Who this policy applies to:

Faculty 

Rationale:
The guide to Faculty Promotion is intended to be a practical resource to the University's promotion policies and their implementation. 

Policy Detail:

• Direct assessment results should be clearly linked to a stated student learning outcome for the course(s). 

• Direct assessment results must indicate some form of an aggregated assessment (as opposed to a single case model) appropriate to the discipline. Individual assignment grades do not reflect direct assessment of a particular student learning outcome (SLO). Examples of aggregate assessments include:

• Pre-post numerical assessments of student work scored for a particular SLO.

• Capstone experiences (research papers, theses, presentations, etc.) scored with a rubric for a particular SLO.

• Written work, performances, or presentations scored with a rubric for SLOs

• Portfolios of student work scored for an SLO

• Score gains/changes on writing samples

• Ratings of student skills by field experience supervisors (if directly linked to a specific course taught by an instructor)

• Summaries or analyses of electronic discussion threads scored by a rubric.  

• Ideally, a strong direct assessment will include a closing of the feedback loop where an instructor has modified an element of a course and re-assessed student learning. The vast majority of faculty teach repeated preps and have the opportunity to re-assess. If for an individual course a re-assessment is not possible before a portfolio is reviewed, the instructor should describe the changes they will enact and reassess in the future. Instructors who teach in accredited programs are traditionally required to close the feedback loop and should have an example(s) to share. 

• If an instructor includes assessment that was a component of a larger departmental assessment plan (e.g., general education or DPI), the instructor’s evidence should relate to their individual course sections or students.

• Scores and pass rates from licensure, certification exams, or other national tests are examples of direct assessment useful for program assessment; however, JPC is interested in the arc of a particular instructor’s teaching and scores/pass rates tend to reflect students’ experience across multiple educational experiences.  

• Indirect assessment is a strong complement to direct assessment; however, each promotion candidate should provide at least one example of direct assessment of a student learning outcome for a course.

Supporting tools:

• Guide to faculty promotions and portfolio development at UW-La Crosse
  
• Appendix A. FACULTY SENATE BY-LAW FOR JOINT PROMOTION COMMITTEE
• Appendix B. RANK, PROMOTION & TENURE GUIDELINES
• Appendix C. JOINT PROMOTION COMMITTEE RULES AND PROCEDURES
• Appendix D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO
• Appendix E. DIRECT ASSESSMENT
• Appendix F. PROMOTION FORMS PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT
• Department Promotion Committee Transmittal & Signature Page
• Sample Promotion Candidate Department Merit Rating Report
• Provost's promotion resource page
• Instructions for Generating TAIs and Entering Into Digital Measures

Responsibilities:

Joint Promotion Committee

Links to related information:

• Regent Policy Document 20-2 Student Evaluation of Instruction: https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/policies/student-evaluation-of-instruction/ 
• UW System Administrative Policy 1257 Title Change: https://www.wisconsin.edu/uw-policies/uw-system-administrative-policies/title-change/ 
• UW System Administrative Policy 1277 Compensation: https://www.wisconsin.edu/uw-policies/uw-system-administrative-policies/compensation/
• Open meetings law for Department personnel meetings: https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/offices-services/human-resources/open-meetings-prt.pdf
• Section 19.85 of Wisconsin State Statutes: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/19/V/85
• UW System General Counsel Website: http://www.uwsa.edu/general-counsel/legal-topics/open-meetings-law/

Revision history:
Created in May of 2024.  Changes in Appendices approved by Faculty Senate.

Format updated June 2025