FTNTT Performance Review Criteria | Department of Geography Handbook | Kent State University

FTNTT Performance Review Criteria

FTNTT faculty members are reviewed by the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and as described below, including consideration of the track  (Instructional  or  Research)  to  which  the  FTNTT  faculty  member  is assigned.     An inherent part of the review process is to provide feedback to the FTNTT faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria.  Renewals of appointment and salaries for FTNTT faculty should be tied to performance within the parameters established in the applicable CBA.

The RTP Committee will consider the following criteria in the performance reviews of Instructional track FTNTT faculty members:

  • Teaching and Professional Development
  • Citizenship 

The RTP Committee will consider the following criteria in performance reviews of Research track FTNTT faculty members:

  • Scholarship

FTNTT faculty must meet the expectations appropriate to their track, to be eligible for renewal of their appointment.

  1. Standards for Evaluating Teaching and Professional Development

    Evaluation of teaching is conducted in two categories: Classroom Instruction and Professional Development. In order to meet expectations for tenure and promotion in this category, the faculty member must demonstrate the following:

    Classroom Instruction: Evidence of high quality teaching. Examples include, but are not limited to, peer reviews, contributions to curricular development, innovative instructional practices and course offerings, professional development, scholarship of teaching and learning, examples of assessments and feedback to students, student surveys of instruction (SSI), and evidence of self-reflection and responsiveness to constructive criticism.  Curricular development may include the development of new courses as well as revision of existing courses, which includes any substantial modification to a course such as developing new laboratory exercises, addition of distance learning options, and formal changes of course content/format.

    Professional Development: A record of participation in purposeful, structured, and/or collaborative activities which result in the acquisition, enhancement, or refinement of skills and knowledge. Examples include, but are not limited to: evidence of impacts of development activities and outcomes in areas such as student learning and engagement, course design and/or materials, research methods and/or process, pedagogical practice/strategy, improvement in student achievement, evidence of new skills applied to practice, or professional collaborations.

    Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, consistent evidence of poor teaching performance and/or lack of professional development activities or lack of evidence of the impacts of such activities.

    Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, assessments, feedback to students, and other relevant teaching materials should also be included. Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post‐doctoral student mentorship should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students.

    Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of Student Supervision are neither required nor expected, except as to the extent such accomplishments and/or contributions are appropriate to the FTNTT faculty member’s track and/or workload assignments, but will, when they exist, contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishments.

    Research that results in publication is also not a requirement for promotion in the Instructional track, however, research and/or publications can be submitted by FTNTT faculty members as an indication of professional development and/or contributions/service to the University or the discipline/profession.

  2. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

    A faculty member's contributions as a citizen include service to the Department, the College, the University, and the Discipline. In order to meet expectations for reappointment, the FTNTT faculty member should demonstrate consistent, responsible service as outlined below.  

    Evidence of consistent responsible service to the Department, College, and/or University, where opportunities exist and to the extent such accomplishments and/or contributions are appropriate to the FTNTT faculty member’s track and/or workload assignments.  Examples include, but are not limited to, actively serving in committee positions, undertaking specific administrative assignments, and performing meaningful public outreach.

    Service to the profession and discipline is also valued.  These activities may include, but are not limited to, elected positions in specialty groups and on boards, and serving as reviewer for journals and/or books.

    Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in this category include, but are not limited to, consistent lack of service or evidence of low quality service to the Department, College, and/or University.

    The merits of Departmental service should be evaluated as to (1) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served and (2) the availability of such opportunities for the FTNTT faculty member.  Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings and seminars, etc.

    Being an active and useful citizen of the Department is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's instructional responsibilities.

  3. Standards for Evaluating Scholarship

    NTT faculty in the research track are evaluated primarily on their scholarship, which consists of the several categories listed below.

    Publications: Evidence of a research agenda resulting in a clear record of publications in quality venues. Publications include:

    • Peer-reviewed journal articles. The quality of journals will be assessed through several means, including Journal Impact Factors as well as stature and readership within the discipline as well as the specific field.
    • Books and book chapters in reputable presses.
    • Other forms of publications may also serve as evidence of a quality publication record, if relevant to the candidate’s research.

    Grants: All candidates are expected to seek extramural funding as relevant to support her/his research; candidates, moreover, should frequently serve in PI or Co-PI positions on these awards. Funding expectations will be based on the conditions specified in the candidate’s original letter of offer.

    Professional Activity: Evidence of participation in advancing and disseminating results of the research through demonstrating professional visibility. Examples include, but are not limited to, presenting at meetings, serving on professional committees, research-related service to federal/state agencies or non-profits.

    Reputation: Evidence of impact/ recognition in this discipline. Examples include, but are not limited to, editorship or guest editorship of journals, invitations to review manuscripts and grant proposals, invitations to speak at meetings, citations, awards or other meritorious recognition from scientific societies.

    Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, sporadic publications, especially in low-quality journals, lack of acquiring adequate external funds to support her/his research, minimal engagement in the profession, or weak external letters.