Faculty Excellence Awards Criteria | Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies Handbook | Kent State University

Faculty Excellence Awards Criteria

Faculty Excellence Awards are established pursuant to the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Procedures and timelines for determining Faculty Excellence Awards for any given year shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines issued by the Office of the Provost.

During years that the University allocates funds for Faculty Excellence Awards [FEA] (or “merit pay” pools), Faculty members shall receive notice from the School Director of the requirements for the documentation of requests for FEAs and the due date for the submission of this documentation if they are eligible to apply for these awards. This notification should take place within several weeks from the time that the Provost informs the School Director of the availability of these awards.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement outlines the procedures for Faculty Excellence awards. Generally the FAC is the representative body charged with recommending to the Director the criteria and procedures for FEA evaluations. These evaluations are based on criteria similar to those used for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.  All tenured and tenure-track faculty are eligible to submit documentation; successful applicants will be those whose work is considered to be “beyond” the expectations of their responsibilities within the parameters of their Faculty position.

Faculty who wish to be reviewed for one or more awards are responsible for submitting materials to the School Director by the established due date and time. Submissions failing to meet the established deadline will not be considered for review. Documentation for each of the categories for Faculty Excellence will be rated as Not Meritorious, Meritorious, or Outstanding Meritorious, using the current FEA guidelines. Faculty should also update their curriculum vitae on the Faculty Information System to be considered for FEA awards at the Dean and Provost level.

Please note: The CBA provides the foundation of our decisions so that the information provided here is subject to change because of potential modifications in the CBA and FAC’s annual review of this process.

  1. Scholarship

    Scholarly work that is accepted or in press can be included in the evaluation of a faculty member’s scholarship. In press requires acceptance of the publication from the editor and when possible, recognition of a proposed timeline for publication. Work that is in progress, being revised, or submitted and under review are not to be included as it will not be considered. In order to judge the creative activity from one merit period to the next, faculty are to create a table (see Table 1) to demonstrate specific accomplishments during this merit period. Previous merit submissions will be used during each review process to assist with the assessment of current accomplishments.

    For Scholarship and Research, the extent, quality, and impact of one’s work (e.g., scholarly publications and presentations) are considered. If desired, but within one single-spaced page, information highlighting the significance of one’s scholarly endeavors may be included.

    Table 1:  Summary Table for Scholarship

     

    Caution:  Do not include any articles/chapters/books/editorial work/other publications listed as “in press” last year.

     

    Scholarship

     

    Current Merit period

    Date:

    In press articles/chapters/

    books/editorial work, other publications

     

    Articles

     

    Chapters

     

    Books

     

    Editorial work

     

    Other publications

     

    Invited presentations

     

    Presentations – International* (must occur outside of North America to be considered international)

     

    Presentations  -- National

     

    Presentations – Regional

     

    Presentations – State or local

     

    Other Scholarship, such as grants

     

     

    Note: If any publications or presentations are co-authored, percentages of responsibility should be included; acceptance rates and/or journal impact factors of publications, if known, should also be included.

     

     

     

  2. Teaching

    To document teaching, a summary chart (see Table 2), as is requested of untenured Faculty and Faculty who apply for promotion to Professor, is to be submitted.  Further, evaluation of teaching performance which includes all student comments from each SSI— typed summaries of each question by each course, placed after each two-page SSI summary, are also to be submitted; individual SSIs are not to be included.

    If desired, but within one single-spaced page, information from other sources of evaluation of teaching, such as mentoring graduate students and comments about efforts at improvement, innovation, and class preparation may supplement the chart and typed summaries.

    Table 2: Summary Table for Teaching

     

    A summary chart of teaching scores which includes every course taught, grouped by semester, should be created; sections of the same class are not to be combined. Summary Question 19, “Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?” (or its current equivalent) is to be used, including both numbers of students and the percentage within each category, as well as both the individual mean and college mean* (not included here because this is a fabricated example and so there is no way to know that this might be). For example:

    Name of course

    Excellent

    Very Good

    Good

    Fair

    Poor

    Omitted

    Section Mean

    Norms

    Mean

    Spring 2016

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

      Course 1

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    x.xx

    x.xx

      Course 2

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    x.xx

    x.xx

    Fall 2015

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

      Course 1

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    x.xx

    x.xx

      Course 2, etc …..

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    x.xx

    x.xx

    TOTAL  N=

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    xx /xx %

    NA

    NA

  3. Service

    To document service, a summary chart (see Table 3), is to be submitted, divided into the categories listed below in the Table:  School of TLC, College of EHHS, University, Professional, and Community. 

    As with documentation of teaching, additional information about the extent, quality and significance of service activities may also be included within a one-page, single-spaced commentary.

    Table 3:  Summary Table for Service

     

    Service

     

    Current Merit period

    Program area

     

    School of TLC

     

    College of EHHS

     

    University

     

    Professional

     

    Community

     

    Other (optional)

     

     

  4. Faculty Excellence Awards Rubric for the School of TLC

    FAC members will review all applicants in all submitted categories, using the following grid to guide their decisions.

     

    Research   (35%)

     

    Teaching    (35%)                  

    Service   (30%)

     

     

    Not meritorious/

    At expectations

    • About two refereed publications a year in a national/ international journal
    • About two refereed presentations a year, at least one   

           national

    • If applicable, some grant activity
    •  
    • SSI scores are about average for the School
    • Student comments are largely positive
    • SSI scores for all courses taught during the award period are included

     

    • Some participation in Program area and on School/College and University committees
    • Membership in state/national professional organizations

     

     

     

    Meritorious /

    Beyond expectation

    • About two refereed publications a year in national/ international journals
    • About three refereed presentations a year, at least one 

           national one

    • A book chapter or other professional writing
    • A grant award

     

    •  
    • SSI scores are consistently above average for the School
    • Student comments are powerfully positive
    • SSI scores for all courses taught during the award period are included

     

    • Active participation in Program area and on School/College and University committees
    • Some participation in state/national professional committees

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Outstanding meritorious /

    Far exceeds expectation

    • About three refereed publications a year in national/

    international journals

    • About four refereed presentations a year, at least two national  

          ones, and probably    

          an international one

    • Probably a book and several book chapters OR
    • Probably a book chapter and substantial grant activity

     

    •  
    • SSI scores are nearly perfect across all courses
    • Student comments are overwhelmingly positive
    • Scores for all courses taught during the award period are included
    • Professional committees

     

    • Leadership in Program area and School/College and University committees
    • Leadership on state/national professional committees

     

     

    Mitigating Factors

    • Extensive professional writing which is not refereed but is published, for example, grant reports which include research data
    • Officer in state/national organizations
    • KSU’s Distinguished Researcher Award or other state or national research award
    •  
    • A wide variety of courses is taught
    • New courses are developed
    • KSU’s Distinguished Teaching Award or other state or national teaching award

     

    • Extensive advising
    • KSU’s Kuhn Advising Award or other state or national advising award
    • International work

    Each member of FAC will evaluate each faculty according to the three levels of achievement on our rubric:  at expectations, beyond expectations, or far beyond expectations.  Members of FAC will not vote on their own applications and their requests will be pro-rated by remaining members.

  5. Faculty Excellence Award Process

    The Director considers the recommendations made by the FAC when making his or her preliminary determinations. If the Director makes a determination for the awarding of an FEA that differs significantly from the FAC’s recommendations, the Director will discuss the differences with the FAC members.

    Faculty members have the right to request reconsideration of the preliminary determination made by the Director. Such requests will be considered by the FAC, who will, on the merits of the request, make a recommendation to the Director. Final determinations will then be made by the Director and transmitted to the Dean of the College. Individual final recommendations will be distributed to the individual faculty member concerned.