Reappointment, tenure and promotion criteria and the criteria and processes relating to other faculty personnel actions | Kent State University

Reappointment, tenure and promotion criteria and the criteria and processes relating to other faculty personnel actions

  1. Reappointment of TT faculty

    The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy 6‐16). Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.

    For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate, sustained progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals. For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success. The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of his/her discipline. This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s materials in light of the tenure expectations described below.  The candidate should also separately have at least one, and preferably two, peer teaching evaluations, preferably by senior faculty in the department, each year.  These faculty will provide a written report of the evaluation to the Chair and the faculty member. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that he/she will not be reappointed.

    In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Department’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for his/her success in implementing this plan.

    From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need to request that his/her probationary period be extended. Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.” The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register (See, University Policy 6‐13).

    For faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Chair are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean. Department criteria are used to assess Department faculty who are assigned to the Regional Campuses; however, due to differences in the missions of the Kent and Regional Campuses and differences in the nature of faculty appointments on the Kent and Regional Campuses, the weighting of the categories of scholarship, teaching and University citizenship for Regional Campus faculty in the Department is established by the Regional Campus to which the faculty member is assigned. Thus, the Kent Campus Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Chair will provide recommendations for Regional Campus faculty based on separate Department criteria, outlined below.

  2. Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy 6‐14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy 6‐15). Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university faculty and the national and international status of the University. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on his/her discipline, excellence as a teacher, and is an effective departmental citizen. The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship, and citizenship relevant to the mission of the candidate’s academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University to examine consistency, evaluating all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to pursue a productive career.  

    In contrast to tenure, promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period in rank.  Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor. Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by papers published in refereed scientific literature, extramural grants received, students graduated, etc., based on the criteria outlined below.  Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and an established national and international prominence.

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the Department.

  3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty on the Kent Campus

    The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The text below is designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

    For tenure and promotion, the faculty member must meet expectations in Scholarship, Teaching, and Citizenship. Distinctions between levels of promotion are made in the sections below.  Please note that the established evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor are the same.

    1. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

      Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. In support of University requirements for external reference letters, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in his/her field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity. A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the number and size of grants received and in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications.

      In addition to funded research and scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including but not limited to serving on national grant review bodies, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These later activities complement scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency.

      Faculty are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarly activity is based are provided below. In cases where the candidate is one of multiple participants in a particular scholarly activity (e.g. multiple-authored paper, multiple-investigator grant), he/she is expected to designate his/her role as part of the overall assessment.

      Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds. All faculty members in the Department are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines.

      To meet expectations in the category of the scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, he/she should have established a research program which demonstrates an emerging impact upon his/her discipline.  For promotion to Professor, he/she must provide documentation of an established research program, with a level of achievement that demonstrates a recognized national and international prominence.  Promotion to Professor requires a sustained impact on the field above and beyond that expected for promotion to Associate Professor.

      Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about activities in each of the following four categories: Publications, Grants, Professional Activity, and Reputation. In turn, the members of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision. The totality of a candidate’s scholarship will be evaluated via the expectations in each of the categories listed below.  Examples for each category are provided for additional guidance.

      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 and the specific field, and also the appropriateness of the outlet to the faculty member’s research.
        • 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 his/her 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:

      • Positive and supportive external letters.
      • 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 scholarly/learned 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 his/her research, minimal engagement in the profession, or weak external letters.

    2. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

      Evaluation of teaching is conducted in two categories: Classroom Instruction and Mentorship.  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.

      Mentorship:

      • Evidence of active mentorship of graduate and/or undergraduate students. Examples include, but are not limited to, serving as advisor and committee member for graduate students, supporting and mentoring student research through publications and/or professional presentations, advising undergraduate honors theses or independent research, encouraging students to apply for their own external research funding and publish their own research.

      Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, consistent evidence of poor teaching performance, lack of professional development or response to constructive criticism, or consistent lack of mentorship and/or advising.

      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 relevant and constructive student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, assignments/assessments, 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.

    3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

      A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University, as well as the Community and his/her Discipline. In order to meet expectations for tenure and promotion, the faculty member should demonstrate consistent, responsible service as outlined below. 

      • Evidence of consistent responsible service to the Department, College, and/or University. 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.

      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 University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings, etc.

      Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities. Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.  In particular, for promotion to Professor, there should be a clear demonstration of leadership roles that seek to further the mission of the Department, University, or Profession.

      Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the Department.

  4. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty at the Regional Campuses

    The Regional Campuses of Kent State University focus their mission on teaching and student accessibility. Therefore, the expectations for Regional Campus faculty are focused more on pedagogical performance. An active research agenda, however, is still expected. Attention should also be given to the totality of the faculty record and a balance of teaching and research successes given the higher teaching load of regional campus faculty (typically 12 credit hours per semester). Faculty members must meet expectations in Teaching, Scholarship and Research, and University Citizenship for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor.  These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.  The Geography Department considers faculty to meet expectations if they satisfy their Regional Campus requirements.

    The text below is designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

    The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion.

    1. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

      Evaluation of teaching is conducted in two categories: Classroom Instruction and Mentorship.  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.

       Mentorship:

      • Evidence of active mentorship, with examples including, but not limited to supervising Individual Investigations, Program Directing, student advising, supporting student research, and student recruiting.

      Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, consistent evidence of poor teaching performance, lack of professional development or responsiveness to constructive criticism, or consistent lack of mentorship and/or advising.

      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 relevant and constructive student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, assignments/assessments, and other relevant teaching materials (such as examinations) should also be provided. Documentation related to student supervision should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

    2. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

      Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. To assist with the promotion process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in his/her field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity. A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the particular journals he/she publishes in and the time required for research and the resulting publications.

      In addition to scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including but not limited to presenting at professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These later activities complement scholarly publications and any funded research (as needed by the scholar). Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency.

      All faculty of the department are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarly activity is based are provided as lists at the end of this section. In cases where the candidate is one of multiple participants in a particular scholarly activity (e.g. multiple-authored paper, multiple-investigator grant), he/she is expected to designate his/her role as part of the overall assessment.

      Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work. All faculty members in the Department are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines.

      Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each regional campus faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about activities in each of the following four categories: Publications, Grants (if applicable but not required for Regional Campus Faculty Members), Professional Activity, and Reputation. In turn, the members of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision. The totality of a candidate’s scholarship will be evaluated via the expectations in each of the categories listed below.  Examples for each category are provided for additional guidance.

      Publications:

      • Evidence of a sustained and well-defined research agenda resulting in a clear record of publications; these include outlets such as journals of recognized quality and appropriate focus, as well as books and book chapters in reputable (e.g., university) presses. 

      Professional Activity:

      • Evidence of activity includes but is not limited to presenting at meetings including geography and sub-discipline specific meetings, writing book reviews, and participation in programs aimed at professional/pedagogical development and disseminating research results.

      Reputation:

      • Positive and supportive external letters that show evidence of an emerging national reputation.
      • Other examples may include 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.

      Grants

      • Regional Campus faculty members are generally not required to receive grants, unless otherwise specified (e.g., in their Letter of Offer).  If they do, that activity should be included in evaluations of research and scholarship.

      Alternatively, examples of insufficient activity in these categories include, but are not limited to, sporadic publications, especially in low-quality journals, minimal engagement in the profession, or weak external letters.

    3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

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

      • Evidence of consistent substantive service focused on the Campus and Department, with College, and/or University service as appropriate. 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.

      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 University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. 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, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's teaching responsibilities and research or other scholarly activity.

    4. Promotion to Full Professor on the Regional Campuses

      Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor for faculty with a regional campus appointment, acknowledging the greater focus on teaching performance and student accessibility of the regional campuses. Whereas promotion to Associate Professor should recognize an emerging national reputation among regional campus faculty, promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of achievement within the regional campus system and requires an established national reputation. The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on promotion. The text below is designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for promotion.

      A candidate for promotion to Professor must show evidence of high quality teaching, including in both classroom instruction and student supervision.  Examples include, but are not limited to, excellent student evaluations and peer reviews from senior department and campus colleagues, contributions to curricular development or revision, successful innovative instructional practices, self-reflection and professional development, student supervision and advising, and supporting student research.

      A candidate for promotion to Professor must show evidence of consistent and responsible service to the Campus, Department, University, and Discipline/Profession.  Examples include, but are not limited to, actively serving in committee positions, undertaking administrative assignments, performing meaningful public outreach, and elected positions in specialty groups and on boards.  Additionally, there should be a clear demonstration of leadership roles that seek to further the mission of the candidate’s Campus, Department, University, or Profession. 

      For promotion to Professor, the candidate must provide documentation of an established research program, with a level of achievement that demonstrates a recognized national reputation.  Promotion to Professor requires a sustained impact on the field above and beyond that expected for promotion to Associate Professor. In addition, for promotion to Professor there should be a clear demonstration of leadership roles that seek to further the mission of the candidate’s Campus, Department, University, or Profession.

      An established research program may be measured in multiple ways.  It should generate a clear record of publications in journals of both recognized quality and appropriate focus as well as books and book chapters in reputable (e.g., university) presses.   A candidate should show evidence of professional activity such as presenting at meetings, writing book reviews, and participation in programs aimed at professional/pedagogical development and disseminating research results.  An established national reputation will be measured through positive and supportive external letters.  It can also be measured through 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.  Regional campus faculty are not required to receive grants for promotion to Professor.  If they do, this activity should be included in the evaluation of the research agenda.

  5. Appointment and Renewal of Appointment of FTNTT faculty

    Appointments for full‐time non‐tenure track (FTNTT) faculty are governed by the applicable CBA and are made annually. FTNTT appointments are at the rank of Lecturer, Associate Lecturer, and Senior Lecturer, without a terminal degree, and at the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, with a terminal degree.  In addition, FTNTT faculty members may be appointed in either the Instructional or Research track.

    Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.  FTNTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 6‐14) and FTNTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure.

  6. Three-Year Reviews for FTNTT Faculty

    1. Performance and Full Performance Reviews

      The Full Performance Reviews of FTNTT faculty members who are in their third or sixth year of consecutive employment are governed by the applicable CBA.  Each academic year, guidelines for the Full Performance Reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of Faculty Affairs. The Full Performance Review concludes with the College or, if applicable, the division of the regional campuses' level of review and determination.  The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.  Each FTNTT faculty member who must complete a Full Performance Review will submit a dossier as described in the CBA. The performance criteria for reappointment of FTNTT Ffculty, as set forth by the Department of Geography, are outlined below.  For successful reappointment, the faculty member must meet expectations in Teaching, Professional Development, and University Citizenship. The file should contain at least an updated curriculum vita, self-evaluation of performance, and supporting documents.  Additional information about the dossier for a Full Performance Review is included in the CBA. 

      FTNTT faculty members who are in their ninth year of consecutive employment and any subsequent third year of consecutive employment thereafter (e.g., 12th, 15th, 18th) must successfully complete a performance review as described in the applicable CBA.  Each academic year, guidelines for the performance reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of Faculty Affairs.  The performance review concludes with the College, or, if applicable, the regional campuses’ level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to  evaluation  and  assessment  at  the  time  of  the  review.  FTNTT faculty who must complete a performance review will submit documentation as described in the CBA.

    2. 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.

    3. Promotion

      FTNTT faculty members who have completed five (5) consecutive years of employment as a FTNTT faculty member and one (1) successful Full Performance Review may apply for promotion to the rank of Associate Lecturer/Associate Professor, as applicable, at the time of their second Full Performance Review or with any scheduled performance review thereafter. FTNTT faculty members who have completed two (2) successful Full Performance Reviews may apply for promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer/Professor, as applicable, in the seventh year of consecutive employment as a FTNTT faculty member or any year thereafter. The criteria, guidelines and procedures for FTNTT promotions are included in the CBA.  As required by the CBA, evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development are required. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of University citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment.