• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Advising’s Role in Tenure

November 15, 2011, 9:02 pm

There’s been a whole lot of talk lately about advising at Beloit College—and not of the “I sure wish I didn’t have to do it” ilk. A task force has spent much of this year focused on how to push advising at the liberal-arts institution beyond the basics. In fact, one of the task force’s goals has been to introduce a culture change at Beloit to help professors think of the advising they do in a way that doesn’t boil down to how many students lined up each semester to get guidance from them on what courses to take next.

“When professors talk about their teaching, they go into detail about curriculum planning, the ways they engage students, or what students go on to do,” said Kathleen F. Greene, chair of the education and youth studies department and chair of the advising group. “What people do when it comes to advising isn’t articulated to the same degree. We’re trying to bring some of that complexity to advising.”

The advising group’s efforts have also brought new attention to the role advising plays in the tenure and promotion process at Beloit. Although advising has long been an area of evaluation for faculty on the tenure track, Beloit’s Faculty Status and Performance Committee recently revised and expanded the language on advising in the document that pretenure faculty members get about the review process at the institution.

So how should junior faculty at Beloit explain what they do as advisers in their self-evaluations? According to the the new document, some things to highlight include how they they have helped students “connect with the mission, goals, programs, and resources of Beloit College,” what advising materials they’ve constructed or tweaked to make better, what assessment instruments they have used in advising and mentoring, and how they have responded to advising and mentoring challenges, among other things.

The faculty-status committee also rewrote the guidelines to underscore the role department and program chairs play in helping faculty members become successful advisers.

Tenure-track professors are encouraged to to detail their advising records separately, but it’s also OK for them to weave some of their advising experiences into the teaching section of their self-evaluation. Ms. Greene said she has noticed that professors at Beloit “are thinking more about how advising is a form of teaching.”

And as far as Jennifer Joslin is concerned, that’s how it should be. But plenty of institutions, when they count an advising record toward tenure at all, lump advising under service to the university, she said.

“When faculty meet with students to talk with them about graduate work in the major or explain the next term’s courses—that’s a teaching function,” said Ms. Joslin, the president of the National Academic Advising Association. “It’s not an extra add-on. It’s something that faculty do before class, after class, in meetings with students, on e-mail, and on the phone. It deserves to be part of tenure and promotion.”

Ms. Joslin, director of the office of academic advising at the University of Oregon, commended Beloit for taking a fresh look at advising—how it’s done, how its effectiveness is measured, and how it should be evaluated when it comes to pretenure faculty. “We all have to think about advising in a more complex way,” Ms. Joslin said.

In early November, Beloit kept advising at the forefront by canceling classes for the day for its first-ever advising practicum. The daylong series of workshops and discussions featured advising on internships, careers, work-based study abroad, and more. The event, to be held every semester before advising week at Beloit, was a “major success,” Ms. Greene said. “That day hammered home that advising is some of the most important teaching that we do.”

If you’re a junior faculty member, will your advising record come up when you’re reviewed for tenure? And how would you characterize the work you’ve done in that area? For other faculty members, how does your university make it clear that the advising you do matters—or not?

This entry was posted in Faculty@Work, General Interest. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • 3224243

    I noticed that Watson was the first to buzz in only when “he” had a high level of confidence in his answers. Unless it was above 90%, the other contestants beat him (or maybe Watson didn’t even try to buzz in).

    Also, since a big part of Jeopardy is physical coordination (being able to hit the buzzer at the right time before your opponents), I think Watson had an advantage since “he” didn’t have to deal with that aspect.

  • electronicmuse

    It’s not a surprise that a computer would excel at information retrieval. But the “promise” of “machine intelligence” has yet to be realized, decades of ballyhoo to that effect notwithstanding. As I tell my students: “if you don’t want to be replaced by a computer, don’t act like a computer.”

  • feudipandola

    I am amazed at how fast the technology is evolving in artificial intelligence. I am now using the language translation tool on Google now to communicate with my cousin in Italy and it works very well, even with all the nuances and subtleties of language. I applaud WATSON, even if he can’t applaud himself…yet.

  • http://twitter.com/sduncan02 Samantha Duncan

    I too would welcome computer overlords. Working in higher education, I say hooray for Watson if it has increased interest in our kids.

  • bpilgrim

    The end is near.

  • wittseek7

    I don’t understand all the fuss. The computer called Watson is programmed to be a master of trivia. So what? Until a computer shows genuine imagination–not likely for a very long time–these machines will continue to excel at what they do best: number-crunching and analogues of number-crunching. Perhaps, preparation for the “Jeopardy” event improved speech-recognition by machines–which would be useful–or resulted in an evolution of machine architecture–also good–but, otherwise, why should we be impressed with Watson’s skill at a shallow game?
    Imagine Watson in a genuinely social situation. Imagine him trying to chat up humans in a friendly way: “You are an intelligent person for your small brain volume.” Give me a break.

  • drjeff

    IBM didn’t “show off” all the people for two reasons, IMHO: (1) the people don’t mostly work for IBM, are scattered all over the country, and may have never been in the same room with each other, and (2) do you think they really want to make it so visually obvious that it took dozens of people working for years to write a system that could beat two regular humans? When we see all those computers, we think to ourselves “yeah; all that will be in my watch in 15 years,” and we’re probably right (at least, watches today have computing power similar to the big computers of 15 years ago). But seeing all the people would elicit a different response. And, as pointed out earlier, IBM’s not selling the people. They hope to sell systems just like Watson to some large corporations to use for things like Tech Support (i.e., helping the people you call in India give you the right answer more often). Eventually, they’re hoping to hook it into websites so you can type in your problem and it can give you an actually useful response. (Apparently, even the jobs in India are not safe from this.)

  • coreywilliam

    Technically, Toronto is a U.S. city. There are seven U.S. cities named Toronto. I think it may be a problem of having so much information to parse that things Watson says may seem senseless if you don’t also have access to all that information.

  • lenoreb

    What role did speed of response play here? My experience in playing the game (at my college, years ago) showed me that first you have to decide IF you know the answer, then you push the button and hope the answer will come to you as you are being called on. I thought Watson was just faster than the guys. The first commenter did deal with that.

  • urspider

    The end is not near :)

    If WATSON could pass the Turing Test and write its own code, we’d be a step closer to real artificial intelligence. But the sorts of AIs that populate the worlds of SF novels and films are a long way off.

    That said, if we could design two AIs to replace the US House and Senate, I’d be a happy man. At least those “public servants” would value intelligence.

  • fogarchitect

    It is worth pointing out that neither Deep Blue nor Watson plays, respectively, chess or Jeopardy, at least if the words mean what they mean when applied to human beings. One cannot play a game one does not know exists, and neither Deep Blue nor Watson knows these games, or any games, for that matter, exist. Playing games is an intentional activity, requiring a great deal of knowledge, both psychological and cultural, that neither of these machines has. This reduces them both to tools used by the teams of people behind them. One might say that the teams of programmers, researchers (some of those behind Deep Blue had written studies of Kasparov’s playing) and so forth, played the games against Kasparov and the Jeopardy contestants (the actual situation is more complex, since the AI teams had more interest than simply playing games)..

    All throughout the history of AI the researchers involved have misdescribed the processes their machines go through in terms appropriate to human beings as I note above. So, they don’t “play”games, nor is this an example of “intelligence”. If we were being careful we would describe these devices as “tools” exhibiting powerful “pragmatic” or “instumental” processes aimed by their designers at very narrow targets. With respect to those targets, the achievements of their designers are truly impressive, in my view. I, too, am impressed, as was an earlier commentator, with Google’s translation device; however, try putting poetry or subtle philosophical texts into it if you want to see where it really is.

  • yellow1

    I work in a system that does not have tenure, so I waited for about a week wondering if someone in a tenure system would comment. No luck.

    Where I work, a standard expectation of all full time faculty, no matter the courses instructed or area of expertise, is student advisement. This is part of the faculty member’s assigned job duties, year end evaluation, staff development in terms of training, etc.

    Faculty who do not advise students or who are less than enthusiastic about it are called out for these behaviors.

  • juggler

    Belated comment. Advising would count as service here (public research university). The vast majority of faculty do not care about it. I find this horrifying, because I care a lot. But no assistant professor is going to be denied tenure because he or she shirked advising duties. I wish our tenure expectations more clearly identified advising as a criterion, even if it were modest. Clearly identifying it as important would be a step in the right direction.

    Love the idea of an advising practicum day.

  • darccity

    The colleges will tell you the money does come out of education funding. Athletics dept. donors and even Foundations insulated from state or endowment funds pay for it. And these few programs usually make money to fund the other teams. But eventually, the big time programs raid the smaller colleges for talent, after serving their apprenticeship in these “developmental leagues.” Capping salaries is not the way or even the goal. Not paying players is no more palatable if coaches make less!

  • ald8m

    Good for Clark Kellogg!  Stood next to him in a line in NYC a few years ago and he was as pleasant as could be.  I have no doubt that he is an asset to the Ohio State board.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037