Evaluation Criteria for Scholarship, Teaching, and University Citizenship | Computer Science Handbook | Kent State University

Evaluation Criteria for Scholarship, Teaching, and University Citizenship

  1. Scholarship

    Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity, and the originality, quality, impact and value of the candidate’s scholarship must be assessed. To facilitate this assessment, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his / her scholarly activity. The candidate must also submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her / his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The Chair must then solicit, from the candidate’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee, a ranked list of at least three (3) experts in the candidate’s field who are considered capable of judging his / her work. The candidate must be given the opportunity to review the list from the Ad Hoc RTP Committee, and express any concerns he / she may have over particular people on this list. The Chair will then solicit reviews from at least three (3) experts on the candidate’s list and at least two (2) experts from the top three on the Ad Hoc RTP Committee’s list.

    Evaluation 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. Since the attributes of scholarly activity may vary across disciplines, the candidate’s specific area of specialization may be a factor in the venues in which papers or articles are published; in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications; and in the number and size of grants received. The external reviews are crucial for evaluating the appropriate scholarly activity for the candidate’s specific area.

    In addition to scholarly publications and funded research, other scholarly activities should be considered. These may include, but are not limited to: serving on grant review panels, journal editorial boards, or conference program committees; chairing or serving on conference organizing or steering committees; and chairing or serving on committees or councils of professional societies or government agencies. These activities complement scholarly publications and funded research and are in addition to the normal faculty expectations such as holding membership in professional societies, staying current in the field, and other activities to enhance professional competency.

    Different levels of scholarly activity are summarized in Table 5. The last column in this table summarizes the amount and type of activity typically required to reach each level, and may be useful to the candidate as a guide. However, candidates are cautioned that promotion decisions are based on the outcomes specified in the first column, not on the amount of activity expended.

    Table 5. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure

    Level

    Scholarship

    Typical Activities

    I

    Nationally and internationally recognized research program

    Sustained record of publications1, grant activity2, and professional service3

    II

    Emerging nationally or internationally recognized research program

    Demonstrated record of publications1, grant activity2, and professional service3

    III

    Active research program

    Regular publications or grant activity

    IV

    Limited research program

    Occasional publications or grant activity

    V

    No research program

    No publications or grant activity

    1Publications include journal articles, conference / symposium / workshop papers, books, book chapters, monographs, technical reports, posters, etc. Evaluation of a candidate’s publication record should consider (1) the type of publications common to the candidate’s discipline; (2) the quality of the publications (including the method of review, venue, sponsoring society, acceptance rate, or ranking if available); and / or (3) the recognition received for the specific publication (e.g., best paper awards, citation indexes appropriate to the field, for example Google Scholar or the ACM Digital Library).

    2Grant activity refers to submitting grant proposals or receiving grants. Grants refer to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated. Grants may include funding from Federal, State, or local government agencies, foundations, or industry. Grants may support students, postdocs, faculty salary, equipment, travel, or other items. Grants may support the candidate’s research or teaching, or may fund scholarships or infrastructure improvements. Grants may or may not include full Indirect Costs (“overhead”). Evaluation of a candidate’s funding record should consider (1) the availability and type of funding common to the candidate’s discipline; (2) the size and type of grants received and the candidate’s role in securing the funding; and (3) any unsuccessful attempts by the candidate to secure funding.

    3Professional service includes serving on formal grant review panels, journal editorial boards, or conference program committees; reviewing grant proposals, articles, papers, or other publications; chairing or serving on conference organizing / steering committees; and chairing or serving on committees / boards / councils of professional societies or government agencies. Activities such as holding membership in professional societies, reading scholarly publications in the field, attending conferences, or other activities to enhance professional competency are considered part of a faculty member’s normal professional activity and are not considered as professional service.

     

  2. Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 6. Evaluation is based on three main activities: 1) classroom teaching and instruction, 2) course and curriculum development, and 3) student mentoring.

    Classroom teaching and instruction is mainly evaluated using peer reviews, student evaluations, and developed teaching materials. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction are to be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review. Documentation of innovative teaching methods can be included for review.

    Activities that involve making substantial modification to a course or part of the curriculum are to be considered. Examples include, but are not limited to developing a new course, developing new lab materials, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content / format, etc. Documentation of taking a leadership role on curricular changes and implementing such changes can be included for review.

    Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by the candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. A list of graduated and current students along with supervised individual studies, honors thesis, thesis, and dissertations should be included for review.

    Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.

    Table 6. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

    Level

    Teaching

    Typical Activities

    I

    Effective teacher, effective mentor, and provides leadership in educational activities

    Very good4 student and peer perceptions; regularly supervising graduate student research projects, theses, dissertations; demonstrated leadership in teaching innovations, course development, or curriculum development

    II

    Effective teacher and mentor

    Good4 student and peer perceptions; supervising graduate or undergraduate student research projects, theses, or dissertations

    III

    Meets obligations well

    Good4 student and peer perceptions

    IV

    Substandard teacher

    Fair4 student and peer perceptions

    V

    Substandard, ineffective teacher

    Poor4 student and peer perceptions; pattern of complaints for ineffective teaching


    4When measured by a Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) with a Likert scale of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor.

     

  3. University Citizenship

    A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Table 7. The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) the role of the candidate in that service and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in Department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, Department meetings and seminars, etc.

    Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities. Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

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

    Table 7. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure

    Level

    University Citizenship

    Typical Activities

    I

    Exceeds normal obligations

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

    II

    Meets normal obligations

    Meets the normal Department / Campus obligations

    III

    Does not meet obligations

    Does not meet Department / Campus obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant Department / Campus events