Performance expectations and faculty excellence | Kent State University

Performance expectations and faculty excellence

  1. Merit Evaluation Criteria and Processes

                As stated in the Principles for the Evaluation and Reward of Faculty Scholarship (section 4 B), the Department of Biological Sciences criteria for the evaluation and reward of faculty scholarship have as their foundation the scholarship of discovery, integration, teaching, and application.  The procedure used by the Department in evaluating faculty merit involves close interaction between the Chair and the FAC in arriving at a single merit recommendation for each faculty member.  The goal of this procedure is for the Chair and the FAC to reach agreement on the Department's merit recommendations which are then forwarded to the College.  The procedure used in this evaluation is given below.

                The two areas of merit consideration are research and teaching/advising/service.  Faculty may apply in either or both categories.  Threshold levels of qualifications in both categories (Section 4B) must be met to be considered for merit.  Each faculty member who applies must provide documentation for consideration.  Student Evaluations of Teaching results are provided by the Chair for the merit review period.

                Members of the FAC review the files independently and rank candidates following the Principles for the Evaluation and Reward of Faculty Scholarship document.  Each FAC member's ranking is given to the administrative assistant who completes a randomized anonymous matrix and average ranking for each candidate in each of the two categories.  This matrix is returned to FAC members for review.  The Chair of the FAC convenes the FAC to develop a final composite ranking for the candidates in each category.  The FAC is to reach agreement on the final composite ranking.  Concurrently, the Chair reviews the files and ranks the candidates in each category.

                The Chair and FAC meet to share the respective rankings.  A full and open discussion of the two rankings (FAC composite and Chair) follows and a final Departmental composite ranking is developed.  The FAC and the Chair must agree on the Departmental ranking.

                The Chair and the FAC proceed to separate the rankings for each category into three or more groupings for candidates with like records.  The Chair and the FAC develop minimal merit amounts for each group within the merit pool available.  The amount for each category is dependent on the total merit funds available.  As a general guideline the Departmental merit pool is divided equally between research and teaching/advising/service.  The Chair and the FAC discuss the amount to be requested from the College for each individual within each grouping.  The FAC may give the Chair the right to adjust requested amounts within each category group to match the total Departmental merit pool allocations.  Any unanticipated funds provided by the College merit pool after rankings have been submitted will be dispersed at the discretion of the Chair. 

                The Chair forwards the Departmental recommendation to the College.

  2. Criteria for Merit Evaluation

    I.          Threshold Eligibility for Merit

             A.     Teaching threshold for merit in the research and scholarly activity category:


                      Student evaluations, peer evaluations, peer comments, etc. must indicate a performance sufficient to reach the acceptable range of evaluations found in comparable courses (comparable difficulty, comparable type of students, etc.)

                B.      Research and scholarly activity threshold for merit in the teaching category:

                         Documented contributions to the graduate program, e.g., service on thesis, dissertation committees and/or teaching graduate level courses, or other recognized, unspecified contribution to graduate level education.

    II.         Merit Category I:  Teaching/Advising/Service

                A.     Teaching (should receive most consideration in merit category I)

                         1.      Minimal Expectations

                                  Along with acceptable peer and student evaluations a candidate must have an acceptable teaching load, and participate in advising and service responsibilities.

                         2.      Merit

                                  a.   Performance of approved teaching duties

                                           (1)        Outstanding student evaluations:  above the norm for comparable courses, e.g., service courses (nonmajors); descriptive courses; experimental laboratory courses, etc.

                                           (2)     Outstanding peer reviews and comments.

                                  b.   Meritorious recognized teaching performance

                                           (1)     Teaching awards

                                           (2)        Extramural funds for teaching improvement

                                           (3)        Publishing in a pedagogical journal

                                           (4)        Publishing texts, lab manuals, etc.

                                  c.   Special teaching efforts

                                           (1)        Recognized self-improvement (teaching workshops, courses, etc.)

                                           (2)     Grant applications

                                           (3)        Initiation of new courses (approved to meet demonstrated needs for program improvement)

                                           (4)     Evaluated individual studies

                                           (5)        Documented or verifiable unusual efforts in coordination of laboratories, seminars, etc.

                                           (6)     Verifiable off-duty efforts

                                           (7)        Other

                                  d.      Advising

                                           (1)     Large numbers of student advisees

                                           (2)     Large numbers of student recommendations

                                           (3)        Special efforts

                                  e.   Service

                                           (1)        Exceptional involvement, contributions or efforts in recognized committees (department, college, university)

                                                       (a)  Committees chaired

                                                       (b)  Time consuming committees

                                                       (c)  Numerous committees

                                           (2)        Special non-credit hour equivalent service

                                                       (a)  Departmental

                                                       (b)  Collegial and university

                                           (3)        Significant professional organization (BSCI) service, e.g., consulting

                                           (4)        Significant nonprofessional (non-BSCI) service, e.g., community service)

                                           (5)     Other special effort

    III.       Merit category II:  Research/Scholarly Activities

                A.     Minimal Expectations

                         Individuals with teaching loads reduced for research activities are expected to show minimum productivity in all of the following areas:  attempts to obtain outside grant support; publications and/or presentations; attempts to obtain and properly advise graduate students; other activities indicative of an active research program.

                B.     Merit

                         1.      Grants obtained (and unusual number of grant applications)

                         2.     Publications

                                  a.      Refereed books, monographs, chapters, review articles, etc.

                                  b.      Refereed journal publications

                                  c.   Large number of nonrefereed publications

                         3.      Presentations, particularly those invited or presented at prestigious professional meetings or institutes

                         4.     Unusual efforts in reviewing grants and manuscripts

                         5.      Advisor of graduate students completing advanced degrees

                         6.      Other special efforts