Preparing for the 3rd Year Review

To watch the full video of the workshop click here.

Detailed Evaluation Results for Preparing for the 3rd Year Review

36 of the 51 (28 women, 23 men) faculty that attended completed evaluations.

The workshop was led by a panel of six faculty from the College of Arts & Sciences and the College of Engineering & Computing representing deans, chairs and assistant professors who offered a wide variety of perspectives on Preparing for the 3rd Year Review.

Panelists included Meredith Newman, CAS Sr. Associate Dean; Shannon Pruden, Assistant Professor, Psychology; David Chatfield, Chair, Chemistry & Biochemistry; Sharan Ramaswamy, Assistant Professor, Biomedical Engineering, Caroline Faria, Assistant Professor, Global & Sociocultural Studies and Darden Pyron, Personnel Committee Chair, History.

Faculty responded in the surveys that they were glad to have taken the time to participate and had gained insight and tips on what to expect. They learned to "start documenting early" and "have a website that publicizes your work," that the review process "should be seen as a more positive experience and to use it to get feedback." Some faculty wished that there could have been more time for discussion but then several panelists volunteered to continue the conversation beyond the workshop. A video of the workshop was also posted online for those who were unable to attend.

Overall, participants said that "having faculty that have gone through the process and are able to share with us was very positive and informative" and that "it was good to hear senior faculty's voice on what they'd do about the process, and junior faculty's experience on what they'd done was valuable."

Feedback was given that participants would like more handouts and resources so following the workshop, documents were emailed to all those who participated and/or RSVP'd regarding 3rd Year Guidelines, Process and Schedule. These documents and links were also posted on the Faculty Mentor Website Resources page.

Questions & Responses

The 3rd Year Review workshop lived up to my expectations.
N=36 Mean=4.56 SD=0.61 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

This session gave me clear and concrete guidelines for assisting me with my 3rd Year Review process.
N=36 Mean=4.39 SD=0.80 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

The information and experiences shared at this workshop gave me insight and tips on what to expect.
N=36 Mean=4.58 SD=0.73 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I am glad I took the time to participate in this workshop.
N=36 Mean=4.54 SD=0.78 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

Questions & Answers:

Please give a specific example of one thing you learned and will definitely take from the Preparing for the 3rd Year Review workshop to use in your work.

  • Start early and have website that publicizes your work.
  • Start documentation process now!
  • Communicating with our peers; and what to expect during the process.
  • All the resources to read the official rules for the 3rd year review I am now aware of, and will consult for further information. The Dept by-laws, the collective bargaining agreement, the T+P handbook, the Academic Affairs website, and my chair.
  • Start preparing from day one.
  • Good opportunity to connect with my mentee.
  • Go to website at Academic Affairs to get guidelines.
  • It is supposed to be positive.
  • I will include annual review appraisals in my third year review document.
  • Shannon gave a specific perspective of her experience.
  • Start process now.
  • Work environment & expectations and time management.
  • How to start early with the file. How to start edits with the file.
  • Do less work for which I get no credit (e.g., review dissertation of students who are not mine).
  • The location online of the T+P manual as well as the "developmental" nature of the process and need to start accumulating materials and organizing them now.
  • Use it as an opportunity to prepare for T+P.
  • Increasing visibility in field (e.g., CV on website).
  • That it should be viewed as a more positive experience and use it to get feedback on how you are doing.
  • Time management.
  • Make the statement of research aim for tenure and future.
  • Because my position at FIU is not my first tenure-track position, the workshop gave me the idea of highlighting my efforts to establish myself here in my review narrative.
  • Where to find the guidelines for 3rd year review.
  • That what I publish at FIU is what counts. The rest is supportive.
  • It's really to help you, not to punish your deficiencies.
  • Organizing early and don't go overboard.
  • Developmental not punitive.
  • Look up the guidelines on the website.
  • Start early and prepare/collect as you go.

Is there anything that could have been improved about this workshop?

  • Longer would help.
  • More handouts, e-g., process.
  • Presenting a timeline of key deadlines during the semester of review.
  • Have more 1-1 work between mentor-mentee.
  • I think it was poor to state "Do what you need to do". He gave no examples and was very limited in any wisdom or vision of what to expect.
  • I would have liked to see examples of document formats.
  • No sample? No live example?
  • Positive vs. negative reviews?
  • A workshop that is more focused on one specific field.
  • Perhaps a more concert demonstration of the process and materials needed.
  • Review 3rd year packet and materials.
  • It would be nice to have a more formal outline on what documents are needed.
  • More time for questions.
  • Related examples of successful/unsuccessful cases.
  • Even through available online, I would have liked a brief review of process.
  • More Q&A.

General Comments about the overall workshop?

  • Great.
  • Great, thank you.
  • The panel was well conformed. Having faculty that have gone through the process and are able to share with us was very positive and informative.
  • Good!
  • The people who went through the process were helpful.
  • Great!
  • I felt the insight offered by the panel was useful.
  • It was good to hear senior faculty's voice on what they'd do about the process, and junior faculty's experience was valuable.
  • Well planned; extremely well organized and advertised.
  • Great. Thank you!
  • Really useful.
  • Perhaps fewer personal experiences and more focus on the procedure and metrics for assessment/evaluation.
  • I think it was a good length and liked the diversity of opinions/experiences.
  • It would be nice to hear more about where grants fit into the process and what is the expectation.
  • Helpful tips on working with students.
  • Informative and well-organized.
  • Very useful.
  • Very helpful workshop.
  • Concise and clear.
  • Nice cross-section of panelists.