NTT Performance Review Criteria | Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies Handbook | Kent State University

NTT Performance Review Criteria

NTT faculty are reviewed by the School’s RTP Ad Hoc Committee on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and as described below, including consideration of the track (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research) to which the NTT faculty member is assigned.   An inherent part of the review process is to provide feedback to the NTT faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria.  Renewals of appointment and salaries for NTT faculty should be tied to performance within the parameters established in the applicable CBA.    As with tenured and tenure track faculty, whether for a Full OR “simplified” review, student assessment of teaching, documented through SSI summaries, along with summaries of student’s comments about each course are used to evaluate the performance of NTT faculty.  Peer review of teaching is expect yearly for those undergoing a Full Review; for those under a “simplified” review, a single peer review in the most current teaching year is deemed sufficient.  For NTT faculty in an Instructional track, these are the most critical data in the reappointment process.  However, other documented accomplishments related to workload expectations, including coordination of field experiences, supervision of students in the field, design and/or implementation of new initiatives, student mentoring, among other things, may also be used to assess performance, as necessary.  NTT faculty are encouraged to speak with the Director for guidance in identifying one Faculty member each year to visit a class and evaluate his/her teaching. This written report is submitted to the Director for placement in the faculty member's review file.

For a successful performance review of NTT faculty members hired for teaching, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee will look for the following criteria:

  • High quality teaching as evidenced by positive peer review(s).
  • High quality teaching as evidenced by overall teaching scores of “Very good” or “Excellent” for Question 19 (or its current equivalent) of the SSI
  • Generally positive student evaluations of instruction, documented by summaries of student comments
  • Evidence of reflective teaching and intentional revision of areas requiring improvement included within contextual statement.
  • For a Full review, teaching materials such as syllabi that include disciplinary knowledge representing contemporary theoretical perspectives and relevant research.
  • Any other available data to assess the quality of instruction.
  • Should NTT faculty members be hired with a clinical or research emphasis, evaluation criteria will be developed to align with their roles and responsibilities.

Each NTT faculty member is discussed by the committee which votes on a recommendation for renewal of the faculty member’s appointment.  The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each NTT faculty member and makes available to the Dean her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation.  The Director informs the NTT faculty member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee's deliberations and ensures that the faculty member has access to the recommendation that the Director sends to the Dean.  NTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.