Performance Review | Department of Modern and Classical Language Studies Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Performance Review

All faculty are required to undergo student evaluations for every course taught; in addition, new faculty in the first three-year term of appointments undergo at least one faculty peer evaluation per year, and faculty in the second three-year term of appointments undergo one peer evaluation during that three-year period, while faculty who have completed two full performance reviews will undergo at least one such review before standing for a promotion to the next rank. All peer reviews will be shared with the faculty member in a timely manner and the faculty member will have an opportunity to discuss the review with the peer reviewer and/or the chair, if desired. Faculty members are expected to address the results of peer reviews in the narratives submitted for performance reviews.

Guidelines for the submission of materials for Full Performance Reviews in the Spring semester of the third consecutive year of appointment and for the timely conduct of the review process will be issued annually by the Office of Faculty Affairs; criteria and procedures for Performance Reviews are detailed below.

After nine years of consecutive appointments, and every three years thereafter, bargaining unit members shall undergo a simplified performance review following the procedures and timelines issued by the Office of Faculty Affairs. Members will electronically submit to the Chair a vita, summaries of student surveys of instruction, if applicable, and a narrative of the past up to five pages in which the faculty member describes her/his professional activities during the past three years. The Ad Hoc Reappointment committee will discuss this material and the faculty member’s peer evaluation(s) (if applicable) and will make a recommendation to the Chair.

For Full Performance Review, the candidate submits to the Chair a file documenting performance in all areas of responsibility covered by the appointment. The file shall include, but not be limited to, the following materials:

a. all student evaluations, including unedited written comments, from the review period;

b. all peer evaluations submitted within the review period;

c. a portfolio of teaching materials, tests, graded papers, and syllabi documenting that course content and teaching methods are current and consistent with Department practices;

d. a self-study narrative articulating the candidate’s philosophy of language teaching, goals for each course taught, difficulties and concerns arising from in-class experience, and strategies and plans for addressing them; and

e. any additional materials which the candidate deems suitable, such as unsolicited student comments and notes, documentation of student success in subsequent courses, conference participation, publications, grant activity, and/or documentation of Department service and relevant community service.

The Ad Hoc Reappointment Committee conducts reviews employing the following criteria:

a. quality of teaching as demonstrated by positive student evaluations (summary sheets and unedited comments) in relation to Department norms;

b. quality of teaching as documented by positive peer evaluations (where applicalbe) which indicate consistent success in such matters as class preparation, instructor use of class time, clarity of assignments and explanations, sustaining student interest, establishing class rapport, conducting the class in the target language (where appropriate);

c. appropriateness of the self-study for the Departmental mission in teaching languages and cultures;

d. effectiveness of the candidate, where appropriate, in participating in Department life, representing the Department to groups outside the University, preparing students for subsequent courses in the language sequence, etc.

and (if the candidate is undergoing Full Performance Review):

e. currency of materials included in the teaching portfolio as documented by up-to-date approaches to language teaching (e.g., innovative methods, computer and technological applications) and course content (e.g., language as currently spoken and written in the host countries) which are compatible with Departmental approaches;

As part of the review process, the Review Committee may invite the candidate and other appropriate faculty members (e.g., Pedagogy Coordinator, faculty teaching in the same language) for an interview. Each member of the Review Committee will submit a brief written evaluation of the file and cast a written ballot, voting either for or against further reappointment. The members cast their votes fully aware that reappointment is ultimately contingent on the availability of Department funds to subsidize the position and/or the programmatic need for continuing the position, as well as satisfaction with the candidate’s performance. The Chair takes the votes and summaries under advisement and writes a memo to the College Dean summarizing the vote and evaluative comments, with a copy going to the candidate. In the memo the Chair recommends either for or against reappointment, stating the reasons and rationale for his/her decision within the context of the assessment of the candidate’s performance, programmatic/instructional staffing needs of the Department, and fiscal and budgetary constraints affecting staffing.