The Future of Distance Learning ASTD Cascadia Chapter

1
Whats Important for Faculty, and How Promotion
and Tenure Are Changing By Mark Merickel
2
Impetus for Change

• One Universitys Perspective on PT
• Single University-Wide Guidelines
• Extended Education as Impetus for Change
• Inclusion as GoalWithout Lowering (or Raising)
  Standards
• Honor Diversity of Faculty
• Intent to Eliminate Supplemental Guidelines
• Basic Principle Documentation and Evaluation
• Reaffirm Importance of Classroom Teaching While
  Acknowledging Other Forms of Instruction and
  Other Assignments.
• Begin Shift from Teaching to Student Learning
• Shift from Research to Scholarship and
  Creative Activity

3
Presentation Overview

• Broadening the Definition of scholarship
• Defining a Process for Validating Nontraditional
  Scholarship
• Who Are Your Peers?
• Defining the Process for Communicating Creative
  Work and Scholarship
• Defining Originality and Contribution
• Creating a Process for Validating Originality and
  Contribution/Impacts
• Validating Evaluation Criteria
• Gathering and Presenting Results
• Problems and Benefits

4
Criteria For Promotion and Tenure
General Guidelines http//oregonstate.edu/
facultystaff/handbook/promoten/promoten.htm Candid
ates for promotion and tenure will be evaluated
objectively for evidence of excellence in their
performance of assigned duties, in their
scholarship or creative activity, and in their
professional service. Each of these
responsibilities will be documented in the
dossier. Oregon State University is committed to
educating, both on and off campus, the citizens
of Oregon, the nation, and the international
community, and in expanding and applying
knowledge. The responsibilities of individual
faculty in relation to these fundamental
commitments will vary and will be specified in
position descriptions developed at the time of
initial appointment and revised periodically, as
necessary. Some positions will require more
direct involvement in classroom instruction
others, more in conducting research and
disseminating the results others, in extending
the university's programs and expertise to its
regional, national, and international publics.
Whatever the assignment, faculty in the
professorial ranks will engage in appropriate
scholarship or other creative activity. In
addition to these primary responsibilities, all
faculty are expected to be collegial members of
their units, and to perform appropriate service
that contributes to the effectiveness of their
departments, colleges, and the University, and of
their professions. Relative contributions
expected in the three areas of responsibility
will depend on the faculty member's assignment.
5
Defining Scholarship and Creative Activity?

• Intellectual work whose significance is validated
  by peers and which is communicated.
• Such work in its diverse forms is based on
• a high level of professional expertise,
• must give evidence of originality,
• must be documented and validated as through peer
  review or critique,
• must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to
  have impact on or significance for publics beyond
  the University, or for the discipline itself.

6
Defining a Process for Validating Nontraditional
Scholarship

• Alignment with OSU PT Guidelines
• Alignment with candidates statement job
  description.
• Defining Peers
• Defining the Process for Communicating the Work
• Defining Originality and Contribution/Impacts
• Creating a Process for Validating Originality and
  Contribution/Impacts
• Employ the Validation Process
• Document Validation in Dossier
• Informing/Educating Others

7
Defining Your Peers?

• This was a significant issue
• Who is providing the feedback (are they valid
  peers)?
• Primary validators of originality.
• Defining my peers
• Higher educators who are professionally engaged
  in the examination and/or practice of teaching
  and learning on the world wide web.
• Documenting my peers
• Name
• Position/Rank
• Institution
• What are they saying?

8
Defining the Process for Communicating the Work

• Work shared with higher educators directly
  through the World Wide Web.
• Created a method of capturing who the work was
  communicated to.

9
Defining Originality and Contribution
1. This work conceptualized and applied the
content/subject matter in ways that advance
teaching in higher education. 2. This work
conceptualized and applied technology in ways
that advance teaching in higher education. 3.
This work conceptualized and applied teaching
practices in ways that advance teaching in higher
education. 4. This work demonstrates the
integration of knowledge and technology leading
to new interpretations or applications of
teaching in higher education. 5. Content/subject
matter from this work has been adopted or led to
further work by yourself and/or others. 6.
Technological concepts from this work have been
adopted or led to further work by yourself and/or
others. 7. Teaching practices applied in this
work have been adopted or led to further work by
yourself and/or others.
10
Validating the Criteria

• Criteria were validated by a panel made up of
• OSU Faculty representing three colleges who are
  professionally engaged in the examination and/or
  practice of teaching and learning on the World
  Wide Web.
• OSU Administrator knowledgeable about the new PT
  guidelines.
• Director of the School of Education.

11
Creating a Process for Validating Originality and
Contribution/Impacts
Creation of the Instrument
12
Creating a Process for Validating Originality and
Contribution/Impacts
Request for Review
13
Creating a Process for Validating Originality and
Contribution/Impacts

• Selection of the Reviewers
• Examiners (from higher education) who designated
  on the electronic demographic form that they were
  willing to be contacted for further information
  (N72).
• Examiners who are professionally engaged in the
  examination and/or practice of teaching and
  learning on the World Wide Web.
• Request for Peer Review
• Director of the School of Education developed and
  distributed request for review.
• Collection of Data
• Peer reviews were emailed to the Director.
• Analysis
• Third party faculty member analyzed the data.
• Results
• Documented in the Dossier.

14
Problems

• Defining peers other than journal reviewers,
  editors, readers.
• Creating a validation process acceptable to the
  academy.
• External reviewers not familiar with OSU PT
  guidelines and different forms of evidence of
  scholarship and creative activity.
• Faculty unwilling or incapable of accepting
  alternative forms of peer review and scholarship.
• High reliance on peer review publications.
• Time involved in the process.
• Documenting communication and dissemination.
• Documenting originality and contribution.
• Few successful models.
• A calculated RISK.

15
Benefits

• Honors Diversity of Scholarship and Creative
  Activity.
• Lowers the reliance on peer review publications.
• Allows for redefinition of peers.
• PT guidelines now fit
• Extension Faculty
• International Work
• Library Faculty
• Art Faculty
• Distance Education
• Others...

16
Thank You

• mark.merickel_at_oregonstate.edu

Full Presenation Available At http//oregonstate
.edu/dept/senate/committees/ptc/reports/criticalis
sues.html