
IV. Departmental Committees
In addition to temporary committees, AALL contains two permanent committees: the Executive Committee and the Curriculum Committee. Membership on either committee lasts for the duration of an academic year. At the first departmental meeting of each academic year, all geocultural units meet to select a different member to serve on each committee for the academic year.
1. The Executive Committee (EC) is composed of the chair of the department and one tenured or tenure-track faculty member from each geocultural unit. The chair of the department chairs this committee. The EC advises the Chair and department on issues related to departmental programs, policies, and procedures. The EC is not a policy-making or legislative body. Rather, the EC drafts policy recommendations that are then discussed, amended, and voted on by the departmental faculty.
i. The Executive Committee membership changes each AY, and is determined at the first departmental meeting of the AY, following discussion within each geocultural unit.
2. The Curriculum Committee (CC) is composed of one tenured or tenure-track faculty member from each geocultural unit. The chair of the department appoints the chair of this committee from among its members. The CC is responsible for evaluating and requesting changes to New Course Submissions prior to sending them to the College for approval.
i. The Curriculum Committee membership changes each AY, and is determined at the first departmental meeting of the AY, following discussion within each geocultural unit.
V. Departmental Officers (unit coordinators, undergraduate coordinators, language coordinators)
1. Unit coordinators for each of the geocultural areas are appointed by the unit. Unit coordinators oversee submission of the teaching schedule for their geocultural area. Unit coordinators also coordinate all planning and development for the unit.
2. Undergraduate coordinators for each BA Major and Minor are appointed by the chair of the department upon consultation with the unit. Undergraduate Coordinators serve as advisor to students in the Major and/or the Minor.
3. Language coordinators are appointed by the chair of the department. Language coordinators oversee all teaching, articulation, and planning for the language program in each geocultural area.
VI. Departmental Meetings
1. The chair of the department calls for meetings of the department at the beginning and end of each semester, and throughout the semester as the need arises.
VII. Voting
1. See separate statement on departmental voting.
1. The right to vote on all matters is granted to all faculty in the department, including those with partial appointments, except in the following circumstances:
A. The right to vote on candidates for tenure-line appointments is reserved for faculty holding tenure-line appointments.
B. Voting on cases for tenure and promotion follows college and university established practice.
2. Voting method.
A. Voting on candidates for faculty appointments in the department is conducted by anonymous ballot immediately following the discussion of the search committee’s recommendation at the departmental meeting. All faculty have the opportunity to provide feedback to the search committee prior to the meeting. The vote, however, is restricted to those in attendance at the meeting, and there will be no proxy voting.
B. Voting on cases for tenure and promotion follows established college and university practice.
C. Otherwise, voting is conducted by show of hands.
6 March, 2006; revised 21 March, 2006; 6 January, 2007; accepted by unanimous vote of department at 01/11/07 Department Meeting.
I. Mentoring for Tenure-Track Faculty
1. The Chair will assign each tenure-accruing faculty member a tenured faculty mentor as early as possible in the first semester of employment at UF. The emphasis should be on finding someone with whom the untenured member can talk freely about matters related to the tenure process. The mentor largely provides advice on matters pertaining to research and publication, including venues for publication and conference participation, but may also assist the advisee with developing syllabi, trouble-shooting classroom problems, refining research agendas, critiquing grant or fellowship proposals, negotiating departmental politics, or locating resources within the department, college, or university.
2. In the first year of the faculty member’s appointment, the mentor and advisee will meet at least twice per semester. These meetings should be initiated by the mentor, and might take place during office visits or informal lunches. Each spring term, the mentor will ask the faculty member for an updated copy of his or her c.v., and there will be a more formal meeting at the end of the year that also includes the Chair (see II below). In subsequent years, the number of meetings per semester may be reduced, with the qualification that more frequent meetings are likely to be desirable in the semesters prior to the Third-Year review, and to preparation of the Tenure and Promotion packet. Mentorship under this plan will continue until the faculty member submits the application for tenure and promotion at UF.
3. Evaluation Meeting: Each spring term, the chair, mentor, tenure-accruing faculty member and the tenured faculty peer evaluator will meet to discuss the faculty member's achievements over the current academic year, and assess his or her progress toward tenure and promotion. This meeting can also be an opportunity for all members to decide jointly whether another mentor might be more appropriate.
II. Mentoring for Lecturers
1. The Chair will assign each non-tenure line faculty member a faculty mentor as early as possible in the first semester of appointment at UF. The emphasis should be on finding someone with whom the lecturer can talk freely about matters related to the promotion process. The mentor largely provides advice on matters pertaining to professional development, but may also assist the advisee with developing syllabi, trouble-shooting classroom problems, refining training and technology agendas, critiquing grant proposals, negotiating departmental politics, or locating resources within the department, college, or university. Mentorship under this plan will continue until the faculty member submits the application for promotion at UF.
2. Evaluation Meeting: Each spring term, the chair, mentor, faculty member and the tenure-line faculty peer evaluator will meet to discuss the faculty member's achievements over the current academic year, and assess his or her progress toward promotion. This meeting can also be an opportunity for all members to decide jointly whether another mentor might be more appropriate.
(02/06/06 Revision of 1988 Merit Pay Raise Criteria, approved AALL Department at large 03/01/06.)
This document defines the rules and procedures whereby the achievements of faculty in the three areas of research, teaching, and service are evaluated for consideration of merit salary increases. Activities that contribute to the department’s goals of excellence and distinction, and to the intellectual life of the department and that of the larger academic community, are recognized as meritorious. Depending on availability of funding, the following procedures are to be followed.
I. The Chair of the Department will be responsible for determining merit pay raises, and will call for recommendations for such raises from a departmental Merit Committee. The Merit Committee will assess faculty achievements annually through examination of the Annual Activities Reports, and peer evaluations. The performance of individual faculty members in each of the three areas of research, teaching, and service will be classified as most meritorious, highly meritorious, meritorious, and no particular distinction. The Chair, in consultation with the Merit Committee, shall determine merit awards based on these classifications. Each member of the Merit Committee will be excluded from discussion of his or her assessment. The assessments of each member of the Merit Committee will be made by the remaining members of the committee.
II. The Merit Committee will consist of the members of the departmental Executive Committee.
III. Faculty will be evaluated in terms of their departmental work assignments. Exceptions may be made for faculty on leave. In the event that merit monies are not available in a given year(s), the achievements for that/those year(s) will be evaluated along with successive years in the next round of merit consideration.
IV. Measures of achievement.
A. Acknowledging research productivity as the primary mark of individual and institutional distinction, in evaluating the achievements of tenure line faculty, the three areas below are weighted as followed: Research 45%, Teaching 30%, Service 25%.
1. Research, in rank order of productivity, from most meritorious to meritorious:
i. Original contributions to knowledge in scholarly articles, books, book chapters, and external fellowship and grant awards
Examples:
• Books, Monographs
• Articles in refereed journals
• Book chapters and conference proceedings
• Research fellowship
ii. Edited books and scholarly translations with authored introduction.
iii. Contributions representing primarily a synthesis of existing knowledge such as textbooks, edited books, and review essays.
iv. Other professional activities such as conference papers, invited addresses, book reviews, colloquia and lectures, internal fellowship and grant awards.
a. Consideration should be given to a faculty member’s long-range research program. Since some research comes to fruition only after a long period, a faculty member may receive meritorious recognition for research produced but not yet published or accepted for publication, or for research published in previous years. This provision is expected to apply primarily to books.
b. In general, the expectation for each of the items number 1 through 4 above is that the contributions will be in English. Publications and other activities in languages other than English for items 1 through 4 above will be accorded less weight than were they to appear in English.
c. Measures of impact, when available, will also be taken into consideration, such as the following:
i. Distinctions between publications in leading journals and others in the field and its subfields, and among publishing houses.
ii. Citations of publications either in citation indices or in published works supplied by faculty member.
iii. Published reviews of faculty member’s work during last five years.
2. Teaching, in rank order of achievement, from most meritorious to meritorious:
a. Public recognition of superior teaching achievement, significant program development, graduate student thesis supervision or other mentoring.
Examples:
• University or college teaching award
• New degree pre-proposal or proposal
• External grant awards for curricular development or application of technology
• Chairing graduate committees, supervising University Scholar
b. New course and curricular development, graduate committee work, teaching courses with large enrollments (35 or above)
Examples:
• New course development
• Internal grant awards for curricular development or application of technology
• Graduate committee membership, supervision of Honor’s thesis
• Teaching a course with large enrollment
• Participation in professional development training
• Other honors, awards, recognition of excellence in teaching or mentoring
c. Distinction in teaching as evidenced in student teaching evaluations that are significantly above the departmental norm, or in the peer teaching evaluations
3. Service, in rank order of achievement, from most meritorious to meritorious:
a. Significant service to the profession, official service role in the department, organizing seminars
Examples:
• Service as departmental undergraduate or graduate coordinator, or associate chair.
• Service on editorial boards, as an officer in a professional organization, a journal editor, a reviewer for professional journals and other publications, a reviewer for professional research funding agencies
b. Significant service to the college or the university, contributions to projects associated with professional work or other activities enhancing the reputation and visibility of the department, college, or university, chairing departmental search committees
Examples:
• Service on college or university committees
• Participation in special programs or initiatives
• Coordinating guest lectures or film series
• Leadership in community outreach activities
c. Service to the community
B. Faculty in the Lecturer ranks will be evaluated in a similar manner, however, percentages will be adjusted to reflect different demands for Lecturers: Program Development 20%, Teaching 60%, Service 20%. The new category, Program Development, replaces Research, and the examples under Teaching and Research are slightly adjusted as follows:
1. Program Development, in rank order of achievement, from most meritorious to meritorious:
a. Significant unit development; rationalization of articulation across the language levels; creating new study opportunities for students; external grant writing
Examples:
• Creation of placement exam
• Creating new study abroad program
• Creation of heritage language track
• Oral Proficiency Testing training or certification
• Participation in professional development training
• Participation in external grant proposals for unit development
b. Application of professional development training in the form of a lecture or workshop; sustaining important study opportunities for students; curricular liaison across schools or colleges
Examples:
• Lecture or workshop on applications of professional development training
• Overseeing study abroad program
• Creation of business language courses
• Exploring opportunities for on-line course development
c. Creating new forums for target language-centered student activities
Examples:
• Language discussion tables
• Special events
2. Teaching, in rank order of achievement, from most meritorious to meritorious:
a. Public recognition of superior teaching achievement, significant program development.
Examples:
• University or college teaching award
• New degree pre-proposal or proposal
• External grant awards for curricular development or application of technology
b. New course and curricular development, teaching courses with large enrollments (35 or above)
Examples:
• New course development
• Internal grant awards for curricular development or application of technology
• Teaching a course with large enrollment
• Other honors, awards, recognition of excellence in teaching or mentoring
c. Distinction in teaching as evidenced in student teaching evaluations that are significantly above the departmental norm, or in the peer teaching evaluations
3. Service, in rank order of achievement, from most meritorious to meritorious:
a. Significant service to the profession, official service role in the department, organizing seminars
Examples:
• Service as an officer in a professional organization.
• Service as an officer or consultant to a governmental or external educational system.
b. Significant service to the college or the university, contributions to projects associated with professional work or other activities enhancing the reputation and visibility of the department, college, or university, chairing or serving on departmental search committees
Examples:
• Service on college or university committees
• Service on departmental search committes
• Participation in special programs or initiatives
• Coordinating guest lectures or film series
• Leadership in community outreach activities
c. Service to the community
Examples:
• Guest lectures in schools
Two peer evaluations of teaching will be conducted for each tenure-accruing faculty member each year. You will be assigned a tenured and a tenure-accruing peer evaluator each year. In the case of Lecturers, the assigned evaluators will be from among the faculty at large. Peer evaluations will take the form of class observations, and a written evaluation of your teaching. The assigned peer evaluators must notify you well in advance of any class visitations (one to two weeks). The frequency of such observation is up to you and the evaluators—however, they must make at least one observation of your class per year. The evaluators need not visit the same class, nor the same time. You should provide them with a copy of the syllabus for your course, a sample quiz and test, a copy of the lesson or assigned reading for the day in question, and any other requested materials. Departmental evaluation forms have been created to streamline the peer evaluation process.
The completed peer evaluations will be placed into each faculty member’s personnel file, so as to be available for reference or use in the preparation of the tenure and promotion packet, or the promotion packet. It is not mandatory that all peer evaluations be placed in the tenure and promotion packet. The College has stated a preference for evaluations that provide critical feedback, identify areas for improvement, and include suggestions on how to enhance skills in those areas. These sorts of observations and suggestions should then be addressed in subsequent reports which note the steps the faculty member has taken to enhance skills in these areas (for example, in the Annual Activities Report). Evaluations which are highly positive and laudatory are not regarded of much value by the College.
AALL Peer Evaluation Forms (pdf)
Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Research: Candidates must have established a sustained program of research as evidenced in scholarly publications. Candidate work should also evidence promise of continued growth.
• Candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor in the Department of African and Asian Languages and Literatures may observe the standard practice for the humanities, in which candidates are normally expected to have a book-length scholarly manuscript completed and accepted for publication by a recognized scholarly press in the field. In addition, there is expectation of a significant number of peer refereed articles published in respected journals, refereed chapters in books edited by reputed scholars in the field, or other peer-refereed publications. There is no hard-and-fast rule of the number of such publications, but past expectations at both the department and the College level have been in the range of six refereed publications.
• Candidates for promotion to associate professor in the Department of African and Asian Languages and Literatures may, alternatively, observe the standard practice for the social sciences, in which the expectation is that there will be a record of scholarly research resulting in several peer-reviewed articles published each probationary year. Under this model, a significant number of the articles should be single-authored. There is no hard-and-fast rule for the number of such publications, but past expectations at both the department and the College level have been in the range of 12 refereed publications.
Besides books, refereed articles and book chapters, other types of publication will also be considered as evidence of scholarship. Among these are working papers, conference proceedings, book reviews, and encyclopedia entries. The ability to obtain fellowships, scholarships, grants, and awards will also enhance the candidate’s standing. Candidates are also expected to have presented papers at conferences or other scholarly meetings.
Purpose
• The purpose of this mid-term review exercise is to provide structured and constructive information to assist tenure-accruing candidates in the department to meet college and university requirements for tenure and promotion. The review process is designed to provide the faculty member with constructive comments to strengthen the eventual tenure packet and provide the faculty member with a true assessment of how her/his efforts are perceived by peers within her/his own discipline. It also will assist that faculty member, in that peers, other than the chair, will provide an evaluation of the faculty member’s efforts.
• The fact that the exercise takes place at the end of the third year of service should allow for proper review of the faculty member’s teaching, research and service efforts and will allow enough time for the faculty member to make any modifications necessary for the successful award of tenure in the future, if any deficiencies are noted in the review. Likewise, it could also be used to assist the faculty member in the choice as to when s/he would most likely be successful in applying for tenure.
Process
• The review should begin early in the third year of appointment. By February 1st of that year, the candidate will complete a dossier of materials and present it to the Chair of the Department. The dossier will include:
1) A tenure and promotion packet as complete as appropriate given the time in rank of the candidate.
2) A research/scholarship portfolio including all of the candidate's research publications, papers submitted for publication, grant proposals, and similar information
3) Annual teaching peer evaluation reports
4) Annual letters of evaluation from the chair
• The dossier will be made available to the tenured faculty in the department. Tenured faculty in the department will review the dossier and assess the candidate's performance. The assessment will address the issues normally considered in tenure and promotion deliberations and will determine if the candidate is making satisfactory progress toward promotion and tenure. The tenured faculty in the department will discuss the candidate's progress toward tenure and promotion and advise the Department Chair on what might be included in her/his letter of review to the candidate. For example, Department faculty may consider:
-- Is the candidate's teaching at or above department norms and expectations or making steady progress in that direction?
-- Has the candidate presented papers in appropriate venues and are the number and quality of those papers acceptable?
-- Has the candidate published at an acceptable rate and in appropriate journals?
-- Is the candidate beginning to establish a regional and national reputation in her/his field?
-- Is the candidate preparing her/himself to attract external funding to support her/his scholarly work?
-- Has the candidate gained graduate status and served on master and doctoral committees?
-- Does the candidate's record suggest a teaching and research trajectory that is likely to lead to the rank of Associate (and later Full) Professor?
-- Is the candidate appropriately involved in professional service activities at the local, state, national, or international level?
• The Department Chair will draft a letter of review based on the candidate's dossier, and the discussion of tenured faculty in the department. The letter should consider the candidate's assignment and any support the Department may have provided the candidate. It should identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in the candidate's record and make clear recommendations, if any, on how the candidate may improve her/his dossier and performance. The goal is to give thoughtful and constructive assessments and suggestions that will help the candidate meet college and university requirements for tenure and promotion. The letter will be explicit in stating that the report itself is not a decision for tenure and promotion but is rather a mid-course evaluation.
• Before April 30th, the Department Chair will meet with the candidate and her/his mentor(s) to provide a copy and discuss the letter of review. The candidate and Department Chair should discuss strengths and weaknesses in the candidate's dossier; what the candidate might do, if anything, to strengthen her/his research, teaching, and service profiles in the future; and what assistance might be available in the department, college, and/or university to address candidate needs and improve performance, if needed. In making these recommendations the Chair and tenured faculty members are not entering into a contractual relationship with the candidate such that if these recommendations are fulfilled the candidate is assured of tenure. Rather they are recognizing and acting upon their responsibility to support the candidate in her/his final years before tenure. A copy of the letter of review will be placed in the candidate's personnel file. The faculty member has the right to submit a written response to the report if so desired, and the response will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file for future reference. Neither of these letters will become part of the tenure and promotion packet.
• The Department Chair's letter of review will be forwarded to the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs by the end of the Spring semester. The College will contact the Provost’s office and inform that office that the review has taken place, but will not transmit the substance of that review.
• Preparing the Packets: faculty should consult the most recent versions of the College and University guidelines, which may be found at:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/dean/memos/tpguidelines.pdf http://www.aa.ufl.edu/aa/apapers/documents/TPGuidelines.pdf
Visiting Scholar Courtesy Appointments
1. Procedure:
Requests for courtesy visiting professorships will be considered and approved by vote of the department. Upon receipt of a request, candidates will be asked to:
a. Submit a copy of their c.v., and a description of their research project, if they have not already done so.
b. Identify the AALL faculty member with whom they wish to work.
c. Have their department Chair or Dean supply a letter endorsing their leave, and verifying their source of funding.
d. Upon approval of the request, the department will provide a letter offering the appointment.
2. Overview of the appointment:
a. The courtesy appointment carries no monetary stipend, but does allow for receipt of a Gator 1 card, which provides library and parking privileges.
b. While there is no guarantee, as space permits, an office will be assigned to courtesy visiting professors.
c. As a condition of the appointment, courtesy visiting professors will be requested to give a research presentation in the AALL Departmental Seminar.
d. Courtesy visiting professors will be informed that collaborative research would be welcomed.
e. Courtesy visiting professors will be invited to attend departmental meetings, but will not participate in voting.
f. Courtesy visiting professors may also be invited to give presentations in departmental classes.
