Faculty Rank Assistant Professor Reviewer Training

Posted on Updated on

In 2014, Wake Tech began offering traditional professor ranks to its faculty members. This certainly opened the playing field for the school and also set the stage for our college to stand out. For each rank within the faculty professor ranking system, an increasingly difficult and more comprehensive set of benchmarks are required. This evolves over time so that the accomplishments which may have been sufficient in the past are often increased and embellished. In addition to meeting a set pattern of goals, accomplishments and recognitions, faculty ranking members must be deemed to have retained and continued performing at their previous level for several years with backing evidence before being allowed to proceed in ranking again.

In 2017, I took part in the Reviewer training and faculty application review process. Beginning with an online component, we (each reviewer and I) learned about the materials, methods and processes used to determine the likelihood of rank success. We were then given a set of ranking criteria for the level we would be training. This material was/is available to all faculty members to understand their requirements and plan.

It should be noted that the beginning step in this process is a number of years with the college in longevity at full-time (9m or greater) paid time. The individual factors are made available as well as a rubric which will be used to score materials. Faculty members need not only to meet the goals and exceed them, but also to present their stories in a fashion reflecting excellence in academics, professional demeanor, and with backing evidence. These items are then investigated and approved by their departments heads, as well as reviewed and approved at a Divisional Dean level before being presented to the committees. The committee reviews each application in turn, providing their assessment and notes as well as an annotated rubric to the VP. The VPs make decisions based on committee feedback and notify faculty on a yearly basis.

As part of this training, we used our document to find ourselves prepped to the requirements. The easiest part of this was to read the materials provided, but then we had to see the drill down on the point system used for scoring. Looking at this score it was clear to see how much the college places an emphasis on pushing the envelope for success, multiple working solutions for rising status, and how simply meeting minimum expectations are noted as a failure to excel, and not rewarded. We were given this list and requested to come to our meeting with questions or notifications which would help to clarify or streamline this service.

Our first meeting occurred on a day with a snowstorm in North Carolina, so I was late. That was very depressing. Worse still, my list was not in the car, so I was in a particularly bad shape. When I arrived, they were discussing certain entries on a paragraph by paragraph basis to ensure that the materials made sense. While some items were raised, it was easily decided that current materials were on point with only minor vagaries.

After viewing several full reviews and discussing the process, we ran down through the materials and gave arguments about our findings.

Later in the semester, we were given a load of reviews to grade and package. Honestly, the materials were very easy to follow. From start to finish, the process went very smoothly. It was interesting to catch the different department and divisions in the school, and see what is truly important to each of them.

Ensuring the viability of candidates was very clear. The rubric is clear. Its states what you have to do, and it is verified and vetted by multiple individuals prior to being placed in our hands. That said, there were some individuals who were clearly unfit and others who were. Failing to meet the minimum specifications or creating documents which were painful to read and woefully inadequate is a clear indication that you are unready.

Some examples are clear: If you MUST be a conference organizer, keynote speaker, or hold a leadership position in a national organization- you will not meet the minimum requirements if you failed to hold one of these positions.

I found the work to be easy, but academic. It was easy to find myself in the groove where I could sit down with a few of these in a quiet moment when alone and move through the pages quickly. After looking over 3 documents, it was also easy to revisit the first file and see if the numbers still made sense. In this way, I could see every piece multiple times and ensure that I was accurate in my intent and consistent in my work.

I’d do this again in a heartbeat.

Unlawful Harassment Prevention for Higher Education Faculty

Posted on Updated on

/****************************\ /****************************\ /****************************\ /****************************\
|   UPDATE APRIL 23rd   | |   UPDATE APRIL 23rd   | |   UPDATE APRIL 23rd   | |   UPDATE APRIL 23rd   |
******************************** ******************************** ******************************** ********************************

On April 23rd I completed the online Sexual Harassment training

Unlawful Harassment Prevention for Higher Education Faculty

Congratulations! You’ve completed the Unlawful Harassment Prevention for Higher Education Faculty course!

I received this message:

Hi Tyler,

Thank you for the inquiry and patience as we work to correct our system.

Unfortunately the student version of the sexual harassment course was added to your account in error. The correct version for staff and faculty has now been added and is the correct sexual harassment course to take. You will need to take this version to receive the credit.

The Active Shooter course is correct. There are two other courses that you will need to take and you can find them at this link as follows:

On Februrary 27th I completed the online Sexual Harassment training

Unlawful Harassment Prevention for Higher Education Faculty

Congratulations! You’ve completed the Unlawful Harassment Prevention for Higher Education Faculty course!

Workplace Answers has provided online training to members of Wake Tech Community College. This week, I completed the Active Shooter Response Training for Employees in Higher Education. I must admit, having taken this training in the past, this was well put together. I have been in several lockdowns on campus, and always found these things very straightforward.

“In the event of hearing a gunshot during classtime, should you run into the hallway and investigate?”
This, I found to be a particularly interesting question. 🙂

Active shooter training is an essential part of the current education environment. While not having a choice to take this training or not was unpleasureable, the training is essential enough that I was pleased to have taken it.

Evaluating Student Learning: Faculty Professional Development Conference 2015

Posted on Updated on

On April 2nd, 2015 at Wake Tech’s North Campus, Ed Neal addressed the Wake Tech Faculty Professional Development Conference at 9:00am

Faculty Professional Development Conference 2015

Evaluating Student Learning: Faculty Professional Development Conference 2015

The hope of this lecture was to create usable training. When looking into your approaches to your classes, and how you evaluate your student learning, begin by evaluating your SLO’s.

  1. Which ones can be multiple choice questions?
  2. Which ones can be fill-in-the-blank questions?
  3. Which ones can require a rubric for open-ended work?

It is important to note that there is a distinct difference between assessment and evaluation.
Evaluation— placing a value
Assessment— Sitting beside the learner and making a determination

More assessments means less stress and better evaluations. Use follow-up questions to accurately assess student learning after lecture and readings. Discussions are great ways to provide students with asynchronus communication when assessing their learning.

If you are giving a grade for everything, students will become grade-oriented. That is, if the task is deemed to be worth doing, and the reward is deemed high enough.

Your students will want to know “How am I graded?”, “What kind of assessments will I receive?”. Be crystal clear. Evaluation is measurement. It should be valid (that is to say, it should test what you want it to test), and it should also be reliable (that is to say, it should be usable again and again without fail).

What are the Threats to Validity?

Threats to validity are often no mentioned. Specifically, cheating. What is it that you are measuring… if the students cheat. Its really a good question. Testing improves learning. Studies and testing clearly supports this.

We took a short test, a tauroscatalogical test.

Incorrect answers will stay with students if not corrected. They can stay with people for a lifetime if uncorrected. The best answer or solution to this is to discuss incorrect answers with students and why the proper answers are correct. Students in high school typically complete 200+ multiple choice test by the time they graduate. Typically, this encompasses 1 right answer, 1 wrong answer in an opposite fashion, and 2 items which are deemed “distractors”. Your students are GOOD at taking these test. You are very poor at writing them.

Case problems are typically the worst questions of all times. Teachers like them because they are ways of dealing with real-world problems. Students hate these, because they are difficult, and moreso than any other type of question they encounter. Dial back the number of these questions that you demand students answer. These are the “Money questions”.

Time to go

At this point, the discussions began to diverge from my needs. As a graphic and web design teacher, our examinations are based on real-world scenarios, multiple choice questions, and the best I can come up with in a constantly changing landscape of culture and technology. Frankly, if I can come up with 50-60 questions, I feel totally on top of my game.

The discussion broke down into item analysis, how to properly calculate the discrimination index with your questions using results from a scan-tron machine, and the mathematical calculations required to do this. I don’t use scan-tron forms, and I haven’t used one since I started working in education in 2005. All of my testing is blackboard-based and I couldn’t help with this or even pretend to understand how these mathematics could be carried out. The populations they discussed in the classes were in the 200+ range per section, and my largest class is 24 students per section, or up to 96 students per semester in all my courses.

We then broke down into small groups and discussed our individual SLOs and which could be broken down into what kinds of questions. Since in my courses we are generally discussing 4 SLOs, my portion was over quickly enough to focus on others for the remainder of the class. I felt this class was enjoyable, and I learned a great deal, however I could not participate as fully as others.

Ed Neal is a consultant with 34 years of experience in faculty development.

Faculty Ranking Q&A

Posted on Updated on

Faculty Ranking Q&A

I came to this NCCFA 2013 session, but unfortunately showed up after some of the opening remarks. The main thing which I was able to glean from this was simple: The faculty rank system was available NOW to increase rank and give new titles so that administrators and those close to administrators would get raises.

It was made clear that

  • Only a certain number would be chosen every year to receive the new rank and new raise status.
  • There would be a cap on rank increases at once
  • You would need approval from your superiors to receive this
  • There was no training which could be given to help prepare staff for this
  • There would not be money forever.
  • Rank increases would be based on activities going above and beyond the duties required for your job
  • Adjunct years would not count towards faculty ranking years of service
  • Faculty ranking would not be available to staff members on a regular basis
  • My next ranking adjustment would not be until 2016.


I still feel this is a bad idea. It seems like those who are in close with the bosses will be given ranking, while those who might be worthy will be tossed over due to one small infraction or being frowned upon. It seems like money will run out in a few years, and people will end up being shut out, or left with no drive to achieve this designation. However, I probably need to see this in terms of needs and opportunities.