Associate Professor 2

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

Teaching

• The staff member has a substantiated vision of good teaching and assessment, is familiar with current developments in didactics within their own discipline and applies a broad repertoire of proven modes of teaching and assessment.

• The staff member has a clear vision of the relationship between the learning objectives of the courses for which they are responsible and the learning outcomes of the degree programme and communicates about this to students and colleagues.
• The staff member prepares and teaches the courses of the relevant degree programme assigned to them in an excellent manner, ensuring that the learning outcomes in terms of student knowledge, understanding, competences and skills are achieved.
• The staff member uses state-of-the-art and varied learning materials which explicitly place the discipline in its academic and social context.
• The staff member proactively monitors the students’ learning experience and responds professionally and in a timely manner to concerns about the structure, context and implementation of teaching, at the course and the degree programme level.

• The staff member spends on average 60% of their working hours on teaching (including teaching development), to be calculated according to FSE standards.

Education development

• The staff member develops didactically effective teaching that is innovative in terms of content.
• The staff member studies the (potential) effects of improvements to the curriculum and assessments and makes substantiated choices regarding their design or redesign, either individually or as part of a team.
• The staff member makes a significant contribution to cross-curricular activities at the degree programme level.
• The staff member has led a successful teaching innovation project (e.g. in the context of STQ). 
• The staff member actively shares materials or teaching methods that can be used in the teaching of colleagues in the degree programme or Faculty, for example through presentations at staff lunches.
• In the period following their appointment as Assistant Professor, the staff member has made demonstrable efforts to obtain external (non-FSE) funding for education innovation. In case there was no relevant funding available that suited the needs of the FSE degree programmes, the staff member has a clear strategy on what funding to pursue in the future.

Curriculum organization

• The staff member contributes to the quality of the implementation and assessment of teaching at the degree programme level.
• The staff member actively exchanges experiences and ideas with colleagues and the wider teaching staff community, including through participation in Faculty committees and/or projects.

The staff member writes a statement on their education approach (max 750 words) to demonstrate that they satisfy the main and the specific criteria. In this self-assessment, the staff member describes their education vision and what they have done to realize this. Topics to address include: 

• how the staff member’s approach supports effective student learning and engagement
• how they use evidence-informed teaching forms
• how feedback from students and colleagues influenced the staff member’s approach
• how the students educational and learning experience is monitored
• why and how course improvements were made to course content, objectives and/or teaching materials 
• the staff member’s activities in the area of education development on the course and the programme level, including the teaching innovation project that they have successfully undertaken.
• how they have contributed to the wider organization (e.g. via committees) and the development of colleagues (e.g. mentoring, peer-coaching activities). 

The statement should be supported with details of the courses taught (teaching methods, assessment methods, student numbers, pass rates, etc.). The staff member may use formal student evaluation surveys as well as informal and unsolicited feedback from students or colleagues to substantiate their arguments. A record from Timeless may be used to demonstrate the working hours spent on teaching. Additionally, the staff member could add examples from their course content, objectives and materials. The staff member should provide a brief overview of grants for teaching and learning development projects that have been requested including those that were not awarded. 

Note that the examples of evidence listed above is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive; it offers guidance on the types of evidence that could be used to demonstrate achievement but the evidence selected will depend on each individual case.

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

Conducting research

• The staff member has developed their own line of research or contributes substantially to the group’s research.
• The staff member’s research contributes to the profile of the research institute and to finding solutions to relevant questions in the research field 

PhD students

• In the previous five years, the staff member has made a substantial and regular contribution to the supervision of at least one PhD student.
• The staff member has made or contributed to attempts to acquire additional PhD students for their research group.

Fundraising

• The staff member was (co-)applicant on one or more grant applications. 

Academic publications and evidence of recognition

• The staff member has produced on average one or more publications per year in journals/proceedings that are leading in their field (including on education innovation). The significant contribution of the staff member can be demonstrated.

Conducting research

The staff member writes a statement (max 500 words) to demonstrate that they satisfy the main criterion and the specific criteria under this heading. The statement should concentrate on the staff member’s research vision and steps they have taken and will take to realize their plans.

PhD students

The staff member gives an overview of the PhD students they have (helped) to recruit and co-supervise. The staff member briefly elaborates on the status of each of the projects, including stage of completion and examples for successes of projects (e.g. evidence of recognition such as conferences, poster presentations, publications, outreach activities, thesis defenses). In case of shared supervision (e.g. in the context of double-doctorates, interdisciplinary collaboration etc.), the amount of supervision is weighed by the percentage contribution of the supervisor. This must be included in the staff member’s promotion file, accompanied by a brief statement on the individual roles of the involved supervisors.

Fundraising

The staff member describes which funds have been (successfully) applied for. Any funding received jointly as part of a consortium must include a clear overview of the candidate's own role in the acquisition of this funding as well as which part of the total funding the candidate received through the application for their own research (only this part of the application must be included when calculating the total amount of research grants received by the candidate). 

Academic publications and evidence of recognition

The staff member provides an overview of publications and evidence of recognition of themselves and their group (invited talks, prizes and awards, membership of consortia, etc). In case of collaborations, the staff member briefly elaborates on their role in the resulting scientific work. The significant contribution of the staff member can be demonstrated. The quantitative criterion for publications can be overruled when the evidence of recognition demonstrates that the staff member has outstanding impact in their field. 

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criterion:

• The staff member shows to have or have had a number “productive interactions”, i.e. exchanges with stakeholders outside of their own scientific field resulting in actual or potential collaboration in research or education.

The staff member provides narrative evidence of their “productive interactions” with societal stakeholders. Examples are:

• lecturing or publishing about the research to a broad audience;
• collaboration with companies, governments, NGOs or other stakeholders to make the insights gained applicable in those organizations, e.g. preparing and/or writing a joint grant application;
• writing and filing a patent (partially) paid for by a societal partner.

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

Contribution to the organization

• The staff member contributes to an open, safe and inclusive working and learning environment.
• The staff member spends at least 10% of their working time on academic community service (i.e. organizational roles within the university that transcend their own research and teaching interests).

Leadership and collaboration

• The staff member coaches colleagues and promotes their development, particularly with respect to education. 
• The staff member conducts annual Results and Development (R&D) interviews with staff members they supervise.
• The staff member has insight in their preferred leadership style and can effectively employ it to motivate others.
• The staff member operates successfully when different interests and perspectives are at play and can effectively deal with resistance.
• The staff member contributes to national and/or international communities.

The staff member describes how their behavior shows that they satisfy the main criterion and each of the specific criteria. In particular:

Contribution to the organization

The staff member gives an overview of activities that fall under academic community service, such as roles in working groups, committees, boards, at events of the degree programmes or the research institutes, etcetera. 

Leadership and collaboration

• The staff member briefly reflects in writing on their preferred leadership style, explaining why you prefer it and how it helps you to motivate others.
• The staff member describes to which national or international communities they are contributing, such as the organization of conferences, memberships of panels, initiating consortia, roles in scientific organisation (e.g. NWO, ERC), etcetera.

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

• The staff member has participated in education professionalization activities such as workshops and courses, and has obtained the Senior Teaching Qualification (STQ/SKO)
• The staff member has completed relevant leadership and management courses, including Supervision excellence at the University of Groningen and Academic Leadership 1.
• The staff member has made demonstrable efforts to attain sufficient command of the Dutch language to be able to understand it well.

The staff member describes to what extent they have executed their personal development plan. They give an overview of the professionalization activities that they have undertaken. Satisfaction of the Dutch language criteria should be demonstrated by means of a certificate (not needed if you can show the committee that you can converse well in Dutch).

The following competences receive special attention at this career stage:   

• Inspirational leadership: The staff member is able to stimulate and support colleagues to develop themselves and obtain good results, providing autonomy as well as clear expectations. 
• Strategic vision: The staff member has a well-articulated long-term vision, can translate this vision into concrete objectives, and is able to realize these objectives by guiding and steering others.
• Empathy: The staff member is accessible, available and attentive to their team members. The staff member stimulates an open atmosphere in which team members are encouraged to voice opinions and share concerns.The staff member ensures others feel recognised in their contributions. 

The staff member describes how their behavior shows that they have each of the competences, by providing examples.