2-3Pm Rasmussen Library Kayak Room

Unit Criteria Meeting

December 4, 2009

2-3pm Rasmussen Library Kayak Room

Attending:

Julie McIntyre (co-chair)

Tim Wilson

Andy Anger

Ray Rolande

Theatre Department Representatives:

Carrie Baker

Stephan Golux

ANLC/ANAP Representative: Gary Holton

Old Business: No old business was discussed.

New Business: Unit Criteria for Department of Theatre.

Page5: Statement at bottom: move to intro in effectiveness in teaching (bottom page 4).

Page6: Revise 1st sentence in capitalized paragraph – too vague in terms of what is meant by “obligated” and “flexible”. The intended meaning is fine; but make more specific and tie to department’s requirements for tenure/promotion.

Page7: part n second bullet: clarify criticism – talking about published criticism (journal or newspaper) written by candidate.

Page7: part n: don’t need the sub-bullets. Make those individual lettered bullets.

Page8: section 3 – not necessary. This is the purpose of the unit criteria document, to provide guidelines for evaluation. Description of general aspects of theatre department should be put in the preamble to the section.

Page8: first bullet on part 4: move it and incorporate into introduction to describe unique aspects of evaluating creative activity in theatre. Reorganize the remaining bullets.

Page9-10: think about reorganizing parts 5 and 6 in that section. Just to make the distinction between sections clearer.

Add participant assessment description in components?

ANLC/ANLP revised unit criteria:

The department opted not to define separate criteria for expectations at the levels of assistant, associate and full professor, as was suggested by the committee. As noted earlier this is not required, but we strongly suggest that the department consider doing that in the future, for the benefit of both faculty and evaluators.

Apart from that, there are very few comments.

Page9: Remove bullet k, this isn’t really university service. (In the previous version this bullet was combined with bullet i, mentoring, and we suggested separating the two. Now however it’s unclear why this belongs under service instead of research.)

Page7: bullet l – make bold part separate bullet, removing phrase “is research of this type”, and remove phrase about patents.

Page10: Part 4 bullet c – Clarify what materials are referred to that would count under service (for instance instead of counting as research).