THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSORIATE
IN A CONTEMPORARY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Based on the August 1996 Report of the
Task Force on the Role of the Professoriate

January 1997

School of Education
Indiana State University

PREAMBLE

The original version of the document which follows, 'The Role of the Professoriate in a Contemporary School of Education," was prepared by the eleven-member faculty Task Force on the Role of the Professoriate in the fall of 1995 and the spring of 1996 (see Appendix I). The document is intended (1) to define, describe, and defend the role of the professoriate in a contemporary school of education, (2) to recommend a set of performance principles and guidelines which can be utilized by Indiana State University's School of Education and its departments in support of professional development and in decisions related to hiring, promotion, awarding of tenure, and salary adjustments, and (3) to recommend methods for peer collaboration as one means to continue promoting quality teaching and advising, profession-based service, and scholarship.

The first section of the document, which defines the expanding role of the education professoriate, is included to help ensure that new and veteran faculty members and administrators in the School of Education and faculty and administrative colleagues across campus are aware of the full breadth of professional activities which the School's faculty considers legitimate and important focuses of faculty time, energy, and intellect in a contemporary school of education. This section is intended to provide a collectively constructed definition of the professoriate to guide School of Education faculty members as they allocate their efforts. It is assumed that the departments of the School of Education will incorporate elements of this definition into their policies in order to give faculty members some assurance regarding the appropriateness of their efforts as teachers, service participants, and scholars.

The second section of the document, which provides guidelines for procedures by which School of Education faculty members can present evidence of the nature, quantity, and quality of their professional endeavors, is designed to present a coherent, integrated approach for documenting faculty performance. A uniform approach developed by faculty members at the School level and adopted at the department level will help ensure that faculty members and administrators will have available the kinds of information useful in supporting collaboration in professional development and helpful in reaching consensus on recommendations and decisions regarding promotion, awarding of tenure, and salary adjustments.

The third section of the document, which outlines processes by which faculty members can provide one another support in professional development, is intended to introduce procedures with which some faculty members in the School of Education may not be familiar but which have proved strongly supportive of professional development in other university settings. The assumption is that, if procedures such as these are adopted by the departments or at least become common practice in the School, the existing requirements for faculty review can move beyond purely evaluative mandates to ones which promote professional development in all areas of teaching, service, and scholarship.

The belief of the Task Force is that this document represents the best current thinking on faculty responsibilities and professional development in schools of education and that the principles and guidelines it contains deserve to be incorporated into the policies of the departments of the School of Education. Nevertheless, the Task Force and the School of Education Congress recognize that new and sometimes better ideas will emerge regarding the role of the education professoriate and regarding support for development of the professoriate. The School of Education Congress, therefore, recommends that a faculty group periodically review this document and make revisions to better reflect the best current thinking in these areas and that the departments, in turn, revise their policies with that thinking in mind.

    1. The defining role of the professoriate is to engage in scholarship. Given that the School of Education is a learning community, the professoriate bears responsibility to promote through engagement the values of knowledge acquisition, inquiry, and lifelong learning among students, colleagues, the community, and the profession.

    Scholarship is broadly conceived, reflecting respect for the wisdom of practice as well as insight derived from scientific study and philosophical inquiry. Such scholarship serves the interdependent functions of discovery, integration, application, and teaching (Boyer, 1990). Traditionally, research both acknowledged and valued in academia has been what Boyer terms the scholarship of discovery, that is, knowledge created in a disciplined way for its own sake. Scholarship can also entail other functions such as 1) integration, which involves the synthesis of one's own investigation or that of others into larger intellectual patterns; 2) application, which implies that a problem with extrinsic, designated value motivates what then becomes a dynamic interaction between theory and practice; and 3) teaching, which sustains the continuity of knowledge and involves all activity which builds bridges between the student's learning and the teachers understanding. In other words, the scholarship of teaching is activity which becomes consequential as it is understood by others.

    Each of these functions of scholarship entails the responsibility of ongoing assessment to establish baselines for the improvement of the work of our students, ourselves, and our programs.

    2. School of Education professors have what is both a unique opportunity and responsibility to impact students by:

a. creating supportive relationships with students,

b. understanding the individuality of each student and providing opportunities for students to make choices,

c. promoting successful yet challenging experiences for students,

d. motivating students to become excited about the learning process as well as the content.

3. Teaching and advising are activities central to any professor's program of scholarship. Through our example, we expect to show our students:

a. that research and theory are linked to decision making;

b. that professional development is practiced continually through reflection on practice as well as through traditional professional development activities (e.g., course work, workshops, action research, work in professional development schools and clinics);

c. that choice of teaching strategies (e.g., lecture, discussion, cooperative learning, experiential learning, peer teaching, role playing) must be related to teaching for understanding;

d.that data-driven decisions should be used to inform and improve our teaching and practice. Such decisions might be based on traditional as well as alternative data- collection practices and assessment devices (e.g., portfolios, video-analysis, learning logs, concept mapping);

e. that the relationship between advisee and mentor or teacher and student is pre- eminent.

    4. The application function of scholarship, in particular, includes what has been traditionally termed "service"- service to schools, the community, the University, and the profession. Given the School of Education's affiliation with professional development schools, other schools, clinics, agencies, and other service sites within the University and community, it is expected that faculty are actively involved in analyzing challenges and helping to create solutions. In addition, SOE faculty participate in the University through service at the department, School and/or University levels and in the profession through service at the local, regional, national, and/or international levels.

    5. Scholarship of any kind may be collaborative or individual. If collaborative, it may occur with participants in a variety of settings such as universities, schools, and direct service providers. Scholarship also entails documentation of its process and dissemination of its product in a variety of formats, e.g., publications that are peer-reviewed, invited, edited, or other; professional or academic presentations; professional reports. Finally, scholarship may be conducted within a variety of paradigms using a variety of techniques, including experimental, quasi-experimental, and case study designs, and quantitative and qualitative analytic techniques.

    1. Annual performance appraisals for faculty will be established. These appraisals will serve to provide constructive feedback for performance maintenance and professional growth and may be utilized in decisions regarding awarding of tenure, promotion, graduate faculty status, salary adjustments, and internal hiring. These appraisals are not intended to be used as a basis for dismissing tenured faculty members.

    2. At the department level, guidelines will establish levels of acceptable performance (that is, criterion-referenced standards) which will be made available to professors no later than the beginning of the evaluation period (see Appendices 11 and HI for examples of guidelines used elsewhere). In addition, guidelines related to ipsative (self-referenced) and normative (group-referenced) evaluation procedures may be established by individual departments (see Principle 4).

    3. The format and process for documenting performance will be explicit. Documentation will consist of both detailed and explanatory or integrative infbn-nation. For example, a detailed listing may be presented in a form such as the current Faculty Report of Professional Activities. Explanatory or integrative information may be contained in paragraph descriptions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, or within a scholarship portfolio (see definitions and rationale, pp. 8-9). This explanatory documentation of important aspects of one's scholarship can contribute to the self reflection inherent in the improvement of professional practice.

    4. Each faculty member will develop a Professional Scholarship Plan (PSP) which will include scholarship goals for the year and the means for achieving such goals. Consensus on these goals will be developed through collaboration with the department. Individual faculty PSPs will be used as a basis to develop departmental goals consistent with the missions of the department, the School of Education, and the University. Each PSP will include specific minimal criteria to evaluate the satisfactory accomplishment of goals and objectives. These criteria may also be used for such decisions as awarding of tenure, promotion, and salary adjustments.

    Tenured faculty may choose to describe and define their scholarly activities during a two- year period in a way which varies from the traditional emphasis on all aspects of scholarship to focus on one specific element. For example, the two-year period could be used to enhance the teaching aspect of scholarship, to develop a major proposal for outside funding, to embark on a significant research program, or to engage in a significant service activity.

    Faculty members may be provided support in areas of research, teaching, and service by faculty mentors, department chairs, and administrators in order to ensure adequate progress toward goals. Budgetary resources should be provided to cover startup costs for teaching and research and to support service at the professional level. Assignments and scheduling should take into account the time demands of supervision, advising, and course preparation and should aim to provide faculty with at least one full day each week to devote to research activities. Faculty should be provided support through mentoring, recognition, and protection of their time, and should be provided opportunities to observe colleagues teaching, to participate in teaching workshops, and to communicate and collaborate with colleagues regarding teaching.

    For tenure-track faculty, service activities should be primarily discipline- or profession- related. Service at the department level should initially be focused on activities required of all department members, or on activities related to the profession, teaching, or research. Service at the School and/or University level also should be kept to a minimum initially and should involve primarily activities directly related to the profession, teaching, or research.

    5. In sum, the use of these principles and guidelines will enhance the enculturation of new faculty into the School of Education through the active involvement of experienced faculty. We anticipate that when all faculty are apprised of expectations and actively engaged in the peer review process that increased collegiality and improved productivity will result.

    The previous section presented numerous recommendations surrounding forms Of documentation, establishment of criterion-referenced and ipsative (self-defined) guidelines, and use of a peer collaboration process. As professionals we have long expected and profited from peer critique, feedback, and review of our research efforts (e.g., articles, presentations). It follows that we could benefit from feedback regarding teaching and service activities. Herein we define, defend, and set forth recommended procedures of peer collaboration to facilitate and help ensure enhanced productivity for all SOE faculty. First, terminology will be clarified.

    This process is designed to socialize new faculty into the department, School, and University specifically to provide assistance to develop both interpersonal and professional agendas. Mentors would apply for and receive "service" recognition via scholarship portfolio documentation. Different versions of the induction/mentoring process would be required depending on the nature and type of university experience the new faculty member brings to ISU. At a minimum, all new faculty should be apprised of processes and procedures described in this task force report.

    An increasingly accepted method for documenting and improving teaching is combining peer collaboration with use of a portfolio. A portfolio is a creative act which is predicated on the following interrelated propositions, according to Edgerton, et al. (1993, p.4):

    First, portfolios can capture the intellectual substance and "situated-ness" of teaching, service, and research in ways that other methods of evaluation cannot. Second, because of this capacity, portfolios encourage faculty to take important, new roles in the documentation, observation, and review of service, teaching, and research. Third, because they prompt faculty to take these new roles, portfolios are a particularly powerful toot for improvement. Fourth, as more faculty come to use them, portfolios can help forge a new campus culture of professionalism about research, teaching, and service.

    Such a scholarship portfolio will permit individuals to represent selectively the important aspects of their scholarship (of teaching, discovery, integration, or application) in different settings. Such scholarship can be carried out in various settings of the contemporary university-- within traditional "service" arenas (e.g., standing and ad hoc committees); within traditional "teaching" arenas (e.g., consultations, classrooms, clinical supervision); and within traditional 1'research" arenas (e.g., conferences, peer-reviewed journals).

    A critical component of using scholarship portfolios is to promote dialogue about scholarship. Such dialogue may result from the process of constructing the portfolio as well as sharing it with colleagues through peer collaboration. Dialogue about scholarship efforts through both portfolio construction and peer collaboration is useful for the following reasons (adapted from the AAHE Project Workbook, January 1995):

    1. Learning to teach involves learning from experience; and learning from experience may be enhanced by insights provided by colleagues. Furthermore, various service activities and research agendas may be better understood and connected if colleagues regularly engage in discourse about them.

    2. Faculty value the regard of their scholarly peers. Thus, teaching may have greater status as a worthy scholarly endeavor when it is reviewed by peers. In a similar fashion, inclusion of various service contributions would enable peers to more fully appreciate contributions to the department, School, and University.

    3. Public concern for the cost and quality of higher education is leading to intrusive policies designed to make higher education more accountable. The best antidote to bureaucratic accountability is for higher education to strengthen its own mechanisms of professional accountability, for example, through peer collaboration and scholarship portfolios.

Although faculty are hired by the University, they are situated in a particular department. As such, it is logical that the department embrace responsibility to mentor its new members. We recommend that the department coordinate and oversee induction efforts that would inform, socialize, and orient new faculty to various department, School, and University operations.

Departments will select individuals to serve on a two-year mentoring, team for new faculty. A team may include faculty from other departments where appropriate. 'Me selection process should involve application via scholarship portfolio and should result in important service recognition for the mentoring individuals. In addition, the induction/mentoring team should document their approaches and strategies, reflect upon their own impact, and subsequently provide suggestions for improvement for the future use of these strategies. Prior to assuming a role on an induction/mentoring team, faculty should receive training and materials related to their responsibility. Periodically, induction/mentoring teams should meet with the Dean or Associate Dean to share ideas and evaluate the process.

    Peer collaboration can be carried out in many ways in addition to induction/mentoring and dialogue based on scholarship portfolios. The first two strategies listed below, which contain advantages and limitations, were explored by departments in the AAHE project (Hutchings, 1995).

    1) Faculty Pairings for Mutual Assistance - This approach is an alternative to mentoring in that there are no implied status differences. Faculty pair up as true peers for mutual assistance and exchange of ideas. The focus could be upon their scholarship portfolios or faculty could undertake and share responses to various exercises in the AAHE project workbook (Hutchings, 1995).

    2) Scholarship Circles and Other Group Collaborations - This cluster of approaches encompasses a variety of arrangements in which faculty focus on particular issues and practices over time. Typically four to ten faculty members work together for at least a semester to address questions and concerns about teaching, research, and/or service. At least three variations are possible: a) Scholarship Circles to Serve Individualized Objectives in which the goal of group collaboration may be to assist individual participants with their own personal objectives and agendas; b) Scholarship Circles Connected to Multi-Sectioned Courses or Research Agendas in which a group of colleagues who share a common concern or project work together to clarify and improve their approaches; or c) Scholarship Circles Built into Program Review in which faculty with responsibility for particular programs raise curricular, pedagogical, advising, and/or other questions.

The following principles for scholarship circles may enhance productivity:

- Be clear about the purpose of the group and what individuals hope to gain from the experience. This can be accomplished by laying out goals, ground rules, and expectations at the opening meeting.

- Focus on concrete examples and particulars such as sharing samples of student work, course syllabi, or specific service activities.  General discussions about teaching, research, or service in general are less likely to contribute to critical insights.

- Find ways to document, preserve, and share the work of the scholarship circle. Future groups and other colleagues can benefit from shared insights.

    3) Pilot Peer Collaboration Teams - This experimental approach would include three to five faculty members representing several departments who commit to a one- to three-year period to serve as collegial reviewers/coaches for each other. Teams work with the Dean or Associate Dean, submit names and rationale for composition of the team (e.g. currently working on a teaching, service, or research project together), and develop scholarship portfolios while piloting one of the Scholarship Circle menu options listed above. Both departments and the School of Education would benefit from supporting faculty engaged in the pilot peer collaboration team in that they would be expected to provide future leadership regarding use of scholarship portfolios and peer collaboration processes. This support could range from reallocated time to remuneration to significant service recognition.

Portfolios in general,, and teaching portfolios in particular, have become more widely used and accepted over the past several years. During that time the AAHE has studied campus use of teaching portfolios. The following suggestions about teaching portfolios (adapted from Hutchings, 1995, pp. 6-7) can be expanded to include scholarship portfolios and are worthy of consideration :

- Seek early agreement about the purpose of portfolios, how the information will be used, who owns it, and what is at stake.

- Be selective. Make the distinction between notebooks which amass every possible scrap of evidence and a portfolio which is a sampling of performance and accompanying evidence.

- Rather than a miscellaneous collection, think of the portfolio as a case, a thesis, an argument which contains carefully selected, relevant evidence and examples.

- Organize the portfolio around goals which can represent the individual (ipsative criteria) or department, School, and/or University goals (criterion-referenced).

- Use the portfolio to clarify goals, expectations, and roles. This could easily become part of constructing and documenting Professional Scholarship Plans (PSP's).                 

- Include various kinds of evidence (e.g. quantitative and qualitative) from various sources (e.g. former and current students, current and former colleagues, professional colleagues from other campuses).

- Where appropriate, provide reflective analysis and commentary on the evidence provided. Reflective analysis serves at least several  purposes: 1) to provide opportunity for the faculty member to clarify his/her own thinking, 2) to reveal to the reviewer the thinking behind various kinds of evidence, and 3) to help readers know what to look for - to understand the significance of the evidence.

- Experiment with various structures and formats and develop an assessment plan to determine whether portfolios are achieving  intended purposes and how they might be refined.

    Use of Scholarship Portfolios represents a departure from traditional performance appraisals, tenure, promotion, and/or other procedures used to assess, inform, and acknowledge faculty contributions. As such, a Portfolio Development Center, perhaps in conjunction with the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), in which faculty would receive technical assistance would be helpful. Such a center might hire an external consultant who would work with the CTL and SOE faculty to identify needs, establish procedures, and launch the initiative.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: New priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., and Quinlan, K. (1993). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the scholarship in teaching. Washington, DC: AAHE.

Hutchings, P. (Fd.). (1995, January). From idea to prototype: The peer review of teaching. Washington, DC: AAHE.

Minois State University. (1996). College of Education 1996 CFSC Document. Normal, IL: Author.

Indiana State University. (1994, April). Strategic Planning Rei)ort of the- School of Education. Terre Haute, IN: Author.

    On October 5, 1995 the Task Force on the Role of the Professoriate (ROP) was commissioned by Dean Huffman-Joley. The Task Force was comprised of twelve members, two from each of the six School of Education departments:

Lisa Bischoff, Educational and School Psychology, School of Education Congress

Karen Dutt, Elementary and Early Childhood Education

Frances Lowden, Elementary and Early Childhood Education

Susan Martin Macke, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations, School of Education Congress

Maurice Miller, Communication Disorders and Special Education

William Osmon, Counseling, School of Education Congress

Raymond Quist, Communication Disorders and Special Education

Cathleen Rafferty, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology

Linda Sperry, Educational and School Psychology

Todd Whitaker, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations

Robert Williams, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology

The task force initially met with the Dean on October 17, 1995 to receive the following charge:

    The ROP task force met nearly every week between November and April, read and discussed numerous articles and books including Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered, and reviewed documents from other institutions regarding promotion, tenure, and/or performance criteria. In late January 1996 every SOE faculty member received a copy of a working draft related to the description of the role of the professoriate in a contemporary, professional school of education. At this time, the ROP task force is reporting on their activities and distributing for review a document that addresses all three components of the charge as listed above. Section I was drafted using the SOE Strategic Planning Report (1994) as a foundation.

Peer Review for Counselor Education Programs

Components and Standards for the Faculty Peer Review Process

Note. Rating scale is as follows: superior = 9-10, above average = 6-8; average = 3-5, below average = 1-2.

Journal of Counseling & Development, July/August 1995, Volume 73, pages 657-658, Osborne and Purkey

Performance Criteria Options

(Adapted from Illinois State University, 1996)

TEACHING

- Successful teaching in assigned class settings: large lecture, regular lecture/discussion, small seminar, independent study, mentoring, super-vision of teaching, clinical practice, interns, professional practice, etc.

- Having a sustained record of successful, reliable, and valid student evaluations of courses (including supervision of student teaching or other clinical practice), which may be supplemented with a sustained record of successful, reliable, and valid teaching ratings by peers.

- Successful teaching reflecting individual differences in students, e.g., using individual teaming contracts, modifying methods with teaming disabled students, etc.

- Providing evidence of an expectation that students will maintain high standards of professional excellence and performance.

- Incorporating into teaching new developments in a professional area of expertise and new developments in teaching in that area through engaging in professional development activities with colleagues.

- Demonstrating a major involvement in curriculum development and revision, such as primary responsibility for creating or modifying a sequence or program or developing new courses. This activity may be submitted as an item under the service criteria.

- Developing new teaching materials (text, reading packets, programmed study, workbooks, computer programs, curriculum guides, etc.) which significantly impact students and/or colleagues. Developing teaching materials may not be counted in both scholarly activity and teaching.

- Developing new teaching techniques (videotape, independent study modules, microcomputer activities, etc.) which significantly impact students and/or colleagues.

- Serving as master teacher to others (conducting teaching workshops, supervising beginning teachers or other clinicians, etc.) in settings outside the university.

- Serving as a chair on dissertation or master's thesis committees and/or demonstrating substantive contribution as a member on several committees.

- Demonstrating substantive contribution in student advisement activities.

SERVICE - External

- Significant service in a major office or assignment with state, national, or regional professional organizations publication.

- Significant service as an editor on a state, regional, national, or international serial publication.

- Leadership on an evaluation team for an organization such as AAHE, NCATE, NCA or under a special contract to evaluate an agency, school, or organization.

- Significant consultation and service to educational organizations, social agencies and civic organizations, government, business, and industry that is related to the faculty member's teaching, scholarly activity, or administrative work.

SERVICE - Internal

- Significant service on a major University committee such as Faculty Senate.

- Significant service chairing department or school committees that make exceptional contributions or contributing to other exceptionally noteworthy professional service.

- Significant service with a major responsibility in advisement.

- Significant leadership service to major curriculum development, e.g., funded proposal writing, facilitation services, coordination, etc. This activity may not also be counted in teaching and scholarly activity.

- Showing significant involvement with students in out-of-class settings (e.g., sponsoring student organizations, presentations in student residences, etc.).

RESEARCH

- Authoring published books or reports or studies of basic or applied research; editing a book or conference proceedings; monographs; textbooks; book chapters; films; tapes; computer programs, etc.

- Authoring published articles, essays, or essay reviews in established journals(often refereed or peer reviewed).

-Submitting- or receiving competitive external grant proposals. 0

-Receiving internal university research grant proposals.

-Refereeing grant proposals for external agencies and book manuscripts for publishers.

-Delivering scholarly presentations and papers at regional or national/international meetings or at established state and regional meetings.

-Conducting research into the teaching/learning process which results in publications or presentations in outlets appropriate to the profession.

-Conducting research into the professional development process, e.g. teaching, which results in presentations or publications in outlets appropriate to the profession.