Teaching Portfolio Template for Tenure
Three documents and three sheets that read five years of evaluations in context and log every contribution as it happens.
Free download · No account needed
Evaluation Trend
Every term, read against its own context
One row per term. Course, first-time flag, score and the department's own comparison point.
| Term | Course | First time | Score | Dept mean | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-1 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-2 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-3 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-4 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-5 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-6 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-7 | — | — | — | — | — |
| T-8 | — | — | — | — | — |
Checks
| Check | What it counts | Value |
|---|---|---|
| CHK-1 | Lowest scores that are also first-time preps | — |
| CHK-2 | Consecutive recent terms at or above the department mean | — |
| CHK-3 | Year-by-criterion cells with no evidence on file | — |
| CHK-4 | Contribution log entries since the dossier was filed | — |
The score column and the department-mean column are the same term, read two ways. That gap, plus the first-time flag, is what a five-year average erases.
Every teaching dossier guide agrees on the categories, teaching, scholarship, service, a narrative with an evidence appendix behind it. None of them says what to do with a score once you have it. A 3.8 out of 5 reads as a decline next to a 4.2. It reads as the ordinary cost of a first offering once a committee knows it was the first time that course was taught. Most dossiers carry the number and drop the difference, and most advice on staying current stops at reminding you to keep documenting.
Dr. Renata Okafor, Calderleigh College, five years and ten terms toward a tenure decision. The two lowest scores in the whole run, 3.6 and 3.8, are the only two terms flagged first time teaching that course. Every term since has scored at or above the department's own comparison point, six in a row. A raw ten-term average, 4.12, blends both patterns into one number that shows neither. The Evidence Register finds a second gap: three of fifteen year-by-criterion cells carry no dated record, all three in the first two years.
The AAUP has concluded that averaging student evaluation scores should be abandoned as the primary measure for tenure decisions. Its own guidance on beginning a faculty appointment puts the decision at the end of a sixth year, which is why five completed years is the window this pack assembles. The accreditation self-study runs the same date-aware join at the institution level, and the compliance and policy check runs it against what a policy page actually shows.
What's in the pack
Evidence Register
Every academic year against every criterion, items on file counted and blank cells named rather than smoothed over.
Evaluation Trend
Every term's score against the department's own comparison point, with the course, enrollment and first-time flag attached.
Contribution Log
A dated line for every contribution starting the day the dossier is filed, so the next one never needs this reconstruction.
Teaching Narrative
The dossier narrative, written against the trend so a low term's context is named rather than explained away in prose alone.
Evidence Commentary
The specific commentary on every blank cell: what's recalled, what was searched for, and why it still cannot be confirmed.
Development Statement
Forward-looking goals drafted from the log's own pattern of activity rather than a list of intentions written the week it is due.
How to use it
- 1
Open it in River, or download it
Open the pack in River and let the agent build the register and the trend, or download the six blank Word and CSV files with no account.
- 2
Send your criteria and your two dates
Your institution's own promotion categories, your hire date, and the date a tenure or promotion decision is due.
- 3
Send your evaluation data and your CV
Scores by term if you have them, plus whatever CV or activity list exists, even with no dates attached yet.
- 4
Get the register, the trend and the log
Every year against every criterion, every term against its own context, and a log that starts today rather than five years from now.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. Download all six files as Word documents and CSV sheets with no signup and no card. Edit with AI is the optional path, where the agent builds your register and trend from your own criteria and evaluation data. The rest of the packs sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Word documents (.docx) for the narrative, the commentary and the development statement, and CSV (.csv) for the three sheets, zipped together. They open in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets. In River the same content opens as live Docs and Sheets.
What if my institution uses different criteria than teaching, scholarship and service?
Use your own. The worked example uses the common three because they are public and easy to follow, but the register takes whatever categories and wording your handbook uses, in whatever number your institution defines. The join between years and criteria works the same regardless of what the criteria are called.
How is a first-time-prep dip different from a real decline?
A first-time dip carries a specific, checkable cause: the course had never been taught before, and the score recovers within a term or two once it has been. A real decline has no such flag attached, keeps recurring on a course taught many times, and the register reports the two differently rather than explaining every low score the same way.
Does this decide whether I get tenure?
No. It reports what the evaluation data and the record show, with the context that decides how to read a low term and the years that are missing a dated item. The committee's judgment about whether that record meets the institution's standard stays exactly where it already sits, with the committee.
What if I genuinely cannot find a record for a blank year?
Report it as a gap and say what was recalled, rather than leaving the cell blank or writing in the recollection as though it were on file. A committee reading a named, dated gap with an honest note reads that very differently from a committee that finds one later on its own.
How does this relate to a self-study or programme review?
Both of those run a version of the same date-aware join at the institution level rather than the individual one. The accreditation self-study checks whether an exhibit's date covers the review period, and the programme review scores what changed since the last cycle. All three read easier once the underlying record is dated rather than recalled.
Find out which years of your dossier still need reconstructing
Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open it in River and have the register and trend built from your own criteria and evaluation data.
Edit with AI