CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN The ACADEMIC PHYSICAL THERAPY ENVIRONMENT ( PT/PTA Programs) Who Wants It, Who Gets It, How to Position Yourself for a Successful.

CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN The ACADEMIC PHYSICAL THERAPY ENVIRONMENT

(PT/PTA Programs)

Who Wants It, Who Gets It, How to Position Yourself for a Successful

Decision

Joyce Mac Kinnon, EdD, PT

Professor and Associate Dean

School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences

Indiana University on the IUPUI campus

Objectives

At then end of the session participants should be able to:

1. Clearly articulate their terms of hire2. List CAPTE accreditation requirements for the

academic physical therapy environment of choice3. Define the terms: contract renewal, long term

contract, promotion, tenure4. Describe the usual ranks and progressions

associated with the tenure/promotion process and long term contracts

5. Explain the concept of the criteria for advancement being mobile rather than static

Objectives (cont)

6. Define scholarship based on the Boyer model (used in CAPTE criteria)

7. Position themselves for success in career advancement in the academic physical therapy environment of choice.

Letter of Hire

What should be included:Start date

Length of annual contract

Teaching, service and research expectations

Rank and tenure status

Salary

Start up package

Method and frequency of assessment

Miscellaneous

CAPTE Standards for Core Faculty PT Programs Contemporary expertise in teaching area Effective teaching and student eval skills Scholarly agenda (using the Boyer model) Record of service Blend of individuals with doctoral preparation

or clinical specialization At least 50% of core faculty have advanced

doctoral degrees

CAPTE Standards for Core Faculty PTA programs Minimum of 2 full time core faculty One of which must be a PT Each qualified by education and experience

to fulfill assigned responsibilities Program director must have a master’s

degree or higher

Usual Ranks/Usual Progression

Lecturer Assistant professor

(3/5-6) Associate professor

(5-10) Full professor

Annual reviews are VERY important!

Tenure

Reciprocal agreement between an individual and an academic unit in which the individual is expected to maintain certain standards of teaching, research and service and in return is provided with academic freedom and economic security

Playing By the Rules

Congruence Between Unit and University Mission and Vision

Is your work valued by the unit, school and university?

The Exemplary Faculty Person at a Research Intensive University

PhD Post doc External funding as PI from

highly respected agency Publications-highly ranked journals Cited by others Excellent teaching evaluations Meaningful service

Preparation for Success – Tips

Document! Ask for help Review successful

dossiers Read guidelines

Boyer’s Scholarship of Teaching, Research and Service

Discovery: development of new knowledge Integration: bridges disciplines; broader

context Application: use of expertise in

applied settings Teaching: helping students expand

their knowledge

Scholarship Assessed

Clear goals Necessary tools and expertise Established methodology Significance of the work Reflection

Personal Statement

Impact of your work Specific goal/theme Consistent with the mission of your unit Continued education Dissemination Continued contribution

Collegiality

Scholarship Documented

Teaching

Research/Creative activity

Service

REFERENCES

Boice R (2000): Advise for New Faculty Members. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boyer EL (1997): Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield SD (1995): Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bunton SA and Mallon WT (2007): The continued evolution of faculty appointments and tenure policies at US medical schools. Academic medicine, 82(3):281-89.

CAPTE (2013): Evaluation Criteria PTA Programs CAPTE (2013: Evaluation Criteria PT Programs Chism NVN (1999): Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. Bolton,

MA: Anker.

References (continued)

Fleming VM, Schindler N, Martin GJ, DaRosa DA (2005): Separate and equitable promotion tracks for clinician-educators. JAMA, 294(9):1101-04.

Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI (1997): Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

O’Meara KA (2002): Scholarship Unbound: Assessing Service as Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure. Nw York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.

Seldin P (2004): The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Shapiro HN (2006): Promotion and tenure ad the scholarship of teaching and learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, 38(2): 38-43.