Arguing the teaching case for promotion2012

Dear Colleagues,

This PowerPoint presentation was developed as the basis for a series of faculty workshops on ‘Arguing the Teaching Case for Promotion’. The intention in offering these workshops is to provide an opportunity for members of promotion committees, previous successful applicants and colleagues from the ITL to share their insights and experiences to support current and intending applicants in arguing their ‘Teaching case’ for promotion. There are also several accompanying handouts developed by the ITL to support these workshops. These are noted in the slides and are also available on this website. http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/awards/promotions_teaching.htm

We would of course welcome any feedback you might have on this year’s workshops.

Kind regards,

A/Prof Simon Barrie

2

WHAT WE WILL SPEND TIME ON TODAY

1. Understanding the teaching elements of the policy (10 mins)

2. How to match your achievements with the promotion committee's expectations (20 mins)

3. How to support claims with convincing evidence (30 mins)

4. How to argue your case in a way that is convincing to the committee (20 mins)

5. Questions (10 mins)

3

TEACHING DIMENSIONS

› Promotion committees assess teaching in terms of:› (Handout 1)

› Teaching performance

› Research-led teaching

› Student-focused teaching

› Scholarship in teaching

› Leadership in teaching

› What do these look like in your teaching?

4

TEACHING CRITERIA (A-E)

›Describe academic work at each level of appointment

›Synthesis: Relating criteria to the dimensions› (Handout 2)

›What do you notice in the grid?

5

MATCHING YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS WITH THE COMMITTEE’S EXPECTATIONS

6

MATCHING YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS WITH THE COMMITTEE’S EXPECTATIONS

› Applicants must provide evidence of the capacity to perform at the level to which they are seeking promotion and demonstrate an upward trajectory in performance that would warrant promotion to the next level.

› * Exceptional - An applicant whose achievements are Exceptional should demonstrate highly significant achievements and contributions in relation to the criteria at the level for which the applicant is applying.

› ** Outstanding - An applicant whose achievements are Outstanding should demonstrate achievements and contributions which clearly meet the criteria at the level for which the applicant is applying.

› Superior - An applicant whose achievements are Superior should demonstrate highly significant achievements and contributions in relation to the criteria at the applicant's current level.

› Satisfactory - An applicant whose achievements are Satisfactory should demonstrate achievements and contributions which meet the criteria at the applicant's current level.

7

TASK: PRESENTING YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS

1. Read the normative criteria for each dimension and think about the progression

2. On the first handout, use the trigger questions as prompts and try to fill in the first blank column; What have you done that is an example of what the committee is looking for?

3. Discussion: Are there other examples you hadn’t thought of and are there other things you haven't yet found a space to include?

8

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS

› What are the different sources of evidence?› (Handout 3 )

› What sorts of evidence convince selection committees?

› Task:

1. In the third column of the handout; What evidence do you have available to support your claim?

2. Discussion: Identifying other convincing evidence

9

STUDENT SURVEY DATA AS EVIDENCE

Presenting USE data in a way that is convincing and credible

(Handout 4)

› Reporting quantitative data

› Comparative use of quantitative data

› Appropriate reporting of qualitative data

› Triangulation of data

Remember:

› A claim without evidence is not convincing

› A claim with the wrong sort of evidence is not convincing

› Claims supported by only one sort of evidence are less convincing

10

ARGUING THE TEACHING CASE SUCCINCTLY

Communicate your teaching case using:

1. Text: Summary (1000 words B-D / 2000 words E) & Teaching Case (1000 / 1500 words only depending on stream)

2. The Teaching and Research Student Supervision Activities (TRSSA) form

3. Index of supplementary material

4. Your referees reports

5. At level E – CV

11

WHAT MAKES A COHERENT CASE

What works?

› A clear and distinctive theme or focus that runs through the argument

› A recognizable voice and identity as a teacher – (copying of models does not work)

› Clear claims achievements based in examples of practice followed up by relevant broad-based (triangulated) evidence, that is reinforced (not repeated) in TRSSA form and your referees reports

› (Handout 5)

12

EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL TEACHING CASES

What information and evidence goes where?

Online form:

› Text: Claims, practice and key evidence

› TRSSA: Reinforcing evidence – not new claims

› Referee's reports: Reinforcing evidence – not new claims

› Supplementary evidence – index & 2 copies only – (it’s a reference not necessarily read by all c'tee members so) – non-essential reinforcing evidence – not new claims.

› Interviews: only for level E

Questions?

Please continue to use your colleagues in your faculty and the ITL as your write your application

Thank you & good luck!