New Faculty And Navigating The Contract Renewal Process
- Conference
- Location
-
Louisville, Kentucky
- Publication Date
-
June 20, 2010
- Start Date
-
June 20, 2010
- End Date
-
June 23, 2010
- ISSN
-
2153-5965
- Conference Session
- Tagged Division
-
New Engineering Educators
- Page Count
-
9
- Page Numbers
-
15.915.1 - 15.915.9
- DOI
-
10.18260/1-2--16559
- Permanent URL
-
https://peer.asee.org/16559
- Download Count
-
443
Paper Authors
Jay Wierer Milwaukee School of Engineering
Dr. Jay Wierer is Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). He received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Wisconsin - Madison in 2008. He is a Member of the IEEE and enjoys teaching courses in communications, signals and systems, DSP, controls, and circuits.
Roger Frankowski Milwaukee School of Engineering
Dr. Frankowski is Vice-President of Academics and Professor of General Studies at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). He received his Ph.D. degree from Marquette University in 1992. He has been Vice-President of Academics since 2001. He is a member of ASEE, a member of the Society for Psychological Type, and a member of AAHEA. As a faculty member, he taught courses in history, government, and industrial psychology.
Cory Prust Milwaukee School of Engineering
Dr. Prust is Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). He received his Ph.D. degree from Purdue University in 2006. He is a former Technical Staff member at Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a Member of the IEEE and typically teaches courses in the areas of signal processing and embedded systems.
Steven Reyer Milwaukee School of Engineering
Dr. Reyer is Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). He received his Ph.D. Degree from Marquette University in 1978 (candidate at the University of Illinois). He has done consulting in digital signal processing for the broadcast industry (digital stereo FM radio and HDTV) and power industry. He typically teaches courses in digital signal processing, circuits, and senior design.
Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract
New Faculty and Navigating the Contract Renewal Process
Abstract
At new faculty orientation sessions discussion of the peer review and contract renewal process (such as a tenure process) always generates immediate interest and attention. Of key importance are the details of how and when a review takes place, and what needs to be done to be successful at it. While the topics of teaching methods, student learning styles, and classroom techniques are of interest and importance to new faculty, maintaining employment is also a significant practical concern.
saw it the same way. After all, they read the same set of rules and follow the same process. But do they have any differences in viewpoint or understanding? This paper examines the different views that faculty members have and how they came to arrive at them. The views of four professors will be compared, two of which are new faculty. The other two have decades of experience, one being the Chief Academic Officer, the other a senior faculty member who was also a multi-year chair of the review committee.
A process that appears straightforward to one group can seem daunting to another. For a new faculty member to navigate the process requires that all involved understand their viewpoint. Similarly, they need to understand the needs of the university and of their own peers. This paper examines these traits and discusses ways to make the process a better one for the new faculty member.
The Task
New faculty members are faced with many early-career challenges including how to effectively teach, establish a rapport with (but still be respected by) students, critique and grade assignments, relate to the department chair and colleagues, establish or continue research, and maintain employment at the university. All except the last item are skills that can evolve, and be
be jumped on a single well-defined date. To say that it weighs heavily on the mind of a new faculty member is an understatement.
Given the gravity of such a task and our expertise as problem solvers, we would normally define the problem and determine the solution. That is, we would read the documentation describing the contract-renewal process and follow the steps outlined, in the exact order, giving detailed answers to the questions. While this approach is necessary, it may not be sufficient. The task is not a linear engineering one, but is much broader. The key reasons have to do with people.
Our Review Process
At the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) we have a long-term contract review process1 rather than a tenure system. Every four, six, or eight years, depending on rank, a faculty
Wierer, J., & Frankowski, R., & Prust, C., & Reyer, S. (2010, June), New Faculty And Navigating The Contract Renewal Process Paper presented at 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, Kentucky. 10.18260/1-2--16559
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2010 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015