Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Cirteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | College of Aeronautics and Engineering Handbook | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Cirteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

    The information in this sub-section is supplemental to the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register, and is specific to the CAE.

    1. Overview and General Information for Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty RTP

      1. The role of the College in matters of reappointment, the granting of indefinite tenure, and promotion in rank is defined by policies stated in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement (Addendum A: University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion (3342-6-15); Addendum B: University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure (3342-6-14); Addendum C: University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment (3342-6-16)), and in the Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty directive issued annually by the Provost’s Office.
      2. The Dean shall assign a tenured faculty member as a mentor to each probationary tenure-track candidate upon their initial appointment. The mentor shall be responsible for providing guidance and advice to the candidate regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion policies and processes. The mentor will also provide advice to the candidate to assist in his/her teaching and professional development, and in creating research and publication opportunities.
      3. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek out institutional resources (e.g., workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that are periodically made available by the University to obtain further information regarding faculty professional development, file organization and construction, and research and grant opportunities. 
      4. During a candidate's review period, expectations are defined by the version of the College Handbook that was in place at the beginning of that review period. Candidates may alternatively elect to use the currently approved version as their benchmark for evaluation. In any case, candidates should clearly specify in their file which College Handbook version they are adhering to, and perhaps include copies of relevant pages in their documentation.
      5. Evaluation of tenured/tenure-track faculty shall focus on the areas of teaching, scholarship/research, and service/citizenship. All tenured/tenure-track faculty of the college are expected to achieve excellence in scholarly activity for tenure and promotion advancement. 
      6. The decision to grant tenure plays a crucial role in determining the quality of the CAE faculty and in the perceived status of the College at both the national and international level. Tenure will be awarded only when there is convincing evidence that there is a body of scholarship, high quality teaching, and quality service that suggests continual success in these areas. Promotion is awarded only when there is convincing documented evidence that the candidate’s scholarship has had a significant impact on his or her discipline, high quality teaching and service consistent with faculty assignments. 
    2. Policies and Procedures for Reappointment of Tenure-Track Faculty

      1. General Policies and Procedures for Tenure Promotion

        1. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included, in Section 6-16 (University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment) of the University Policy Register, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
        2. Reappointment reviews are conducted annually in accordance with the reappointment and tenure document. Each academic year, reappointment guidelines are distributed by the Office of the Provost. 
        3. Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the College's ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean. (Refer to Section III.1 (Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty) of this Handbook.)  
        4. Reappointment File
          1. The candidate will develop the reappointment file over time as the basis for the tenure and initial promotion review file. Specific guidelines for the preparation of the file are found in the instructions issued each August by the office of the Provost. 
          2. A candidate for reappointment should consult with the Coordinator or Program Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the reappointment files. The Coordinator or Program Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean for certification of completeness.
          3. Late submission: Candidates who wish to submit their files after the deadline must request and obtain permission in writing from the Dean of the CAE.
        5. The RTP Committee is chaired by the CAE Dean. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment. The Reappointment committee votes on reappointment recommending: 1) reappointment (without reservations); 2) reappointment with reservations about progress toward tenure; or 3) against reappointment. 
        6. Probationary faculty members will be provided with a summary of the reappointment committee’s recommendation, copies of the RTP committee members’ signed evaluation forms (ballots), and the RTP committee's vote tally, as well as the recommendation of the Dean, according to the time schedule established in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions. 
        7. An informal third-year progress-check review will be conducted immediately following a probationary candidate's third-year review and an RTP reappointment recommendation for reappointment to a fourth year. The RTP committee will use the candidate's third-year tenure file to review the candidate's record to identify overall progress and trends, and will provide the candidate with a summary report identifying strengths, weaknesses, and any areas of concern. The report will also provide prescriptive comments and a course of action to the candidate to serve as constructive feedback. The three-year progress check review is an informal review, and the review report may be included as part of the candidate's tenure evaluation file for subsequent reviews only if it is added to the file by the candidate. The review information may not be used for any purpose other than that granted by the candidate. 
        8. From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need to request that her/his probationary period be extended. Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally referred to as “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in policy 6-13 and policy 6-15.2 of the University Policy Register. 
      2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Reappointment

        1. Reappointment of probationary faculty is contingent upon demonstration of satisfactory progress toward the requirements of tenure. The candidate must provide evidence of successful and improving teaching effectiveness, evidence of continued and consistent professional growth, and evidence of a sustained and improving record of scholarship, teaching, and service.  Moreover, the individual must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals. Progress is to be judged relative to the number of years of service of the candidate and will be based upon the specific criteria for earning tenure.
        2. In the event that concerns about the candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the ad hoc committee and its Chairperson shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. Specific concerns expressed by the ad hoc committee and/or Dean at this juncture of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reviews. 
        3. The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the individual’s 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 reappointment in the College.
        4. The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of evidence of significant progress in making an impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline, a strong record of teaching, and a record of service commensurate with assignments. The performance criteria used in assessing the quality of scholarship, teaching, and service in the review of faculty seeking reappointment shall conform to the tenure guidelines in this document provided in Section III.1.4.2; Section III.1.4.5.1.a; and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook.
    3. Policies and Procedures for Tenure and Promotion

      1. General Policies and Procedures for Tenure Promotion

        1. The policies and procedures for tenure are included in Section 6-14 (University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure) in the University Policy Register, and in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement.
        2. The policies and procedures for promotion are included in Section 6-15 (University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion) of the University Policy Register, and in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. 
        3. Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. 
        4. Probationary faculty being considered for tenure will create an updated tenure file that is uploaded to FlashFolio and made available to the involved reviewers. The Dean’s office will upload letters of outside reviewers and other required documents to FlashFolio for the candidate’s review. 
        5. A candidate for tenure or promotion should consult with the Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the files. The Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean, who will certify its completeness.
        6. The candidate will develop the tenure or promotion file over time as the basis for the tenure or promotion review file. Specific guidelines for the preparation of the file are found in the instructions issued each August by the Office of the Provost. 
        7. Late submission: Candidates who wish to submit their tenure or promotion file after the deadline must request and obtain permission in writing from the Dean of the CAE.
        8. Each faculty member being considered for tenure or promotion is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes in favor of, or against, tenure or promotion. The RTP committee members will forward their individual committee member ballots/evaluation forms to the Dean via FlashFolio. 
        9. Faculty members who are reviewed for tenure or promotion must be notified of the recommendation by the Dean according to the schedule established in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions.
        10. In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the tenure process, the ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. 
        11. From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need to request that her/his 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
        12. Tenure-Track faculty may apply for early tenure consideration in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register.
        13. Tenured/tenure-track faculty may self-nominate for promotion in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register.
        14. A candidate for tenure or promotion should consult with the Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the files. The Coordinator/Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean, who will certify its completeness.
        15. Each faculty member being considered for tenure or promotion is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes in favor of, or against, tenure or promotion. The RTP committee members will forward their individual committee member ballots/evaluation forms to the Dean via FlashFolio. 
        16. Faculty members who are reviewed for tenure or promotion must be notified of the recommendation by the Dean according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions.
    4. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

      1. General Benchmarks and Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

        1. There are many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, to be considered in recommending an individual for academic advancement. The criteria to be considered are related to the individual’s performance in the areas of Scholarship, Teaching, and University Citizenship. Because of the diverse nature of the disciplinary backgrounds of the CAE faculty, quantitative differences in the records of successful candidates are expected. It is recognized that the nature of scholarship differs among faculty based upon the norms, opportunities, and expectations of a particular discipline or program area. It is expected that faculty will produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and that the body of work that represents an individual’s scholarly activity will vary according to the faculty member’s role and academic area. 
        2.  A tenure or promotion candidate’s application/review materials must be complete, well-organized, and accurate. The candidate’s application materials must provide proof of any significant accomplishment. Each faculty member seeking tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting their assessment of their record. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans, and description in the supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship, teaching, and citizenship they deem appropriate. In turn, the members of the college’s ad hoc reappointment, tenure and promotion committee and the Dean have the responsibility to evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the college’s expectations for a successful decision. Hence, it is incumbent upon the members of the ad hoc reappointment, tenure and promotion committees, and the Dean, to make their evaluation of the candidate’s record clearly reflect college expectations.
        3. Whereas Tenure is based on projected career development, Promotion is a reward based on accomplishments completed during the review period, where the review period is considered to be the time elapsed since the last promotion. If there has been no previous promotion in the candidate's history, then the review period extends back to the candidate's initial appointment. Awarding of tenure has no effect on the commencement of the review period for promotion.
        4. 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 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 College.
        5. Promotion considerations are based upon the criteria for evaluation, described in the subsections below. The ad hoc Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion: 1) Scholarship; 2) Teaching; and 3) University Citizenship. 
        6. The Section III Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B, shown below, provide guidelines for the assessment of a tenured/tenure-track faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. The same categories and assessment tools apply for both tenure and promotion decisions. The Faculty Performance Standards/Criteria for Tenure and Promotion are shown in Table 3-1. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tables should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.
      2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Tenure

        1. 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 scholarly excellence through a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, has significant success as a teacher, and has provided effective service. The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching and scholarship relevant to the mission of the candidate’s academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. The tenure decision is based on evaluation all of the evidence available, including accomplishments prior to appointment at Kent State University, to determine the candidate’s potential for a long-term productive career. 
        2. Evidence of a sustained, productive, and improving record of disseminated scholarship; a sustained and improving record of teaching; and a record of professional public and professional service, are the principal criteria considered in arriving at a recommendation concerning tenure. For specific performance criteria and guidelines for tenure, refer to the indices of scholarship, teaching, and service provided in Section III.1.4.5, and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook.  All candidates for early tenure must significantly exceed the requirements specified for on-time tenure.
      3. Benchmarks and Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor

        1. Promotion to Associate Professor is a reward for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence. Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period and takes into account the candidate’s scholarly record, teaching, and citizenship/service.
        2. Evidence of a sustained, productive, and improving record of disseminated scholarship; a record of successful and/or improving teaching (for faculty with assigned instructional responsibilities); and demonstrated professional public and professional service, are the principal criteria considered in arriving at a recommendation concerning promotion to Associate Professor. For specific performance criteria and guidelines for promotion to Associate Professor, refer to the indices of scholarship, teaching, and service provided in Section III.1.4.5, and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook. All candidates for early promotion to Associate Professor must significantly exceed the requirements specified for on-time promotion.
      4. Benchmarks and Criteria for Promotion to Professor

        1. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and is a reward to an individual for bringing their career to national/international prominence. 
        2. Evidence of “Outstanding” scholarship accomplishments; a record of successful and/or improving teaching (for faculty with assigned instructional responsibilities); demonstrated professional public and professional service; and evidence of significant contributions to the candidate’s field of study are the principal criteria considered in arriving at a recommendation concerning promotion to Professor. Evidence for this prominence includes a record of sustained and substantial scholarship, along with prominence in and impact on their field of expertise. 
        3. For additional, specific performance criteria and guidelines for promotion to Professor, refer to the indices of scholarship, teaching, and service provided in Section III.1.4.5, and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook. Promotion to Professor requires five years teaching at the rank of Associate Professor, unless otherwise specified. All candidates for early promotion to Professor must significantly exceed the requirements specified for on-time promotion.
      5. Performance Assessment

        1. Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B (shown below) provide a rating scale along with assessment criteria and guidelines used for evaluation of a tenured/tenure-track faculty member’s performance in the areas of Scholarship, Teaching, and University Service. 
          1. Candidates for tenure must have a minimal rating of “Excellent” in Scholarship; a minimal rating of “Very Good” in Teaching; and a minimal rating of “Meets Obligations” in University Citizenship. A candidate applying for early tenure must significantly exceed the performance required for on-time tenure.
          2. Candidates for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor must have a minimal rating of “Excellent” in Scholarship; a minimal rating of “Very Good” in Teaching; and a minimal rating of “Meets Obligations” in University Citizenship. Letters from external reviewers must show substantial support for promotion, and ideally, would indicate that the candidate is recognized as an emerging national/international expert in his/her area of expertise. A candidate applying for early promotion to Associate Professor must significantly exceed the performance required for on-time promotion to Associate Professor.
            The following list exemplifies accomplishments that are highly considered for promotion to Associate Professor. 
            The candidate: 

            ⦁    Has demonstrated a history of exceptional publication quality within a substantial body of scholarship. 
            ⦁    Has obtained extensive and substantive grant awards for nationally competitive extramural research grants as a principal investigator. 
            ⦁    Is recognized as an international/national expert in his/her area of expertise.
            ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful academic programs. 
            ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful research areas/programs.
            ⦁    Has significantly enhanced existing academic programs and research programs.
            ⦁    Has advanced knowledge through original research. 
            ⦁    Has a record of sustained scholarship with a measurable impact on the field.
            ⦁    Has a history of continuous and/or extensive submission of proposals for research.
             
          3. Candidates for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor must have a rating of “Outstanding” in Scholarship; a minimal rating of “Very Good” in Teaching; and a rating of “Exceeds Obligations” in University Citizenship. Letters from external reviewers must show strong support for promotion, and ideally, would indicate that the candidate is recognized as an established national/international expert in his/her area of expertise. A candidate applying for early promotion to Professor must significantly exceed the performance required for on-time promotion to Professor.
            The following list exemplifies accomplishments that are highly considered for promotion to Professor. 
            The candidate: 

            ⦁    Has demonstrated a history of exceptional publication quality within a substantial body of scholarship. 
            ⦁    Has obtained extensive and substantive grant awards for nationally competitive extramural research grants as a principal investigator. 
            ⦁    Is recognized as an international/national expert in his/her area of expertise.
            ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful academic programs. 
            ⦁    Has developed and established new, successful research areas/programs.
            ⦁    Has significantly enhanced existing academic programs and research programs.
            ⦁    Has advanced knowledge through original research. 
            ⦁    Has a record of sustained scholarship with a measurable impact on the field.
            ⦁    Has a history of continuous and/or extensive submission of proposals for research.
             
        2. The activities provided on the various “Criteria for Evaluation” tables are not meant to be an exhaustive list or mandatory checklist. It is recognized that some individuals may have valid accomplishments that should be considered that are not listed in the tables. 
        3. Candidates for tenure and promotion should consult most closely with their initial letters of appointment, their letters of reappointment, the CAE Faculty Handbook, their Academic Program Director, and their senior faculty colleagues for guidance on specific requirements and expectations. 
        4. The performance expectations for tenure and promotion do not apply identically across all faculty members in the College. Some faculty have appointments in which the scholarly expectations involve primarily traditional academic publications, while others will receive appointments in which the scholarly expectations involve primarily professional and/or applied accomplishment. Also, grant-writing expectations will vary depending on the availability of extramural funding in the faculty members’ areas of specialization. 
        5. For all candidates for tenure and promotion, the College considers three broad categories of work: scholarship, teaching and service, but definitions, particularly of scholarship, will vary some from discipline to discipline. Initial letters of appointment and letters of reappointment always take precedence over the College Handbook for purposes of tenure and promotion decisions.
        6. The ad hoc review committee and the Dean may provide a positive recommendation for advancement in those cases where a candidate displays an exceptionally high level of accomplishment in some matters that outweighs lesser accomplishments in other areas. 
           

          Table 3-1. Faculty Performance Standards/Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

          Category

          Minimum Required Performance

          Scholarship

          Teaching

          University Citizenship

          Tenure

          Excellent

          Very Good

          Meets Obligations

          Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor

          Excellent

          Very Good

          Meets Obligations

          Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

          Outstanding

          Very Good

          Exceeds Obligations

      6. Scholarship

        1. Scholarship includes the process of creating and disseminating new research-based knowledge within the candidate’s field or a closely related field. Scholarship also includes the creation and dissemination of new and multi-disciplinary knowledge that extends beyond the traditional boundaries of their discipline. It also involves the rethinking of current knowledge in order to present new understandings or interpretation of theoretical and practical information that exists in their field. 
        2. Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. To assist this process, the tenure or promotion candidate shall submit to the Dean the names of at least three experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Recommended reviewers must be approved and contacted by the Dean and other reviewers may be added by the Dean in accordance with University policy. 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. 
        3. 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 encouraged 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. 
        4. Journals and other peer-reviewed publications and presentations are evaluated based on their scope and reputation, and on the refereeing process to which submissions are subjected. Candidates for tenure and promotion must describe how the peer review takes place and the competitiveness of the forum reviewing the work.
        5. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship
          1. The evaluation components for the assessment of scholarship for tenure and promotion are shown in Table 3-2A. All tenured/tenure track faculty of the College are expected to demonstrate excellence in scholarship by achieving at a minimum an “Excellent” rating in the scholarship category. The indicators used to assess the quality of scholarly activity are provided in Table 3-2B. 
          2. Table 3-2B provides a list of the scholarly activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in scholarship for tenure or promotion.
          3. 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 College 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.
          4. To achieve an “Excellent” or “Outstanding” rating in the category of the scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, he/she should have established a record which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline. Within this context, 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 their scholarly activities including such things as: article and journal quality and impact; funding history and plans; and/or a description in the faculty member’s materials of any other evidence of scholarship that the faculty member deems appropriate. In turn, the members of the College's ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the College's expectations for a successful tenure or promotion decision. 
        1. Table 3-2A Performance Levels for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion


          Table 3-2A. Performance Levels for Assessment of Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion

          Level

           

          Scholarship

          Outstanding

          Definition: Nationally/Internationally acclaimed scholarship. 

           

          Accomplishments: During the candidate’s review period, meets all of the following criteria.

           

          1) At least five peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least two instances must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

           

          2) At least one significant externally-funded grant (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

           

          3) At least two poster/oral presentations at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

          4) Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least 15 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          5) Possesses the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

          Outstanding

          Definition: Nationally/Internationally acclaimed scholarship. 

           

          Accomplishments: During the candidate’s review period, meets all of the following criteria.

           

          1) At least five peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least two instances must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

           

          2) At least one significant externally-funded grant (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

           

          3) At least two poster/oral presentations at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

          4) Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least 15 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          5) Possesses the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

          Very Good

          Definition: Emerging nationally recognized scholarship.

           

          Accomplishments: Meets all of the following criteria.

           

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least three peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least one instance must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one peer-reviewed journal publication in the discipline.1

           

          2) At least one significant externally-funded grant proposal (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

           

          3A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

           

          3B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

           

          4A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          4B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          5) Possession of the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

          Good

          Definition: Active scholarship.

          Accomplishments: Meets all of the following criteria.

           

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least two peer-reviewed publications in the discipline. At least one instance must be in a peer-reviewed journal.1

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one peer-reviewed publication in the discipline.1

           

          2) At least one significant externally-funded grant proposal (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

           

          3A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

           

          3B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: At least one poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

           

          4A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 15 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          4B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least eight instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least two instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          5) Possession of the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

           

          Weak

          Definition: Limited scholarship.

           

          Accomplishments: Meets all of the following criteria.

           

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Only one peer-reviewed publication in the discipline. 1

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Only one peer-reviewed publication in the discipline.1

           

          2) One or less significant externally-funded grant proposal (funding, equipment, software, in-kind support, etc.) 1

           

          3A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Only one poster/oral presentations at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

           

          3B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: One or less poster/oral presentation at a regional/national/ international conference, meeting, symposium, workshop, seminar, etc.

           

          4A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least two instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          4B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least five instances of the items listed in Table 3-2B (Criteria for Evaluation of Scholarship), to include at least one instance of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          5) Possession of the terminal degree, as defined in Appendix A (Required/Terminal Degrees) of this Handbook, in the candidate’s primary academic program area or in an appropriately-related field.

           

          Poor

          Definition:  No scholarship.

          Accomplishments: Does not meet all of the criteria for the “Weak” level of Scholarship


          1Exceptions may be granted to those faculty whose primary responsibilities are in the Air Traffic Control, Aviation Management, Aviation Human Factors, or Aviation Safety academic areas.

        2. Table 3-2B Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Scholarship

          1. Table 3-2B. Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Scholarship
             

            CAE Guidelines

            Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

            Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

             

            Scholarship

             

            Reviewers will base their evaluation upon the documented degree of excellence achieved in Scholarship for those activities that are related to the applicant’s discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

             

            It is the responsibility of the candidate to demonstrate the significance of their scholarly efforts and activities. Documentation of those efforts should demonstrate the degree of application to Scholarship such as the impact on the profession or discipline, professional growth, etc.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to identify the nature and importance of an activity, their role in the activity, and their level of participation and contribution to the activity. For publications and presentations, the candidate should describe the importance of the organization/group involved, the publication medium, and/or the meeting forum.  For peer-reviewed items the candidate should describe the peer-review venue/forum and should describe the review process, the review panel composition, the number of articles received, and the number of articles accepted. For research efforts, the candidate should describe the significance and importance of their research.

             

            The activities listed below are not all-inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are relevant.

             

             

            Viewed as Exemplary:
             

            • Membership as a board member, officer, official, or consultant in professional standards, regulatory, or advisory organizations
            • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the highest-tier journals in the discipline
            • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the middle-tier journals in the discipline
            • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the proceedings of highest-tier conferences/symposiums in the discipline
            • Refereed/peer-reviewed papers published in the proceedings of middle-tier conferences/symposiums in discipline
            • Authorship of a professional/scientific/technical book
            • Authorship of chapter(s) in a professional/scientific/technical book
            • Professional experience (e.g. consulting, paid or unpaid) related to the discipline
            • Membership by invitation in professional/scientific honor societies
            • Awarding of a patent within one's discipline
            • Establishment of a nationally/internationally recognized research program
            • Extramural/externally funded research or development grants; research or development seed grants
            • Research-related service to national, international, or regional organizations
            • Awards, recognition from national and international professional or scientific societies
            • Impact of scholarship in the profession as measured through an exceptional level of citations of published work
            • Membership as a board member, officer, official, or consultant in professional standards, regulatory, or advisory organizations
            • Chief editor of a professional or scientific journal or monograph
            • Panel moderator/director at a professional conference or meeting
            • Commercialization of a product or services related to one’s discipline
            • Leader and major contributor in establishing a new academic program
            • Leader and major contributor in establishing a nationally/internationally recognized research area/program
            • Leader and major contributor for the initial accreditation of an academic program
            • Keynote speaker at a professional conference/symposium/meeting
            • Advising/directing students in graduate research
            • Advising or sponsoring student design or engineering efforts in regional, national, or international competitions
            • Integration of new and emerging knowledge, technology, or methods into research or curriculum
            • Invited or refereed/peer-reviewed presentations or posters at professional or scholarly meetings, conferences, symposiums, or other forums
               


            Viewed as Favorable:
             

            • Authorship of non-refereed items publications such as technical reports, contractor reports, white papers, etc.
            • Book review of technical/professional/scientific books
            • Contributions to non-refereed professional newsletters, websites, blogs, and other forums
            • Unfunded grant proposals (including RFPs)
            • Pending grant proposals (including RFPs)
            • Awarding of patents outside one's discipline
            • Textbook reviewer or author of supplemental materials for an existing textbook
            • Papers published in the lower-tier journals in the discipline
            • Papers, articles, professional publications, and other scholarly publications in the discipline (non-refereed)
            • Editing a refereed journal, or reviewer of refereed journal articles or monographs
            • Advising students who present at Kent State University undergraduate or graduate research symposiums
            • Advising students who present at student national or regional conferences
            • Advising/directing students in undergraduate research
            • Advising students who present at Kent State University undergraduate or graduate research symposiums
            • Advising students who present at international, national, or regional conferences/symposiums
            • Advising/directing students in undergraduate research
            • Research or consulting partnerships with business, government, or industry that are discipline related
            • Significant participation in establishing a new academic program
            • Significant participation in establishing a nationally/internationally recognized research area/program
            • Significant participation in the initial accreditation of an academic program
            • Research-related service to state or local organizations
            • Impact of scholarship in the profession as measured through a significant level of citations of published work
            • Submitted papers/publications pending acceptance
            • Advising or sponsoring student design or engineering efforts in state or local competitions
            • Technical presentations at other departments or institutions
            • Non-refereed/non-peer reviewed presentations or posters presented at professional or scholarly meetings, conferences, symposiums, or other forums


            Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:
             

            • Minimal activity with respect to scholarship
            • Poorly explained and/or poorly documented citations of any scholarly activity
            • Articles submitted for review but not accepted or in print
            • Scholarship in areas not related to discipline/assignment

             

            Notes on Scholarly Activities:

            • Publications include: papers in refereed/peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, books, and book chapters.  Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field as well as quantity.  Papers of exceptional length, impact and quality are given increased recognition. 

             

            • “Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline. Grant support includes funding, software, equipment, materials, supplies, and personnel (graduate students, research technicians and/or post-doctoral associates).  “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support doctoral students or are intramural grants.  "Seed Grants" should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.” Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields.  Faculty should identify their portion of the grant funding/support received for any grants that are awarded to multiple recipients.  

             

            • Recognitions from scientific societies include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc.  Service to federal/state institutions includes service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities.

             

            • Forthcoming and in-press works may be considered as part of the evaluation of a candidate’s work for tenure.
               
            • Integration refers to assimilating the emerging knowledge/technology in a new manner, using it in a new way, thereby contributing to new knowledge and new scholarship which must be demonstrated in the record.
      7. Teaching

        1. Teaching involves activities that promote the development of effective strategies to better communicate information to students. Teaching involves planning and examination of pedagogical techniques, dissemination of such information in peer-reviewed contexts (e.g. publications in refereed journals, juried papers or conference presentations, juried proceedings and/or abstracts), as well as the act of teaching itself.
        2. Candidates for reappointment will be expected to demonstrate strong commitment to and growth in their teaching skill through the duration of their probationary years. Candidates for tenure and promotion will be expected to demonstrate a mature level of competence and effectiveness in teaching. 
        3. Evidence of the commitment to competence and effectiveness in teaching could include such things as development of a broad teaching repertoire, course revisions, new courses developed, innovative use of instructional technology, attending conferences and workshops on teaching, seeking peer mentoring, mentoring students, etc. Peer reviews must be a part of the submitted record of candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the candidate’s Academic Program Area or College, or from University administrators, shall be considered when available. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant material should be available for review.
        4. Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching  
          1. The performance levels for the assessment of teaching for tenure and promotion are shown in Table 3-3A. All tenured/tenure track faculty of the College are expected to achieve a minimum of a “Very Good” rating in the teaching category. The indicators used to assess the quality of teaching activity are provided in Table 3-3B.
          2. Table 3-3B provides a list of the teaching activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in teaching for tenure or promotion.
        1. Table 3-3A Performance Levels for Assessment of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure

          Level

          Teaching

           

          Outstanding

          Definition:  Outstanding teacher; provides leadership in instructional development.

          Accomplishments:  During the candidate’s review period, meets the following criteria.

           

          1) Completes at least 50 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 25 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          Excellent

          Definition:  Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 20 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

          Very Good

          Definition:  Innovative teacher.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 30 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 15 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 15 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least eight instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          Good

          Definition:  Meets teaching obligations well.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

          Weak

          Definition:  Substandard teacher.

           

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes at least five instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), to include at least three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

          Poor

          Definition:  Substandard, ineffective teacher.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

          1A) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor: Completes less than 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), and/or less than five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          1B) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor: Completes less than five instances of the items listed in Table 3-3B (Criteria for Evaluation of Teaching), and/or less than three instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

        2. Table 3-3B Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Teaching

          CAE Guidelines

          Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

          Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

           

          Teaching

           

          Reviewers will base their evaluation upon the documented degree of excellence achieved in Teaching for those activities that are related to the applicant’s discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

           

          It is the responsibility of the candidate to demonstrate the impact of their teaching efforts and activities. Documentation of those efforts should identify the nature and importance of an activity, their role in the activity, and their level of participation and contribution to the activity.

           

          The activities listed below are not all-inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are relevant.

           

          Viewed as Exemplary:

          • Recipient of University or external teaching award
          • Nominee for University or external teaching award
          • Consistently exceptional peer reviews of instruction based on actual classroom observation
          • Achieving significant improvements in teaching based upon peer review of instruction comments and feedback
          • Innovation in pedagogy and/or use of technology for teaching
          • Authorship of a new course or a major revision to an existing course
          • Leadership in creation of a new degree, major, or concentration area
          • Initiation and pursuit of a successful grant application resulting in funding of lab development, equipment, software, or other instructional/research items
          • Teaching an exceptional breadth and/or variety of courses
          • Course preparations and/or new course development requiring a significant learning curve
          • Course preparations and/or new course development requiring substantial creation of new course materials
          • Development of online learning tutorials
          • Developing research projects for students
          • Instructional creativity
          • Leadership in curricular revisions
          • Extensive lab development
          • Authorship in pedagogical research in peer-reviewed publications
          • Adaptation of innovative technologies, instructional tools, or teaching methods in the classroom
          • Extensive upgrade or acquisition of academic or professional credentials (Including advanced degrees, certifications, licensures, etc.)
          • Introduction of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula
          • Direction of an undergraduate student research project that leads to student presentation or publication
          • Establishment of regional, national, or international alliances in the field or discipline
          • Training program development
          • Directing a thesis, Honors project, or dissertation
          • Supervision of graduate students assigned as research assistants
          • Supervision of culminating experience or capstone course work

           

          Viewed as Favorable:

          • Thoughtful statement of teaching philosophy and self-assessment
          • Favorable peer reviews of instruction based on actual classroom observation.
          • Evidence of responding to an unfavorable peer review of instruction resulting in course and/or teaching improvement
          • Nomination for, or recipient of, campus teaching award; Nomination for University or external teaching award
          • Effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of technology
          • Active participant in the redesign or restructuring of a degree, major, or concentration
          • Development of a new certificate program
          • Lab development or management
          • Serving on a thesis, Honors project, or dissertation committee
          • Maintenance of professional credentials (certifications, licensures, etc.) as evidence of maintaining currency
          • Professional development (attending courses, conferences, workshops, webinars, internships; obtaining new certifications or licensures, etc.)
          • Courses taught via distance learning
          • Courses taught for the first time, or that require significant revision, modification, and/or preparation
          • Actively participating in curricular revisions
          • Establishment of state or local alliances in the field or discipline
          • Training program, webinar, workshop, or seminar instruction

           

          Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

          • No statement of teaching philosophy or self-assessment
          • Unimpressive peer reviews of instruction
          • No evidence of responding to an unfavorable peer review of instruction: no evidence of improvement in class management, course content/design, or teaching method.
          • Lack of representative syllabi and other supporting documentation
          • Poorly explained and/or appropriately documented citations in any teaching activities; No evidence (or poorly documented evidence) of curricular activity or leadership
          • Poorly documented activities and/or accomplishments

           

          Notes on Teaching Activities:

          Application of new/emerging technologies refers to mastering emerging technologies and utilizing them in the classroom for pedagogical purposes or for lecture material

           

      8. University/Professional Citizenship

        1. A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the candidate’s Academic Program Area, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Tables 3-4A and 3-4B. The merits of University Citizenship 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 Academic Program Area events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, Academic Program Area meetings and seminars, etc.
        2. Being an active and useful citizen of the Academic Program Area, 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.
        1. Table 3-4A Performance Levels for Assessment of University Citizenship for Tenure and Promotion

          Level

          University Citizenship

          Exceeds Obligation

          Definition:  Significant role in school, college, and/or university service.  Significant role in academic, professional, and scientific communities and associations at international, national, state, and local levels.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria.

           

          1) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments, promotion to Associate Professor, or promotion to Professor:

          Completes at least 40 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least 20 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          2) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor:

          Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          Note: The “instances” in the University Citizenship area are defined on a semester basis (Fall/Spring/Summer).

          Meets Obligation

          Definition:  Active involvement in school, college, and/or university service.   Active involvement in academic and professional communities and professional associations at international, national, state, and local levels.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria. 

          1) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor, or promotion to Professor:

          Completes at least 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          2) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor:

          Completes at least 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), to include at least five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

          Note: The “instances” in the University Citizenship area are defined on a semester basis (Fall/Spring/Summer).

          Does Not Meet Obligations

          Definition:  Does not actively participate in service activities or minimal record of involvement in service activities. Fails to follow-through on assigned obligations.

          Accomplishments: Meets the following criteria. 

          1) For Six-year Tenure Track appointments or promotion to Associate Professor, or promotion to Professor:

          Completes less than 20 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), and/or less than 10 instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          2) For Three-year Tenure Track appointments or accelerated promotion to Associate Professor:

          Completes less than 10 instances of the items listed in Table 3-4B (Criteria for Evaluation of University Citizenship), and/or less than five instances of the items associated with “Exemplary” activities/accomplishments.

           

          Note: The “instances” in the University Citizenship area are defined on a semester basis (Fall/Spring/Summer).

           

           

          Note: Other components of citizenship 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 College. Leadership and participation in learned societies and professional organizations are reviewed as part of one's citizenship record. 

        2. Table3-4B Criteria for Evaluation of Performance In University Service

          CAE Guidelines

          Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

          Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty

           

          University Citizenship

           

          Reviewers will base their evaluation upon the documented degree of excellence achieved in University Citizenship for service activities. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

           

          It is the responsibility of the candidate to demonstrate the impact of their citizenship/service efforts and activities. Documentation of those efforts should identify the nature and importance of an activity, their role in the activity, and their level of participation and contribution to the activity, along with a description of the forum and/or entities involved. 

           

          The activities listed below are not all-inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are relevant.

           

          Viewed as Exemplary:

          • Committee membership acclaim/citations, accompanied by documentation of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles, etc. 
          • Service awards from organizations within the field of discipline
          • Leadership in planning/organizing a campus recruiting event
          • Leadership role in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs
          • Organization of a professional conference at a regional or state level; serving as a section chair or higher at a regional, national, or international conference
          • Participation in community development activities and grants integrated with one’s discipline
          • Organization of consortia to articulate with and perpetuate one’s program or discipline
          • Office held in an organization related to the discipline at the regional, national, or international level
          • Establishment of professional or scientific alliances
          • Membership as a board member or officer/official in academic, professional, or scientific societies/organizations
          • Membership as a board member, officer, official, or consultant in government regulatory or advisory bodies
          • University-level committee, commission, or board membership
          • College-level committee chair
          • Leadership on university, college, and academic program area committees and boards
          • Leadership to the professional community and professional associations at the international, national, or regional level
          • Holding office as part of the executive board of professional or scientific associations at the international, national, or regional level
          • Leadership in professional committees and working groups at the international, national, or regional level
          • Advising a student organization related to one's discipline (e.g., a student chapter of a professional organization)

           

          Viewed as Favorable:

          • Publication of discipline-related, non-refereed articles in magazines, newspapers, web sites, blogs, etc. that are provided for the general public
          • Presentations for service or professional organizations outside of area of expertise
          • Active and regular participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs
          • Projects integrating and engaging students with businesses, industry, or government
          • Advising a student organization outside of one's discipline
          • Participation on advisory boards
          • Participation in campus/program recruiting events
          • Participation in campus/program marketing initiatives, e.g., creation/design of marketing materials
          • Participation in the integration of community with program activities
          • Office held in an organization related to the discipline at the state or local level
          • Membership in professional or scientific organizations/societies
          • Student retention and recruiting activities
          • College-level and/or Division-level administrative positions held
          • College-level committee membership
          • Academic Division-level ad hoc committee membership
          • Active participation on university, college, and academic program area committees and boards
          • Service awards from organizations outside the field of discipline
          • Significant participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs
          • Discipline-related presentations in public forums
          • Organizing University forums or exhibits
          • Active participation in noteworthy events
          • Participation on university, college, and academic program area committees and boards
          • Participation on professional committees and working groups
          • Holding office as part of the executive board of professional or scientific associations at the state or local level
          • Leadership to the professional community and professional associations at the state or local level
          • Leadership to professional committees and working groups at the state or local level

           

          Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

          • Minimal activity with respect to University Citizenship
          • Poorly documented citations in any University Citizenship activities; citations without evidence of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles
          • Publication of non-refereed minor newspaper articles, letters to the editor, blogs, op-eds, etc.
          • No evidence of exemplary performance
    5. Search and Initial Appointment of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty

      1. Procedures for Search and Initial Appointment

        1. The CAE Dean or his/her designee and the Provost are responsible for identifying the faculty positions to be filled. The CAC will be consulted concerning faculty position needs. The CAE Dean, or his/her designee, with concurrence of the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director of the applicable Academic Program Area and CAE faculty from the applicable programmatic area, determine the specific qualifications and requirements for the position. These are then incorporated in a Position Request Authorization (PRA) for the Provost’s approval.
        2. The Provost and the CAE Dean will authorize appropriate notices, as approved by the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director of the applicable Academic Program Area and CAE faculty from the programmatic area, to appear in university job postings and appropriate professional publications and job sites. The starting minimum qualifications, position requirements and responsibilities, application deadlines and materials to be submitted will be identified in the notices. Efforts will be made to secure a diverse pool of applicants.
        3. The CAE Dean or his/her designee will appoint a Search Committee and its chair. The committee will be composed of at least four faculty (a majority of who are CAE faculty) and one representative appointed by the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director of the applicable Academic Program Area.
        4. The CAE Dean or his/her designee will convene the Search Committee and present its charge. At this meeting, the Search Committee will discuss the specific qualifications required of candidates based on the job posting, procedures for reviewing applications, and the University’s commitment to Affirmative Action. The Search Committee may also agree on a checklist of criteria (weighted according to importance) being sought in the candidates.
        5. Once the application deadline has passed, or while a job posting listed as “Open Until Filled” is still active, the Search Committee will review the applications to determine whether each candidate meets the minimum qualifications for the position.
        6. The Search Committee then will review the eligible applications and establish a pool of up to 15 candidates. The applicable Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director will be invited to review the list. The Search Committee will then recommend approximately three candidates for interviews. The Dean's Office will notify those applicants who have not been included in the pool of candidates.
        7. Prior to the visits, the Search Committee will organize and publicize the itineraries, compose a uniform checklist of questions to be asked of each candidate, and prepare evaluation sheets for faculty and students to record impressions during the interviews.
        8. Each candidate’s visit should include the following: a teaching demonstration (if appropriate); a presentation related to his or her research activities; and separate interviews with the Search Committee and the CAE Dean or his/her designee, as appropriate. Meetings with graduate and undergraduate students are recommended, as well as meetings with potential research partners.
        9. Following the on-campus interviews, the Search Committee will submit to the Dean of the CAE a list of the qualified candidates with accompanying summaries of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
        10. The Dean of the CAE will choose and negotiate with the candidate. 
        11. Throughout the process, the activities of the Search Committee and of all administrative officers will be conducted with scrupulous respect for the privacy of all applicants; and, to the extent permitted by Ohio law, rules of strict confidentiality apply to all deliberations and actions involved in the hiring process. 
        12. When a candidate has accepted an offer, the Dean of the CAE will announce to the Faculty Organization the results of the search. 
      2. Criteria for Initial Appointment

        Recommended criteria for Initial Appointments into tenured/tenure-track assignments are provided in Appendix A of this document.

  2. Renewal of Appointment, Performance Reviews, and Promotion of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (FTNTT) Faculty

    1. Overview and General Information

      1. The role of the College in matters of renewal of appointment, performance reviews, and promotion in rank is defined by policies stated in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and in the annual Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty. 
      2. The Dean’s office shall assign a full-time non-tenure track faculty member as a mentor to each full-time non-tenure track candidate upon their initial appointment. The mentor shall be responsible for providing guidance and advice to the candidate regarding renewal/reappointment and promotion policies and processes. The mentor will also provide advice to the candidate to assist in his/her teaching and professional development.
      3. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek out institutional resources (e.g., workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that are periodically made available by the University to obtain further information regarding faculty professional development; file organization and construction; and, where applicable, research and grant opportunities. 
      4. During a candidate's review period, expectations are defined by the version of the College Handbook that was in place at the beginning of that review period. Candidates may alternatively elect to use the currently approved version as their benchmark for evaluation. In any case, candidates should clearly specify in their file which College Handbook version they are adhering to, and perhaps include copies of relevant pages in their documentation.
      5. Evaluation of full-time non-tenure track faculty shall focus on the role(s) for which they are employed. Typically, that role is primarily instruction, but a faculty member’s responsibilities may be directed in another area. If a faculty member is assigned time per workload statement allocation for a secondary function (e.g., research, service/citizenship, grant writing, curriculum development, etc.), then that function will be evaluated in proportion to which it was assigned as part of the aggregate assignment. The areas of criteria, the dimensions of those criteria, and the scales of measurement used for faculty evaluation will be used in the evaluation, where applicable, as described in this section of this Handbook. 
      6. For FTNTT faculty who are in a primarily instructional role, emphasis will be placed on the demonstrated quality of instruction and demonstrated maintenance of currency in the field. Currency may be demonstrated by participation in documented learning opportunities relevant to the teaching assignment, professional presentations and scholarship, maintenance of, or acquisition of relevant certifications and licenses, etc. 
    2. Policies and Procedures for FTNTT Renewal of Appointment

      The following information is supplemental to the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register, and is specific to the CAE.

       

      1. Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.
      2. 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 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the Full Performance Reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The Full Performance Review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three 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 candidate who must complete a Full Performance Review will submit a dossier as described in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. The file should contain at least an updated curriculum vitae, self-evaluation of performance, syllabi for courses taught during the review period, SSI summaries for courses taught during the review period, and supporting documents as necessary for other accomplishments such as citizenship, if it exists. SSIs are only evaluated relative to the faculty member’s performance regarding assessing information from the SSIs and incorporating changes if necessary.
      3. “Simplified” Performance Review 
        FTNTT faculty members who are in their ninth year, 12th year, and 15th year of consecutive employment must successfully complete a “simplified” performance review as described in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the “simplified” performance reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The “simplified” performance review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three 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 “simplified” performance review will submit documentation as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect at the beginning of the review period unless the faculty member chooses to use the current CBA. SSIs are only evaluated relative to the faculty member’s performance regarding assessing information from the SSIs and incorporating changes if necessary.
      4. Administrative Performance Review
        After completion of the Simplified Review required at the 15th year, and each 3-year renewal period thereafter, FTNTT faculty will undergo an Administrative Performance Review in place of the Simplified or Full reviews. The CAE Dean will schedule a meeting with the FTNTT Faculty member who will submit a current Vitae and 1-3 page narrative to the Dean, prior to the meeting, describing his/her professional activities in the last three years. After the meeting and/or consultation with the CAE Dean, the Dean will provide the FTNTT Faculty member with a written summary of the outcome and conclusions of the meeting. The written summary will provide either a notice of the expectation of renewal of appointment and the conditions as of the renewal per the requirements of the CBA, or it will provide a notice of non-renewal and the associated circumstances/conditions per the requirements of the CBA.
      5. Performance Review Criteria and Policies
        1. Full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) faculty are reviewed by a committee comprised of FTNTTs from the CAE. The committee will be selected by the Dean from volunteers. The Dean can assign FTNTTs to the committee if there are no volunteers. Every attempt will be made to have at least five members on the committee but in no case less than three members. Evaluation will be on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and annual load letter, including consideration of the track (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research) to which the FTNTT faculty member is assigned. 
        2. 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 will be tied to performance within the parameters established in the FTNTT Collective Bargaining Agreement. Rubrics for the assessment of teaching performance, recruitment and/or retention, and research if on a research track, etc. will be developed and shared with the candidate, and used to evaluate performance. Evaluation of Student Assessment of Instruction is only with respect to how the FTNTT addressed the information from the SSIs and any changes made. Faculty are encouraged to demonstrate this in the narrative of their renewal file. FTNTT faculty under simplified reviews, i.e. years 9 and continuing, are encouraged to submit peer reviews to document performance but do so at their own discretion.
        3. The College’s FTNTT Review committee will discuss each FTNTT faculty member who is under review. The FTNTT faculty member’s dossier will serve to document the faculty member’s performance. Performance reviews should ensue with a holistic approach which reflects the highest standard of professional integrity and ethics. 
        4. The College's FTNTT Review committee will forward via FlashFolio its recommendation on renewal of appointment to the College Dean who will make an independent assessment of the candidate’s performance. The review process should be as transparent as possible with the candidate receiving information from the Dean as to the committee deliberations and the recommendation made to the Dean according to the time schedule established in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the FTNTT Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions. 
        5. A statement of performance will be issued by the Dean for those faculty members in their first and second year of appointment, followed by a meeting with the Dean which will occur within sufficient time for any noted deficiencies to be corrected prior to the review. The intent is to prepare the faculty member for a successful first full performance review. Nonrenewal of an appointment which results from programmatic or fiscal needs should be distinguished from nonrenewal of appointment which results from performance issues when communicated to the candidate. FTNTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason. 
    3. Policies and Procedures for FTNTT Promotion

      1. General Policies and Procedures for Promotion

        1. Beginning in academic year 2011-12, FTNTT faculty members who have completed at least six consecutive years of service and at least two successful Full Performance Reviews may apply for promotion at the time of their second Full Performance Review or any year thereafter. The criteria, guidelines and procedures for full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) promotions are included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. As required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment however absence of University Citizenship will not detract from the promotion evaluation. The College’s ad hoc Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB) shall be composed as outlined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. If the CAE does not have sufficient numbers of faculty as outlined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement and faculty from other Colleges may serve on NPAB. The CAE Dean will coordinate these NPAB actions with the Office of Faculty Affairs in the Provost’s Office. 
        2. Full-time non-tenure track faculty may self-nominate for promotion in accordance with the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register.
      2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Promotion

        1. If there has been no previous promotion in the candidate's history, then the review period extends back to whatever time period since the candidate's initial appointment that the candidate chooses. 
        2. Promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period chosen by the candidate, and promotion decisions are based on performance and professional development pertinent to a candidate’s assigned FTNTT track. Evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required for promotion. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment however absence of University Citizenship will not detract from a promotion consideration. 
        3. Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching and/or other assigned duties is expected of all who seek promotion.
        4. Promotion considerations are based upon the criteria for evaluation, described in the subsections below. The NPAB committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on promotion: 1) Performance (track-related); and, 2) Professional Development. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for promotion. These guidelines and criteria should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving promotion.
        5. The Section III Tables 3-5A, 3-5B, 3-6A, 3-6B, 3-7A, 3-7B, 3-8A, and 3-8B, shown below, provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of FTNTT candidates. The Faculty Performance Standards/Criteria for Promotion are shown in Tables 3-5A and 3-5B.
        1. Table 3-5A. Faculty Performance Criteria Table for Promotion - NTT Lecturer Ranks

           

           

          Minimum Required Performance

          Category

          Faculty

          Performance

          Professional Development

          University Citizenship

          Promotion from Lecturer to Associate Lecturer

          NTT-I

          Very Good

          Very Good

          As related to the assigned track when service is submitted for consideration per related addendum in the current CBA

          NTT-P

          Very Good

          Very Good

          As Above

          Promotion from Associate Lecturer to Senior Lecturer

          NTT-I

          Excellent

          Excellent

          As Above

          NTT-P

          Excellent

          Excellent

          As Above

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

          NTT-I: Instructional Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction 

          NTT-P: Practitioner Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction or service in professional programs and applied areas

        2. Table 3-5B. Faculty Performance Criteria Table for Promotion – NTT Professor Ranks

           

           

          Minimum Required Performance

          Category

          Faculty

          Performance

          Professional Development

          University Citizenship

          Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor

          NTT-I

          Very Good

          Very Good

          As related to the assigned track when service is submitted for consideration per related addendum in the current CBA

          NTT-P

          Very Good

          Very Good

          As Above

          Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

          NTT-I

          Excellent

          Excellent

          As Above

          NTT-P

          Excellent

          Excellent

          As Above

           

           

           

           

           

           

          NTT-I: Instructional Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction 

          NTT-P: Practitioner Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction or service in professional programs and applied areas

    4. Performance Assessment for FTNTT Promotion

      1. Performance - Practitioner Track

        1. The primary determination of performance for faculty in the practitioner track will be evidence of success relative to their assigned duties. Documented facilitation of student learning, meeting completion objectives, managerial and supervisory tasks, facilitation of unit functions specific to the area of practice, contributions to the operation of the academic unit specific to assigned duties, teaching evaluations if they exist, and overall effectiveness in carrying out their practice. 
      2. Performance - Instructional Track

        1. Performance criteria for the evaluation of the teaching/instructional track are listed in Tables 3-6A and 3-6B. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc. 
        2. Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Academic Program Area, College or University administrators shall be considered. Peer reviews, when required or as submitted, and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for renewal of appointment and promotion. The faculty performance regarding information from SSIs is only relative to what actions the faculty member took regarding ratings and comments about assigned courses taught. Copies of representative syllabi must be available for review. Other documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training, if submitted, by the candidate for renewal of appointment and promotion will be considered as well. Evaluation of performance of instructional track faculty shall include all assigned duties, including non-teaching. If submitted, activities considered university citizenship and professional activities will be considered as part of the faculty member’s performance.
        1. Table 3-6A. Instructional Track Evaluation Components for Assessment of Performance for Promotion

          Teaching

          Definition

          Excellent

          Exemplary level of accomplishment. Innovative teacher. Provides leadership in instructional development.

          Very Good

          Exceptional level of accomplishment.

          Innovative teacher.

          Good

          Substantial level of accomplishment.

          Meets obligations well.

          Fair

          Few accomplishments; Below minimum performance. Substandard teacher.

          Poor

          No accomplishments.

          Substandard, ineffective teacher.

        2. Table 3-6B. Instructional Track Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

          CAE Guidelines

          Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

          Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

           

          Teaching

           

          Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category for those activities that are related to their discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics. For those cases where activities might be considered "exemplary," it is the candidate's responsibility to document and make that case to the review committee.

           

          The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant. Reviewers should note that unless it is part of an FTNTT’s track or workload, scholarship, research and grant writing activities are not required.

          Viewed as exemplary performance:

          • Consistent good performance relative to assessing information from SSIs
          • University or External Teaching Award or Award Nominee
          • Consistently exceptional Peer Reviews based on actual classroom observation
          • Accomplishing dramatic improvements based on prior review feedback
          • Recipient of University or External Teaching Award
          • Documented application of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula
          • Documented and effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology
          • Authorship of new course or major revision of existing course
          • Initiation and leadership in creation of a new degree
          • Initiation and pursuit of successful grant application resulting in lab development, equipment, software, or other instructional materials.
          • Participation in program Advisory Board (documentation provided for the degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.) 
          • Maintaining generally favorable/good SSIs etc. while teaching an exceptional variety of preparations and/or new courses requiring a significant learning curve, creation of significant new course materials etc. (These might include, for example, having to learn/teach a new programming language, development of extraordinary online learning tutorials, etc.)
          • Developing research projects for students
          • Instructional creativity
          • Actively participating in curricular revisions
          • Extensive lab development
          • Thesis direction

           

          Viewed favorably:

          • Thoughtful statement of teaching philosophy & self-assessment
          • Mid-level performance regarding assessment of SSIs and incorporation of student comments etc.
          • Favorable Peer Reviews, if required or submitted, based on actual classroom observation.
          • Evidence of responding to unfavorable SSIs or Peer Review; evidence of course improvement over time
          • Nomination for, or recipient of, Campus Teaching Award; Nomination for University or External Teaching Award
          • Documented and effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology
          • Initiation and leadership in the redesign or restructuring of a degree or concentration
          • Initiation and leadership in the creation of a new certificate
          • Lab development or management
          • Serving on theses, honors, or dissertation committees
          • Advising a student organization related to one's discipline (e.g., a student chapter of a professional organization).
          • Participation in program Advisory Board (document degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.)
          • Authorship in pedagogical research or scholarship
             

          Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

          • No statement of teaching philosophy and self-assessment
          • Notably poor performance on SSIs and little or no effort in assessing information from SSIs
          • Unimpressive reviews by peers
          • No evidence of responding to unfavorable SSIs or Peer Review; no evidence of course improvement
          • Lack of representative syllabi and other supporting documentation
          • Poorly explained and/or appropriately documented citations in any teaching activities; No evidence (or poorly documented evidence) of curricular activity or leadership
          • Poorly documented citations of: innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology; lab development or management; participation in program Advisory Board; role as advisor to a student organization that's related to one's discipline; course/certification/degree authorship; etc.
          • No evidence of exemplary performance in any form of teaching scholarship if required by assigned track or workload assignment

           

    5. Assessment of Professional Development for FTNTT Promotion

      1. Professional Development is an essential and critical component of University activity. Professional Development includes those activities that contribute to the individual’s ability to excel in teaching and contribute to the advancement of their discipline. The candidate must provide the college's review committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her Professional Development activity. 
      2. Faculty members are encouraged 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 and advance their discipline. 
      3. Professional Development – Instructional Track
        Professional development for instructional track faculty are activities to keep the member current in his/her field including conferences, seminars, symposiums, work-shops, flight training, consulting, obtaining additional certifications or degrees, professional presentations or any activity that advances the faculty member’s teaching and/or knowledge. 
      4. Professional Development – Practitioner Track
        Professional development for faculty in the practitioner track will be evaluated based on maintenance of certificates and licensures necessary for the practice, obtaining additional certificates or licensures, maintaining or obtaining any special professional designations, membership and participation in professional organizations, attendance and/or presentations at professional conferences or organizations, facilitating public outreach, developing or organizing specialized learning opportunities such as camps and lecture series (for collegiate, secondary or elementary) students and developing, revising and/or implementing new operational workplace procedures enhancing performance or safety in the area of practice relative to assigned duties. 
      5. Standards for the Evaluation of Professional Development
        1. Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of Professional Development activity is based are provided in Tables 3-7A and 3-7B. Table 3-7B provides a list of the Professional Development activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in Professional Development for promotion. These activities are largely those that result in increased content knowledge and skills associated with their subject matter; Improved pedagogical knowledge and skills; increased knowledge and use of Instructional technology, media, and materials to improve classroom management, communication, and instruction.
        2. Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s Professional Development record include the quality and quantity of Professional Development activities. All FTNTT-Instructional Track faculty members in the College are expected to produce records of Professional Development that reflect their disciplinary focus. The attributes of an individual faculty member’s Professional Development activity will vary across disciplines.
        3. To achieve “excellent” in the category of scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for promotion, she/he should have established a record which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline. Unless stated in the candidate’s annual workload statement, formal publications, grant writing, and presentations are not required for promotion within FTNTT ranks. Reviewers will evaluate promotion according to criteria listed in the related addendum of the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. Within this context, each faculty member who will seek promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her record. In turn, the members of the College's NPAB and the Dean shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the College's expectations for a successful promotion decision.
      1. Table 3-7B. Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Professional Development

        CAE Guidelines

        Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

        Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

         

        Professional Development

         

        Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category for those activities that are related to their discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

         

        Documentation should demonstrate the degree of application to Professional Development such as impact on the profession, professional growth, etc. Reviewers will note that authorship/publication of books and articles, and/or grant writing activities, unless required by an FTNTT’s track or workload, are not required. When related activities as listed below exist, they are supplementary and absence of them does not disqualify an FTNTT from exemplary or favorable performance.

         

        The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant.

         

        Viewed as exemplary performance:

        • Upgrade or acquisition of additional professional credentials (Including advanced degrees, certifications, licensures, etc.)
        • Significant Upgrade or new academic credentials related to the discipline
        • Funded proposals (RFPs)
        • Professional experience as necessary to maintain currency in the faculty member’s field.
        • Study and/or training (formal or informal) of emerging subjects/materials which can be incorporated into courses and curriculum. Integration of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula.
        • Authorship of technical/professional book
        • Authorship of technical/professional refereed article in professional publication, including professionally affiliated e-journal
        • Authorship of technical/professional refereed article in conference proceedings
        • Editorship of a refereed journal or reviewer of refereed journal articles and/or textbook chapters
        • Awards (outstanding scholar award, membership by invitation in honor societies)
        • Awarding of patents through the university
        • Peer-reviewed papers in the peer-reviewed journals in discipline
        • Peer-reviewed papers in the proceedings of conferences in discipline
        • Extramural/externally funded research or development grants; research or development seed grants except for Research Track
        • Presentations at regional, national/international conferences
        • Research-related service to federal/state organizations
        • Awards, recognition from national and international scientific societies
        • Participating with industry related government bodies as a presenter, collaborator or consultant

         

        Viewed favorably:

        • Maintenance of professional credentials (Including advanced degrees, certifications, licensures, etc., as evidence of maintaining currency in technical/professional obligations)
        • Authorship of chapter(s) in technical/professional books
        • Authorship of technical/professional non-refereed articles (technical reports and contractor reports)
        • Authorship in other categories, e.g., book reviews, professional newsletters, professional websites, and other professional publications
        • Presentations in professional meetings (oral or poster) in own discipline
        • Technical presentations at other departments or institutions
        • Contributions to professional newsletters, websites, and other professional publications.
        • Unfunded or pending proposals (RFPs)
        • Professional experience (e.g. consulting, paid or unpaid), w/documentation vis-à-vis resultant professional growth
        • Professional development (attending courses, conferences, or workshops; internship; chairing sessions)
        • Awarding of patents outside one's discipline
        • Textbook reviewer or author of supplemental materials for an existing textbook
        • Presentations at state and local conferences
        • Papers in the middle tier peer-reviewed journals in discipline
        • Papers in the lower middle tier journals in discipline
        • Papers, articles, professional publications, and other scholarly publications in discipline (non-peer reviewed)

         

        Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

        • Irrelevant, poorly explained, and/or inappropriately documented citations of any activity.

         

    6. University Citizenship

      1. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship are neither required nor expected of full-time non-tenure track faculty. However, when a candidate has University Citizenship-related accomplishments, those accomplishments may be considered and will contribute to the bargaining unit member’s overall record of accomplishments. Accomplishments in this area can help improve the rating in Teaching and Professional Development at the discretion of the college's review committee. 
      2. University Citizenship activities include service to the Academic Program Area, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Tables 3-8A and 3-8B. The merits of University Citizenship should be evaluated as to (1) whether the candidate chaired the committee or was a contributing member and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in program area events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, program area meetings and seminars, etc. Contributions will be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate. 
      3. Other components of citizenship are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the College. 
      4. University Citizenship – Instructional Track
        While university citizenship is not required of non-tenure track faculty, if the member elects to perform service and include materials for consideration the following types of activities will be considered. Service on unit and/or college committees, university level committees, state and national level committees, advising student organizations, hosting of workshops and/or conferences, community involvement representing Kent State University or the CAE, service to the AAUP; and related activities. 
      5. University Citizenship – Practitioner Track
        While university citizenship is not required of non-tenure track faculty, if the member elects to perform service and include materials for consideration the following types of activities will be considered. Service on unit and/or college committees, university level committees, state and national level committees, advising student organizations, hosting of workshops and/or conferences, community involvement representing Kent State University or the CAE, service to the AAUP; and related activities. 
      1. Table 3-8A. Assessment of University Citizenship for Promotion

        Rating

        Citizenship Assessment

        Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

        Excellent

        Meets or exceeds

        obligation

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

        Very Good

        Good

        Meets obligation

        Meets status quo for general participation in Academic Program Area, College, Campus, and/or University service.

        Fair

        Poor

        Does not meet obligation

        Does not meet obligations as defined by the candidate’s workload statement.

      2. Table 3-8B. Criteria for Evaluation of Performance for University Service

        CAE Guidelines

        Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

        Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

         

        University Citizenship

         

        Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

         

        University Citizenship is not required of faculty for promotion, however, when it exists, the items in the list below and similar items at the discretion of the committee will be considered and will aid the promotion effort. Accomplishments in this area can help improve the rating in Teaching and/or Professional Development at the discretion of the college's review committee.

         

        The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant.

         

        Viewed as exemplary performance:

        • Committee membership citations, accompanied by documentation of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles, etc.
        • Service awards (outside field of discipline)
        • Leadership in planning/organizing campus recruiting event, with clear documentation of candidate's role and impact of the event
        • Leadership role and extraordinary participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs for a campus or discipline. Documentation of candidate's activity and impact of the program required.
        • Organization of a professional conference at a regional or state level; serving as a section chair or higher at a national or international conference
        • Participation in community development activities and grants integrated with one’s discipline
        • Organization of consortia to articulate with and perpetuate one’s program or discipline
        • Service to the American Association of University Professors
        • Service on Provost Level advisory committees such as the NPAC and/or as a Provost Fellow

         

        Viewed favorably:

        • Presentations for service or professional organizations outside of area of expertise
        • Active and regular participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs. Projects integrating and engaging students with businesses/industry/government.
        • Advising student organization inside or outside of one's discipline
        • Participation in campus linkage with Advisory Board (document degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.)
        • Participation in campus/program recruiting event
        • Participation in campus/program marketing initiative, e.g., creation/design of marketing materials
        • Participation in the integration of community with program activities.

         

        Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

        • Poorly documented citations in any University Citizenship activities; citations without evidence of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles

         

  3. Faculty Peer Evaluations

    1. When requested, the appropriate Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director will make available tenured faculty to perform peer reviews. Discipline-specific peer reviews are preferred. 
    2. Faculty should undergo peer review of teaching, preferably near the middle of the semester/term, using the following guidelines: 
      1. Tenure-track and full-time non-tenure track faculty who have not yet completed two full reviews must adhere to the following: One peer review per semester for the first two years; one peer review per academic year thereafter.
      2. Tenured and full-time non-tenure track faculty planning on promotion should undergo a peer review at least once per academic year for at least two years immediately prior to seeking promotion.
      3. Faculty may request or arrange for more peer review evaluations than required.
  4. Other Academic Unit Guidelines

    Other College/Academic Program Area Information and Guidelines

    1. Mission and Goals of the CAE

      1. Mission of the College

        1. The CAE is committed to engaging students and faculty in transformative educational experiences in, aeronautics, applied engineering, and engineering; in research and development in areas of interest to the college; and in the nurturing of leaders in sustainable approaches to address economic and quality of life issues.
      2. Goals and Objectives of the College

        1. The primary objectives of the College are to:
          1. Create an academic environment which promotes the intellectual and professional development of students and faculty;
          2. Develop and maintain a commitment to scholarly activity in research, graduate education, and undergraduate education which is commensurate with the goals and mission of Kent State University;
          3. Provide programs for all students which meet the educational, scientific, and technological demands of the disciplines represented in the College;
          4. Offer courses in cognate academic disciplines and professional fields which provide the necessary base for the career goals of students and faculty; and,
          5. Provide the public with service commensurate with a University.
        2. Implicit in these objectives are the following:
          1.  A responsibility as teachers, which includes but is not limited to, educating undergraduate and graduate students and providing continuing education while promoting and clarifying the role and philosophy of education;
          2. A commitment to research and scholarship, defined as creating and maintaining an intellectual environment, and the expansion and advancement of knowledge and understanding in the discipline; 
          3. Service to the University and to the general public. This service unifies and clarifies the role of the University in the local community, in the State of Ohio, and in the nation, and is valued within the College and the University.
    2. Students

      Students, both undergraduate and graduate, are of primary concern to all faculty members, and students' academic needs are of primary importance to the College. Student participation in various College committees may include the College Curriculum Committee (CCC), the Graduate Faculty Advisory Committee (GFAC), and those ad hoc committees where students' viewpoints are useful and appropriate. Student appointments to committees are made by the Dean in consultation with the CAC and the faculty members involved in and affected by a specific committee's work.

      1. Advising

        1. Faculty are required to advise and counsel undergraduate and graduate students on academic matters. General advising at the undergraduate level is coordinated by the Undergraduate Advisor who serves as the College representative for College and University functions related to undergraduate programs and activities. Individual faculty members are responsible for providing academic counseling to undergraduate students assigned to them and to other undergraduate students who seek such advice, as needed. Student advising at the graduate level is conducted by the student's assigned "specialization area” faculty advisor and, as applicable, the student’s thesis committee members.
      2. Student Grievances and Academic Complaints

        1. The University’s policies and procedures which govern student grievances and student academic complaints are included in the University Policy Register. Additional information regarding college-level procedures and policies associated with student academic complaints is provided in Section I.4.4 (Student Academic Complaint Committee (SACC)) of this Handbook. 
      3. Transfer Credit Procedure

        1. The Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director is responsible for the evaluation of undergraduate transfer credit and may consult with a faculty member who teaches the specific course or courses at issue. Questions of transfer credit for other subject areas should be referred to the College office. 
        2. Graduate transfer credit is evaluated according to the process described in the University’s current Graduate Catalog. Both master's and doctoral transfer credit may be accepted if the criteria are met, and the Graduate Coordinator and the Dean approve the transfer credit.
      4. Privacy of Student Records

        1. The Dean is responsible for ensuring that all members of the College comply with all laws and University Policies which govern the privacy of student education records, including but not limited to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). These regulations require, among other things, that faculty members keep thorough academic records and forbid the posting of grades by name, social security number or any other system which might identify a student with her/his education record. For further information, contact the University’s Office of Legal Affairs.
      5. Student Surveys

        2.     All courses are evaluated each semester, including summer sessions, using the approved Student Survey of Instruction (SSI). The policies and procedures for conducting the SSI are specified in the University Policy Register.

    3. Faculty Grievance and Appeal Procedure

      1. Informal Procedure

        1. The faculty member and the Dean of the CAE shall attempt to resolve issue(s) informally before proceeding to a formal grievance.
        2. Any faculty member who believes that he/she may have a grievance is required, before initiating a formal grievance or appeal, to talk with the Dean about any issue(s) of concern. The Dean may seek the advice and recommendation of individual faculty members or faculty advisory groups in seeking informal resolution of a dispute or complaint. 
        3. Faculty grievances that are not directly related to the terms or conditions of employment and are not academic appeals are appropriately addressed within the College, whenever possible. The Dean and/or faculty members will initiate an informal dialogue with all parties involved in a dispute and strive to reach a resolution agreeable to all parties.
      2. Formal Procedure

        1. Kent State University maintains a formal Grievance and Appeals Procedure established by the Collective Bargaining Agreements between Kent State University and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 
        2. Formal procedures for addressing grievances affecting the terms and conditions of employment of faculty are described in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Disputes involving substantive academic judgments are subject to a separate academic appeals process governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.
    4. Curricular Policies and Procedures

      1. Curricula

        1. Undergraduate Curriculum Oversight

          1. Responsibility for undergraduate degree requirements lies with the Academic Program Area within which the degree is housed. 
          2. The CCC is responsible for assigning course oversight/maintenance responsibilities to an Academic Program Area for each undergraduate course offered by the College.
          3. Each undergraduate course offered by the CAE is directly supervised by an Academic Program Area that is responsible for course development, review, revisions, and curricular changes. The Academic Program Area will establish, define, and maintain Basic Data Sheet (BDS) forms, course objectives, course content, course prerequisites, appropriate delivery methodology, and all other pertinent curricular issues in accordance with the needs of the College's undergraduate curriculum. 
        2. Graduate Curriculum Oversight

          1. The GFAC is responsible for developing and maintaining graduate degree requirements. 
          2. The GFAC is responsible for all graduate course development, review, revisions, and curricular changes. 
          3. The GFAC will establish, define, and maintain Basic Data Sheet (BDS) forms, course objectives, course content, appropriate delivery methodology, and all other pertinent curricular issues, in accordance with the needs of the College's graduate curriculum. 
        3. Undergraduate Curricular Development

          1. The University’s Educational Policies Council (EPC) has oversight of all curriculum issues, programs and policy proposals. Formal approval of specific curricular proposals is required to establish, to revise or to inactivate courses, programs, policies, academic administrative structures or agreements with curricular implications.

            In support of the EPC’s oversight function, the Office of Curriculum Services is responsible for analyzing, facilitating and monitoring proposed curricular changes and the implementation of those changes as approved by governing bodies. The Office of Curriculum Services produces an annual Curriculum Guidelines document that describes the review processes and procedures required to obtain approval for curricular proposals. The Curriculum Guidelines provides a blueprint to develop and revise academic policies, majors, concentrations, minors, certificates, courses and organizational changes and agreements with curricular implications. Faculty who initiate and/or develop curricular changes should refer to the Curriculum Guidelines document, available through the Curriculum Serves web site, for guidance on the requirements, procedures, and policies associated with specific types of curricular proposals.
          2. Individual full-time faculty members may develop new or revised program-specific courses and curriculum proposals. Undergraduate curricular changes may be proposed by any full-time CAE faculty member for consideration by the CCC. Faculty members are encouraged to develop all curricular proposals in consultation and collaboration with other faculty members in the Academic Program Area and/or curricular area affected by the proposed changes. A diagram depicting the process flow for undergraduate-level curriculum is provided in Appendix B of this Handbook.
          3. Proposals to make changes in an undergraduate academic program must originate from a Faculty Organization member within the applicable Academic Program Area. Curricular proposals must be submitted by the proposal originator to the applicable Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director for review by all Faculty Organization members in the same Academic Program Area. Upon approval of the proposal, the Academic Program Coordinator/Director shall forward the proposal to the CCC Chair for consideration by the CCC. 
          4. The CCC Chair shall submit the proposal to the CCC members at least four working days prior to a vote by the entire CCC.
          5. The CCC membership shall consider the proposal and make a recommendation for approval, disapproval, or approval with minor revisions. The Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director and/or the proposal originator should be present or available during CCC deliberations in order to provide assistance to the committee in their discussion of the proposal. The CCC Chair shall notify the proposal originator for any proposal that is disapproved or that requires revision, and shall provide the rationale for the decision. If the CCC determines that a proposal requires major revisions, the proposal must be revised and the new version must be approved by the Faculty Organization members in Academic Program Area, and then resubmitted to CCC by the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director for reconsideration. If the CCC approves a proposal that requires minor revision, the proposal must be revised, the new version must be approved by the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director, and the “final” proposal must be submitted by the Coordinator/Director to the CCC Chair. 
          6. All required documentation for approved proposals shall be provided to the Dean's Office by the CCC Chair. 
          7. The Dean's office will process and forward CCC curricular recommendations to University officials and governance bodies as appropriate, or return them to the CCC with suggestions for revision.
        4. Graduate Curricular Development

          1. The University’s Educational Policies Council (EPC) has oversight of all curriculum issues, programs and policy proposals. Formal approval of specific curricular proposals is required to establish, to revise or to inactivate courses, programs, policies, academic administrative structures or agreements with curricular implications.
            In support of the EPC’s oversight function, the Office of Curriculum Services is responsible for analyzing, facilitating and monitoring proposed curricular changes and the implementation of those changes as approved by governing bodies. The Office of Curriculum Services produces an annual Curriculum Guidelines document that describes the review processes and procedures required to obtain approval for curricular proposals. The Curriculum Guidelines provides a blueprint to develop and revise academic policies, majors, concentrations, minors, certificates, courses and organizational changes and agreements with curricular implications. Faculty who initiate and/or develop curricular changes should refer to the Curriculum Guidelines document, available through the Curriculum Serves web site, for guidance on the requirements, procedures, and policies associated with specific types of curricular proposals.
          2. Graduate curricular changes may be proposed by any CAE Graduate Faculty member for consideration by the GCC. A diagram depicting the process flow for graduate-level curriculum is provided in Appendix B of this Handbook.
          3. Faculty members are encouraged to develop all curricular proposals in consultation and collaboration with other faculty member in the curricular area affected by the proposed changes. 
          4. Curricular proposals must be submitted by the proposal originator to the GCC Chair for review by the GCC. 
          5. The GCC Chair shall submit the proposal to the GCC members at least four working days prior to a vote by the entire GCC. 
          6. The GCC membership shall consider the proposal and make a recommendation for approval or disapproval. The proposal originator or a proposal advocate should be present or available during GCC deliberations in order to provide assistance to the committee in their discussion of the proposal. The GCC Chair shall notify the proposal originator for any proposal that is disapproved, and provide the rationale for the disapproval decision. 
          7. All required documentation for approved graduate curriculum proposals shall be provided by the GCC Chair to the CCC Chair. The CCC chair shall provide the documentation to the CCC members as Informational Items for discussion by the CCC. The CCC may request re-consideration by the GCC of graduate curricular items. After review by the CCC, the proposals shall be submitted via electronic workflow to the Dean's Office by the CCC Chair. 
          8. The Dean's office will process and forward GCC curricular recommendations to the Dean of Graduate Studies and any other University officials and governance bodies as appropriate, or return them to the GCC with suggestions for revision, via electronic workflow.
      2. Final Exams

        1. Final examinations in all courses must be offered at the time and date specified in the University’s schedule of final examinations. Changes of the time and/or date of a final examination require prior approval of the Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director and the Dean, but in any case, the exam must also be offered at the time scheduled and publicized by the University for those students who desire to take the exam at that time.
      3. Grades

        1. Faculty members must inform students of their progress throughout the semester. Grades are a faculty member's responsibility and should be assigned fairly and objectively. Submission of final grades must comply with University Policy, including but not limited to the deadline for the timely submission of grades. Failure of faculty members to provide grades in compliance with University Policy will be taken into consideration in reappointment, promotion, tenure and Faculty Merit decisions. 
        2. Grade books/spread sheets and other materials used in computing grades (e.g., exams, papers, reports, etc.) that are not returned to the student must be retained by the faculty member for one year after final grades are submitted. Students have a right to inspect the written work performed during a course and discuss the grade with the faculty member.
      4. Audits

        1. Students may audit any course subject to space availability and University policy. Faculty members have the discretion to determine conditions and requirements for the audit.
    5. Roles and Responsibilities for CAE Leadership Positions

      1. Administrative Positions

        1. College Dean

          1. The Dean of the College (hereinafter the “Dean”) is the chief administrative officer of the College and reports directly to and is accountable to the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (hereinafter the “Provost”). The Dean is responsible for recording, maintaining, and implementing the policies and procedures stated in this Handbook through regular and thorough consultation with the tenured, tenure-track, and full-time non-tenure track faculty, and the College’s various committees. 
          2. The Dean's duties and responsibilities include but are not limited to the following:
            1. Ensuring College compliance with University administrative and operational policies, rules, and regulations, and any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements.
            2. Developing and carrying out administrative and educational policies in the College, with appropriate consultation.
            3. Providing leadership, instruction, guidance, and/or counsel to College faculty, staff, and administrators; resolving problems at the College level.
            4. Providing leadership and engaging in strategic planning.
            5. Providing leadership and oversight to all academic programs and curriculum; encouraging and supporting continuous improvement of programs and curriculum; developing and renewing programmatic and curricular initiatives; ensuring that programs are meeting all regulatory, licensure, and accreditation requirements on an ongoing basis.
            6. Developing, managing, allocating, and monitoring the College budget, with prior consultation with the CAC and the CAE Academic Budget Officer; making budget requests to Executive Officers; providing advice on budgets and fiscal management. 
            7. Administering college-wide personnel functions to include compliance with various federal and state laws and University and College personnel policies and procedures, such as appointment, tenure, and promotion actions, faculty improvement leaves, new hires, etc.
            8. Recommending new staff and faculty appointments to the Provost, after prior consultation with the CAC, the search committee, and faculty in the applicable Academic Program area.
            9. Recommending the reappointment, non-reappointment, tenure, promotion, sanction and/or dismissal of faculty members in the College.
            10. Managing college-wide resources acquisition and utilization.
            11. Appointing and directing the non-academic staff of the College. 
            12. Recommending leaves of absence for faculty members in the College, including but not limited to Professional Improvement Leaves and other academic leaves and/or non-academic leaves, including but not limited to leaves of absence without pay, sick leave, temporary disability leaves, court leaves and/or military leaves of absence.
            13. Recommending course changes, after consultation with appropriate college committees, through the appropriate University committees.
            14. Notifying the Provost of the absence or resignation of a faculty member.
            15.  Assigning workload to faculty members, with appropriate consultation.
            16. Scheduling classes and rooms through the appropriate University offices.
            17. Overseeing the preparation of reports to University officials, as required and appropriate.
            18.  Maintaining custody of University property allocated to the College.
            19. Notifying the President's Office, through appropriate channels, of the needs of the College for which gifts or bequests should be sought or are being sought.
            20. Fostering development activities; cultivating and soliciting individual donors, foundations, and corporations. 
            21. Promoting good communications and morale within the College.
            22. Planning and engaging in alumni activities.
            23. Representing the College and communicating the views of its faculty in University affairs.
            24. Keeping the College informed of the views and policies of the University administration.
            25. Maintaining appropriate balance and emphasis among the various disciplines represented in the College.
            26. Assigning a tenured faculty member as a mentor to each probationary tenure-track candidate upon their initial appointment.
            27. Assigning a full-time non-tenure track faculty member as a mentor to each full-time non-tenure track faculty member upon their initial appointment.
            28. Assigning faculty offices. All full-time faculty members will be notified by the Dean of an available faculty office, and each interested faculty member must submit a request in writing to the Dean for assignment to the office. Subsequently, the office shall be assigned to the faculty member with the highest seniority of those who have requested the office. Seniority ranking shall be determined by the faculty member’s time accrued as a full-time Faculty Organization member of the college. For the purpose of determining seniority, time spent in an administrator (non-Faculty Organization) position will not count towards seniority. 
            29. Promoting economic development and workforce development missions, and business and industry partnership programs.
            30. Representing the College to University administration; representing the College at appropriate University bodies, committees, councils, etc.; serving as College advocate and spokesperson at academic, social, and public functions; maintaining community service activities. 
            31. Performing other tasks and duties as assigned by the Provost, all of which cannot be cataloged and may include but not be limited to the following: the progress of graduates, maintaining relationships with the Regional Campuses, providing orientation to new faculty, developing brochures, course syllabi, etc.
          3. The Dean is an ex-officio, non-voting member of all College-level committees, and may make appointments as necessary, as permitted by the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement, this Handbook, and the University Policy Register, to College committees and to the various administrative and service positions in the College.
          4. The selection, review, and reappointment of the Dean are the responsibility of the Provost, who consults with the College faculty on such matters. Procedures for the selection, review and reappointment of the Dean are included in the University Policy Register
        2. Assistant/Associate Dean

          1. When applicable and appropriate for the College, an Assistant Dean and/or Associate Dean may be appointed by the Dean after consultation with the College Advisory Committee (CAC). The term of service is continuing and may be terminated by the Dean, in his/her sole discretion. 
          2. The duties and responsibilities of the Assistant/Associate Dean include but are not limited to the following:
            1. Assisting in developing the College budget.
            2. Serving as liaison to program counselors in the various colleges of the University.
            3. Serving as chief administrative officer of the College when designated by the Dean in his/her absence.
            4. Serving as either the primary or alternate College liaison, as designated by the Dean of the College, to the Graduate Studies Administrative Advisory Committee of the University's Division of Graduate Studies.
            5. Assisting the Dean in preparing any Annual Planning Reports, including leadership for enrollment planning.
            6. Providing leadership to increase scholarship and extramural funding: securing and maintaining resources for developing proposals, writing grants, identifying funding sources, implementing research, and disseminating scholarly work.
            7. If requested, assisting an Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director in the accreditation process for the College's curriculum. If requested, assisting an Academic Program Area Coordinator/Director in coordinating curriculum and program development to support professional accreditation and University-level assessment and accreditation initiatives. 
            8. Assisting the Dean in coordinating faculty and staff meetings and activities needed to fulfill the mission of the CAE.
            9. Developing recommendations to the Dean regarding the inclusion of research and scholarship in the curriculum.
            10. Assisting the CAE’s Director of Marketing & Public Relations Communication in coordinating fund raising activities such as Vision 21 and Homecoming events.
            11. Maintaining an up-to-date inventory of approved curriculum proposals, Basic Data Sheet (BDS) documents, and syllabi for all undergraduate and graduate courses and programs offered by the college. 
            12. Serving as the college’s “ETD Gatekeeper” for graduate student thesis preparation and submission to the University’s ETD (Electronic Thesis & Dissertation) office.
            13. Supervising the academic counseling of student majors in the College.
            14. Performing other duties and tasks as assigned or delegated by the Dean.
        3. Academic Program Director

          1. When applicable and appropriate for the College, an Academic Program Director may be appointed by the Dean after consultation with the College Advisory Committee. The term of service is continuing and may be terminated by the Dean, in his/her sole discretion. 
          2. The duties and responsibilities of the Academic Program Director include but are not limited to the following:
            1. Fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of the Academic Program Area Coordinator for the assigned program area according to Section I.3.1.2 (Academic Program Area Coordinators) of this Handbook)
            2. Providing leadership and direct supervision over the program area’s academic and administrative/professional employees.
            3. Directing the administrative, instructional, operational, and technological aspects of the academic program.
            4. Establishing and/or revising components of the academic program.
            5. Managing the University-designated academic program budget.
            6. Advising and counseling students and/or academic program clients.
            7. Coordinating marketing activities for the academic program area.
            8. Developing sponsored program area activities.
            9. Serving on various University committees.
            10. Serving as a member of the University’s Chair and Directors council.
            11. Developing recommendations to the Dean regarding the inclusion of research and scholarship in the program area’s curriculum.
            12. Serving as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the college’s College Advisory Committee (CAC), the College Curriculum Committee (CCC), and the Graduate Faculty Advisory Committee (GFAC). 
            13. Performing other duties and tasks as assigned or delegated by the Dean.
    6. Appendices

      1. Appendix A: Required/Terminal Degrees

        College of Aeronautics and Engineering

        Area/Program

        CAE
        Terminal Degree

        Required

        for FTNTT Appointment*

        Required

        for TT
        Appointment**

        Aeronautics

        Air Traffic Control

        Masters

        BS

        Masters

        Flight Technology

        Masters

        BS

        Masters

        Aviation Management

        Masters

        BS

        Masters

        Aeronautical Studies

        Masters

        BS

        Masters

        Aeronautical Systems Engineering Technology

        Doctorate

        BS

        Masters

        Aerospace Engineering

        Doctorate

        Masters

        Doctorate

        Applied Engineering

        Applied Engineering & Technology Management

        Doctorate

        Masters

        Doctorate

        Computer Engineering Technology

        Doctorate

        Masters

        Doctorate

        Mechanical Engineering Technology

        Doctorate

        Masters

        Doctorate

        Mechatronics

        Doctorate

        Masters

        Doctorate

         

        *FTNTT Faculty who are hired without a terminal degree will hold the rank of Lecturer, Associate Lecturer, or Senior Lecturer. FTNTT Faculty who are hired with a terminal degree will hold the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor.

        ** TT Faculty are hired at the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor.

      2. Appendix D: Workload Equivalencies

        Workload Equivalents Guidelines

        The information in the table below represents the minimum workload equivalents recommended with a variety of course types and course delivery methods. The terms “Assistants” and “Assistance” in the table refer to Graduate Assistants, Teaching Assistants, or Student Employees. 

        Normally, workload equivalents should be allocated according to the information provided in table below. In the event that the delivery method and/or course work for a course are unusual, a faculty member may request an adjustment of the workload equivalents that are provided in the table below.

        The assignment of workload equivalents is the responsibility of the Dean, in consultation with the Coordinators/Directors of Academic Program Areas and the CAC. Approval of the Dean is required for the assignment of all workload equivalents.

        1. Table D-1. Workload Equivalents

          Category

          Instruction

          Section Limit

          Faculty Load Allocated

          Lecture-Only Instruction

           

           

           

          1. Undergraduate – Upper Division

          Lecture

          No section limit

          a) For the first 50 students enrolled: per course credit hours
          b) Without Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 50: 1.0 load hour
          c) With Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 50: 0.5 load hour

           

          1. Undergraduate – Lower Division

          Lecture

          No section limit

          a) For the first 60 students enrolled: per course credit hours
          b) Without Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 60: 1.0 load hour
          c) With Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 60: 0.5 load hour 

           

          2. Graduate-level

          Lecture

          No section limit

          a) For the first 25 students enrolled: per course credit hours
          b) Without Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 25: 1.0 load hour
          c) With Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 25: 0.5 load hour
           

          3. Combined Grad/Undergrad

          Lecture

          No section limit

          a) For the first 50 undergraduate students OR 25 graduate students enrolled OR 40 students of combined undergraduate and graduate students: per course credit hours
          b) Without Assistance: For each additional 10-25 undergraduate students beyond 40 OR each 10-25 graduate students beyond 25 OR each 25 students of combined undergraduate and graduate students: 1.0 load hour
          c) With Assistance: For each additional 10-25 undergraduate students beyond 40 OR each 10-25 graduate students beyond 25 OR each 25 students of combined undergraduate and graduate students: 0.5 load hour

           

          Lab Component

           

           

           

          1. Lab Instruction

          Lab only

          Lab capacity

          1 load hour per 2 lab contact hours
           

          2. Lab Oversight

          Lab only

          Lab capacity

          For 1-5 lab assistants, per course: 0.5 load hours
          For > 5 lab assistants, per course: 1.0 load hours

           

          Writing Intensive Course (WIC)

          Lecture only

          25 per section

          Per course credit hours
           

          100% On-Line Courses (Grad)

          Lecture only

          25 per section

          a) Per course credit hours
          b) For each 10-25 students beyond 25: 1 load hour

           

          100% On-Line Course (UG)

          Lecture only

          40 per section

          a) Per course credit hours
          b) For each 10-25 students beyond 40: 1 load hour

          Category

          Faculty Load Allocated

          Lecture Courses with Significant Computer Programming Component 
          (>= 50% grade component per the course BDS)

          a) For the first 25 students enrolled: per course credit hours
          b) Without Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 25: 1 load hour
          c) With Assistance: For each 10-25 students beyond 25:  0.5 load hour
           

          Extensive course redesign or first-time course preparation*

          1.0  x  credit hours
           

          First time course delivery without development compensation

          0.5  x  credit hours
           

          Individual Investigation/Research/Co-op/Supervision of  individual ELR student project

          0.1 load hour per credit hour per student

           

          Thesis/Honors Advisor

          0.5 hours/student/semester

           

          *Intellectual Property rights are governed by University Policy and the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement, as applicable.