Mid-course review of tenure-stream faculty will take place during the spring semester. As stated in the Faculty Handbook, the mid-course review is developmental, and is designed to alert faculty members if there are significant problems with their contributions to teaching, scholarship and service at the University of Richmond. To facilitate the review process, tenure-stream faculty produce a portfolio, which undergoes review by the department and dean. The purpose of this memo is to provide guidance about the material that should be included in the portfolio, and to provide a timetable for the mid-course review process. Adherence to these guidelines will facilitate the department and dean’s ability to provide valuable evaluations of the portfolio.

Timetable

As stipulated in the Faculty Handbook, tenured departmental faculty and the dean of the School of Arts & Sciences participate in the mid-course review. The portfolio will be turned in to the chair of the department in mid-March, on a date set in the Dean's Office annual memo. Tenured members of the department will then participate in the evaluation of the portfolio. Once the final departmental report has been vetted by the dean, it will be shared with the faculty member who will then meet with the chair to discuss its contents. The final departmental report will be submitted to the dean after this meeting, on a date set in the Dean's Office annual memo. After the dean has reviewed the portfolio and departmental report, a meeting with the faculty member will be scheduled to discuss the results of the mid-course review process. After this meeting, the dean will provide, in writing, the results of the mid-course evaluation to the faculty member and the department chair.

Preparation of Portfolio

The portfolio should include:

1. A current curriculum vita annotated to clearly indicate work completed before coming to the University of Richmond, work completed at the University of Richmond but begun elsewhere, and work that was initiated at University of Richmond.

2. A 7 page document composed of three parts:

• Teaching Statement (3 pages). The teaching statement should include an assessment of the faculty member’s progress to date working with University of Richmond undergraduates. Faculty should reflect on their pedagogical innovation, advising, research mentorship, and interactions with students in the classroom/lab. Strengths and weaknesses in pedagogical development should be considered, and some commentary on pedagogical goals for the next few years should be included.
• Scholarship Statement (3 pages). The scholarship statement should provide context for research questions being asked, or artistic work being created. Faculty should reflect on the direction of their scholarship at the University of Richmond. A description of completed work (i.e., published or in press) should be included. Faculty should also discuss on-going work, and describe their plans for moving this work to completion. Plans for future work may also be presented in this section.
• Service Statement (1 page). The service statement should describe work that has been done on behalf of the department, school or profession.

3. Copies of the chair’s annual reports and annual reviews.

4. Copies of reprints, preprints, and other appropriate scholarly/creative work should be appended as appropriate.

5. Data from the courses taught should be presented, as should representative examples of syllabi/course material.

Mid-course review of probationary faculty will take place during the spring semester. As stated in the Faculty Handbook, the mid-course review is developmental, and is designed to alert faculty members if there are significant problems with their contributions to teaching, scholarship and service at the University of Richmond. To facilitate the review process, tenure-stream faculty produce a portfolio, which undergoes review by the department and dean. The purpose of this memo is to provide chairs with guidance about the report that their department should produce. This memo also includes a timetable for the mid-course review process. Adherence to these guidelines will facilitate the department and dean’s ability to provide valuable evaluations of the portfolio.

Departmental Letter and Timetable

The candidate will submit a portfolio to the chair for departmental review in mid-March, on the date indicated in the dean's annual communication. The portfolio will consist of an updated CV; a 7 page document that contains teaching, scholarship and service statements; copies of annual reviews; teaching assessment data; and publications or artistic work. The tenured members of the department are tasked with reviewing the portfolio, and providing a thorough critical evaluation of the candidate’s progress towards tenure and promotion. The report should also include clear goals for improvement in any area where the tenure-stream faculty member does not seem on track toward a favorable tenure decision. The chair is responsible for producing the mid-course report, which should include analysis of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and expresses the range of opinion in the department. The departmental report should be revised, as necessary, to reflect the tenured faculty's deliberations. The mid-course review letter should not attempt to anticipate decisions regarding tenure and promotion. The final version of the departmental letter must be signed by all tenured members of the department to indicate that the letter fairly represents the departmental discussion. The dean will vet the letter for legal and procedural issues, and will then authorize that the report can be shared with the faculty member. After providing an opportunity to examine the report, the chair and faculty member should meet to discuss the department’s mid-course review. At this point, the departmental letter should be submitted to the dean. The deadline for submitting the report will appear in the dean's annual communication.