Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Full-Time TT Faculty | English Faculty Handbook` | Kent State University

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Full-Time TT Faculty

  1. Evaluation of Scholarship and Creative Activity for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

    The award of academic tenure requires that candidates shall have made substantial impact upon their chosen subfield within the discipline and that they have achieved success in teaching, as demonstrated by means of the evidences detailed below and by external evaluations.  While faculty interests may develop in new and appropriate directions, the Department expects that faculty will make significant contributions as scholars or creative artists and as teachers that are relevant to the initial appointment.

    For tenure the faculty member must meet the criteria for an Excellent rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a “Good” rating in the other category. University service must at least meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3.  These same categories and assessment tools apply for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor.

    Table 1.A. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

    Evaluation

    Definition

    Evidence

    Excellent

    Nationally/Internationally recognized scholarship/creative activity

    One refereed book or 6 refereed articles/chapters1and at least one of the following: funded grant or additional refereed publications, editorship of a journal, book series, or collection; 3 review articles, book reviews, national/international conference papers, or invited presentations. 

     Good

    Emerging nationally recognized research/creative program

    Refereed book or 6 refereed articles/chapters.

     Marginal

    Active research program

    Some refereed articles/chapters and conference papers.

    Inadequate

    Limited research program

    Works-in-progress and submissions to refereed articles/chapters.

    Poor

    No research program

    No submissions.

    Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” in Table 1 A.

    1 Candidates for tenure on the Kent Campus are expected to have developed a sustained and focused research or creative program in their chosen subfield(s), typically evidenced by publication of a scholarly or creative book authored by the candidate or a minimum of six substantial peer-reviewed pieces in scholarly or creative venues appearing in standard bibliographies, where available, in the subfield(s). Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as measured by the standing of the press or journal, as well as quantity.  Only work that has been published or formally accepted for publication can be considered for tenure and promotion.  A book contract or conditional acceptance of a manuscript will not be considered as evidence of scholarly achievement in tenure and promotion reviews.  Critical editions with introductory material, notes, and textual apparatus will be considered the equivalent of a single-authored critical work; other editorial work, such as editing a learned journal, special issues of learned journals, or collections of essays, will be weighted according to the scholarly contributions of the editor.  Multiple-authored works will be weighted according to the scholarly contribution of the candidate.

    2“Grants” refer to extramural funding, where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated, to support activities related to research (e.g., NEH, ACLS) or teaching (e.g., Fulbrights, FIPSE Grants). 

    Table 1.B. Regional Campuses: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

    Evaluation 

    Definition

    Evidence

    Excellent

    Sustained and focused research/creative program

    Three refereed articles/chapters1 and at least one of the following: funded grant 2 or additional refereed publications or editorship of a journal, book series, or collection; 3 review articles, book reviews, conference papers, invited presentations. 

     Good

    Active research/creative program

    Three refereed articles/chapters.  

     Marginal

    Limited research program

    A publication and submissions of articles/chapters.

    Inadequate

    Emerging research program

    Submissions

    Poor

    No research program

    No submissions.

    Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” in Table 1 B.

    1Candidates for tenure on Regional Campuses are expected to maintain scholarly or creative activity in their chosen subfield(s) in the discipline, typically evidenced by a minimum of three substantial peer-reviewed publications in scholarly or creative venues appearing in standard bibliographies, where available, in the subfield(s).  Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as measured by the standing of the press or journal, as well as quantity.  Only work that has been published or formally accepted for publication can be considered for tenure and promotion.  A book contract or conditional acceptance of a manuscript will not be considered as evidence of scholarly achievement in tenure and promotion reviews.  Critical editions with introductory material, notes, and textual apparatus will be considered the equivalent of a single-authored critical work; other editorial work, such as editing a learned journal, special issues of learned journals, or collections of essays, will be weighted according to the scholarly contributions of the editor.  Multiple-authored works will be weighted according to the scholarly contribution of the candidate.

    2“Grants” refer to extramural funding, where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated, to support research activities or teaching (e.g., Fulbright awards). 

     

     

     

  2. Evaluation of Teaching

    Every candidate for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor on both Kent and Regional Campuses is expected to demonstrate success in teaching.  Successful  teaching in the graduate programs normally is also a prerequisite, when such instruction is relevant to the appointment.

    Evidence of successful teaching may be presented in the following forms (those marked with an asterisk are mandatory):

    • Representative syllabi, examinations, handouts, and other teaching materials*
    • Peer reviews over the course of the probationary period* [See department policy statement on peer evaluation of teaching in Section 2 G.1]
    • Student evaluations (including the University SSI summary sheets and student comments) which typically meet or exceed the norms for the courses*
    • Informal evaluations of teaching
    • Service on graduate examination, thesis, and dissertation committees
    • Documentation of student success (such as prizes won, publications, career placements, etc.)
    • Curriculum development and revision
    • Use of digital technology
    • Invited lectures and readings
    • Awards and prizes
    • Evidence of integration of current scholarship or creative work in the field in classroom instruction
    • Evidence of participation in other teaching development activities (such as teaching circles and teaching pairs, or by engaging in peer reviews of colleagues)

    The three mandatory sources for documenting success for personnel decisions—numerical data from SSIs, discursive comments from SSIs, and peer evaluation of teaching—will be used together to make a determination that a candidate has demonstrated success in teaching. While individual components of numerical data like the relationship of individual student response to departmental means and standard deviations could be used to indicate patterns and trends of a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, no single source of data will be used in making decisions about a candidate’s teaching success. Instead, all three data sources will be considered in determining teacher success for personnel decisions.

    Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 2.  Course development is defined as creating a new course, adding distance learning options, adapting course to new learning environments or technologies, etc.

    Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

    Evaluation 

    Definition

    Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional

    development

    Development of courses, research opportunities for students (undergraduate and/or graduate); consistent pattern of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations; instructional creativity; leading curricular initiatives; teaching awards

    Good

    Successful teacher

    Consistent pattern of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations; model teaching materials; participation in departmental curricular reviews or initiatives

    Marginal

    Inconsistent teacher

    Inconsistent pattern of effectiveness evidenced in student and peer evaluations; adequate teaching materials

    Inadequate

    Substandard teacher

    Consistent pattern of lack of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations; substandard teaching materials

    Poor

    Ineffective teacher

    Consistent pattern of lack of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations, substandard teaching materials; pattern of complaints

     

     

  3. Evaluation of University Service

    Faculty under review for tenure shall have a record of substantial University service, particularly in the Department (and, when appropriate, the Regional Campus).  University service comprises activities not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge but which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, and governance goals and missions of the University, College, campus, unit, or community.  Service may be demonstrated in a variety of ways, such as serving on and chairing committees, advising students, serving on advisory boards, and engaging in service-related grant activities.  Service will be evaluated not only in terms of quantity but of quality.

    Table 3. Assessment of University Service for Promotion and Tenure
     

    Service Assessment

    Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Exceeds obligations

    Significant role in Department, Campus College and/ or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively  chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach

    Meets obligations

    Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations of service on Departmental, Campus, and University Committees

    Does not meet obligations

    Fails to fulfill committee and other formal service obligations