EDUC 845
SHOULD XYZ UNIVERSITY OFFER
TENURE TO FULL-TIME FACULTY WHO
HAVE BEEN TEACHING FOR 10 OR MORE
YEARS
To: Provost
From: Policy Analyst
Date: 2/20/2025
Concern/Problem: Teaching faculty that do not complete research are not awarded the
same benefits as research faculty.
Executive Summary
[Type your text here.]
Statement of the Issue/Problem:Student evaluations reflect bias, are flawed tools for faculty
assessment, and are the main tool used for faculty teaching assessment/promotion (Berk, 2005).
Research faculty are promoted on their research more than teaching faculty are promoted on their
teaching.
Policy Problem: Teaching faculty and research faculty lack equitable tenure.
Tenure is defined as “a status granted to a faculty member indicating that the position is
permanent” according to Williams et al., (2023). Research suggest that the promotional
processes utilized for research faculty at universities and teaching or instructional faculty at
universities is not equitable (Williams et al., 2023). Murray et al., (2019) identify the belief that
many universities value research over teaching and community service. This belief is a widely
held perception in academia. Research faculty are well respected as demonstrated in their ability
to secure tenure based on their esteemed research. Conversely, teaching faculty devote
significant time and efforts to students who subsequently rank their instructors poorly on faculty
teaching evaluations. This discrepancy can hinder their ability to negotiate tenure and promotion,
unlike their research-focused counterparts. Once instructors are scored poorly by students they
lack substanitive documentation to negotiate tenure and promotion in ways that research faculty
are allotted. No significant correlation has been found to connect students teaching evaluations to
their learning outcomes obtained in the course nor the instructors effectiveness of teaching (Uttl
et al., 2017). Student based evaluations, portfolis which include student learning outcomes and
specific teaching examples are two tools that could be grouped in categories to improve efficacy
of teacher evaluation. Gormally et al., (2014) suggest focusing on rewarding innovative teaching
practices rather than exposing weaknesses. While Dennin et al., (2017) emphasized the need to
utilize multiple forms of evidence to effectively evaluate teaching. Through utilization of
multiple measures instructional faculty can receive more of a peer reviewed approach which
aligns with the approaches utilized for peer reviewed research instructors (Chen, 2020).
Furthermore, it is rationanized that research instructors may lack motivation to improve with
instructional design of teaching as universities emphasize research for promotion over teaching
excellence (Xu & Solanki, 2019). This imbalance can lead to a devaluation of teaching and
community service, which are crucial components of a well-rounded academic experience.
Page 1 of 7
EDUC 845
Universities should consider offering tenure to instructors who have demonstrated
excellence in teaching for 10 or more years. This approach would acknowledge their dedication
and impact on students' learning experiences. Chen (2020) argues that long-serving instructors
who consistently receive positive feedback and show commitment to pedagogical innovation
contribute significantly to the academic community. Providing tenure based on teaching
excellence would also encourage faculty members to invest in improving their instructional
methods, ultimately benefiting the students. Additionally, tenure for experienced teaching faculty
could help retain skilled educators who might otherwise seek employment elsewhere due to lack
of job security. By recognizing the value of teaching alongside research, universities can foster a
more balanced and supportive academic environment.
In conclusion, universities should strive to create a more balanced evaluation system that
values both research and teaching faculty equally. By doing so, they can foster an environment
where faculty members are encouraged to excel in all aspects of their roles, ultimately benefiting
both students and the academinc community as a whole. Annual faculty feedback should be
provided to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement as well as identifying
SMART objectives required to be met to receive tenure without scholarly research. Structured
interventions should be outlined within tenure policies to outline processes and should
incorporate outside sources for consultation. Mentorship opportunities should be encouraged
throughout the university to ensure expectations are outlined clearly for a successful path to tenur
while incorporating flexible paths to obtain tenure rather than only through institutional research.
Evidence or Pre-Existing Policies
[Evidence or Pre-Existing Policy]
[Type your text here.]
[Evidence or Pre-Existing Policy]
[Type your text here.]
[Evidence or Pre-Existing Policy]
[Type your text here.]
Policy Options
[Type your text here.]
[Alternative #1 Label]
[Type your text here.]
Advantages
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
Page 2 of 7
EDUC 845
[Type your text here]
Disadvantages
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
[Type your text here]
[Alternative #2 Label]:
[Type your text here.]
[Alternative #3 Label]:
[Type your text here.]
Biblical Worldview Perspective
[Type your text here.]
Recommendation
[Type your text here.]
Sources Consulted or Recommended
Berk, R. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal
of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62. https://bpb-us-
w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/9/11828/files/2019/08/Survey-of-12-Strategies-
to-Measure-Teaching-Effectiveness.pdf
Annotation:This article reviews twelve different strategies for evaluating
teaching effectiveness in higher education. Berk discusses the strengths and
weaknesses of each method, providing a comprehensive overview that can help
institutions select the most appropriate evaluation tools.
Chen, C. Y. (2020). A study showing research has been valued over teaching in higher
education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15–32.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i3.13319
Annotation:Chen's study highlights the disparity between the value placed on
research versus teaching in higher education. The findings suggest that
institutions often prioritize research achievements over teaching quality, which
has implications for faculty development and student outcomes.
Gormally, C., Evans, M., & Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher ed:
Neglected opportunities to promote change. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 187–
199. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235
Annotation:This paper examines the role of feedback in improving teaching
practices in higher education. The authors argue that feedback is often
underutilized and provide recommendations for how it can be better integrated
into faculty development programs to foster meaningful change.
Page 3 of 7
EDUC 845
Murray, A. W., O’Dowd, D. K., & Impey, C. D. (2019). When it comes to teaching and tenure it
is time to walk the walk. ELife, 8. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.50542
Annotation:Murray, O'Dowd, and Impey discuss the need for higher education
institutions to align their tenure and promotion policies with their stated
commitments to teaching excellence. The article calls for a reevaluation of how
teaching is assessed and rewarded in the tenure process.
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching
effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
Annotation:This meta-analysis investigates the relationship between student
evaluations of teaching (SETs) and actual student learning outcomes. The authors
find no significant correlation, suggesting that SETs may not be a reliable
measure of teaching effectiveness.
Williams, S., Anderson, C., Hartman, K., Hulm, J., & Yehong Shao-Lucas, P. (2023).
Recommendations for equitable tenure and promotion.
https://www.ohio.edu/sites/default/files/sites/faculty-senate/files/Equitable%20PT
%20Report.pdf
Annotation:This report provides recommendations for creating more equitable
tenure and promotion processes in higher education. The authors emphasize the
importance of transparency, inclusivity, and the recognition of diverse
contributions to academia.
Xu, D., & Solanki, S. (2019). Tenure-Track appointment for teaching-oriented faculty? The
impact of teaching and research faculty on student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 016237371988270. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719882706
Annotation:Xu and Solanki explore the impact of having tenure-track positions
specifically for teaching-oriented faculty on student outcomes. Their findings
suggest that such positions can enhance student learning and satisfaction,
highlighting the value of dedicated teaching faculty.
Page 4 of 7
EDUC 845
Appendix A
P the Outcomes Matrix
Topic:
[Criterion #1 Label] [Criterion #2 Label] [Criterion #3 Label]
[Alternative #1
Label]
Alternative’s
Overall Value:
[Type your text
here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
[Alternative #2
Label]
Alternative’s
Overall Value:
[Type your text
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Page 5 of 7
EDUC 845
here.]
[Alternative #3
Label]
Alternative’s
Overall Value:
[Type your text
here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Data Collection:
[Data item]
[Data item]
[Data item]
Projected Outcome: [Type your text
here.]
Cost Analysis: [Type your text here.]
Alternatives
[Alternative #1 Label]
[Type your explanation here.]
[Alternative #2 Label]
[Type your explanation here.]
[Alternative #3 Label]
[Type your explanation here.]
Criterion
[Criterion #1 Label]
[Type your explanation here.]
[Criterion #2 Label]
[Type your explanation here.]
[Criterion #3 Label]
Page 6 of 7
EDUC 845
[Type your explanation here.]
Page 7 of 7
