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.