Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | Department of Modern and Classical Language Studies Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

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

Reappointment, tenure and promotion criteria in this Handbook are periodically reviewed and modified. These changes are made with the understanding that faculty who have undergone at least three reappointment reviews under the previous Handbook will continue to be evaluated according to that Handbook for the purposes of tenure review, as well as for promotion review if concurrent with tenure review.

Each academic year, reappointment, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Probationary tenure-track faculty members and candidates for promotion are reviewed by the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee. More specific statements in this Handbook regarding procedures and criteria are intended to function within current University policy; in case of any divergence between this Handbook and University policy, the latter takes precedence.

  1. Reappointment

    The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16) as well as the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Probationary faculty will create and present a dossier Chair, who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the committee, which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment. The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Chair informs probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Chair are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

    For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress each year toward the requirements for tenure. Moreover, the faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals. By the time of standing for tenure, the successful candidate will demonstrate clear evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline, present a record of excellent teaching, and document contributions as a citizen of the department and the broader university community. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during each review in the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, a sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department. A candidate who fails to demonstrate adequate progress toward tenure in a given review will be notified that she/he will not be reappointed.

    In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. If concerns about performance arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Department’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.

    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. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13)

  2. Tenure and Promotion

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15). Both policies are also included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions, and the candidate will prepare separate dossiers for each action. Tenure is based on accomplishments as well as an assessment of the potential of the candidate as an academic and departmental peer. Promotion is a reward based on accomplishments completed during the review period.

    For Kent Campus faculty, the department will generally recommend tenure and promotion in the same year. While it is possible to be tenured without being promoted, it is generally expected that faculty will accumulate a record of achievement that will be sufficient for a positive recommendation for both tenure and promotion. For Regional Campus faculty, tenure and promotion are less closely linked.

    The decision to grant tenure 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 had an impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline, compiled a record of excellent teaching, and made contributions as a citizen of the department and the broader university community.

    One of the major criteria for measuring whether publications have impact is peer review, the standard process through which other scholars recognize a candidate’s work as a significant and original contribution to a discipline. Peer review refers to evaluation of scholarship by individuals recognized as experts in one’s field of activity. Blind peer review is considered preferable to peer review in which the reviewer is aware of the candidate’s identity. Evidence of peer review includes such items as outside reader reports, letters from editors, and published editorial policies. Scholarly impact may also be demonstrated through marks of recognition that occur after the dissemination of the work. Candidates for reappointment, tenure or promotion must make explicit in their dossiers whether a scholarly activity has been peer-reviewed; the burden of proof lies at all times with the candidate.

    Impact on the discipline may be demonstrated in a variety of ways, including but not limited to the following:

    Acceptance of the candidate’s work through a process of blind peer review in well-regarded journals, edited collections, applications for external funding, or peer review of book-length works.

    Assessments of the candidate’s scholarship by disinterested, external scholars who are recognized experts in the field. These experts will be asked to comment on the actual and potential impact of the candidate’s work as part of the tenure review process.

    Published book reviews or other acknowledgment of a candidate’s work by peers in the field, including citations of a candidate’s articles, books or other publications.

    Publication in peer-reviewed journals and/or practitioner journals that are the outlets for the premier national organizations in the candidate’s field or otherwise can be shown to have a wide readership in the discipline.

    Invitations by disinterested colleagues outside the University to contribute to edited collections, to undertake editorial projects, or to speak at conferences or other scholarly venues. Such invitations indicate that the candidate has been recognized as an expert in the discipline.

    Wide adoption of a textbook or other instructional materials, including scholarly translations.

    In assessing a tenure case, the department takes into consideration all evidence of the candidate’s likelihood of future success, including letters of acceptance for submitted works, book contracts, and grant proposals submitted but not funded. Tenure considerations also include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University, in order to aid in the assessment of a candidate’s scholarly potential. However, such documentation shall in no case constitute the sole basis for tenure. For promotion, all publications must have appeared or be available in the form of page proofs by the time the dossier is submitted.

    Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor. Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence. Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence. Evidence for this prominence includes a sustained record of major publications and a record of increased prominence in and impact on the field above and beyond that expected for the first promotion.

    Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for tenure and advancement in academic rank. 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 Department.

  3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

    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 tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

    For tenure and for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a “very good” rating in the other category. The candidate’s citizenship must meet at least the criteria for “Good Citizenship” as outlined in Table 3.

    A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “Excellent” rating in scholarship and at least the criteria for a “Very Good” rating in teaching. The candidate’s citizenship must meet at least the criteria for “Very Good Citizenship” as outlined in Table 3.

    Different faculty roles may foster differential weighting of criteria for assessing the candidate’s scholarship, teaching and citizenship. Specifically, greater consideration will be given to teaching and citizenship when evaluating faculty whose appointment is at a regional campus. Regional faculty members will not be held to the same quantitative standard for scholarship and their achievements will be weighted according to any applicable language in the regional campus handbook.

  4. Scholarship

    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 candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The Chairperson and FAC may also suggest names. Each external reviewer will be asked to state specifically whether impact commensurate with tenure and/or promotion (as applicable) has been demonstrated according to the criteria of MCLS. Normally, it is expected that all the external reports will be positive in successful tenure cases, although the Department reserves the right to exercise its own judgment in weighting external reports.

    The candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity. Information on appropriate documentation is available from the Chair, and probationary candidates should consult their peer mentors for other resources to assist in the preparation of the dossier. The categories of scholarship to be considered in tenure and promotion reviews, with examples of the types of scholarly dissemination considered appropriate for inclusion in a dossier, are listed separately below.

    Because Faculty in MCLS are encouraged to participate across functional units, published peer-reviewed or invited research in the fields of Language, Literature and Culture, Pedagogy and Translation Studies will be considered applicable toward tenure and promotion for all candidates. Faculty need not limit their scholarship to the area represented by their functional unit. There is a greater priority on quality of the scholarship itself and the venues than the scholarship topics.

    When appropriate, works in the category of application may be assigned the same weight toward tenure as works in the categories of discovery and integration. Particularly in the areas associated with applied linguistics (translation and second language pedagogy), applied scholarship has a long and recognized tradition. In order to assist committees in evaluating and weighting works categorized as applied, candidates should explain and document in the dossier how such works have been received by scholarly peers or community partners either before or after dissemination, and by what objective measures the success of the works can be gauged.

    1. Quantitative expectation: Because the types of research and the modes of dissemination of research by faculty in MCLS are so varied, no single number of published items can serve as a rigid standard for judging a candidate’s work. At the same time, the department expects successful candidates to meet a minimum quantitative standard for published research. Candidates are generally expected to produce the equivalent of five refereed items (or if at a Regional Campus, 3 refereed items) by the time they stand for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor, although scholarship of exceptional quality may be recognized accordingly. For promotion to Professor, the equivalent of an additional five refereed items is the minimum quantitative requirement. If a candidate has published a single-authored scholarly book, a scholarly refereed book-length translation or an analogous work during the period under review, this will usually be considered equivalent to five "article-length" contributions. Books with two or more co-authors will usually be recognized on a pro rata basis. Edited books will be treated as equivalent to three articles, and co-editorship credit will be allocated in the same manner as co-authorship. Any article by the editor in an edited book is treated as a separate article, but the introduction is not counted as a separate article. The Department reserves the right to vary from these numbers when the quality merits so doing.

    In addition to publications and applications for external and internal funding, the following may be used to support the case for reappointment, tenure or promotion, although they cannot form its primary basis: journal or book series editorship, book reviews, non-reviewed conference publications, conference presentations. Service grants and grants for equipment, travel, seminar participation, publication, and offprint subvention cannot be included under scholarship, but may be included, as appropriate, under the Teaching and Citizenship categories.

    Table 1. Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure

    Scholarship rating

    Definition

    Accomplishments

    Excellent

    Nationally/ internationally recognized research agenda and outcomes

    • Sustained research agenda resulting in demonstrable national and international impact on the discipline and publications exceeding the quantitative expectations of the department; AND
    • Record of application for external funding* in support of candidate’s research and/or departmental mission; AND
    • Invitations to present or collaborate by disinterested colleagues in the field, research-related service in professional organizations, or other forms of scholarly recognition

     

     Very Good

    Emerging nationally

    recognized research agenda and outcomes

    • Research agenda resulting in demonstrable impact on the discipline and meeting the quantitative expectations of the department; AND
    • Record of application for internal funding* in support of candidate’s research and/or departmental mission; AND
    • Invitations to present or collaborate by disinterested colleagues in the field; research-related service in professional organizations, or other forms of scholarly recognition.

    Good

    Active research agenda with limited outcomes

    • Some peer reviewed publications or funding applications, but falls slightly below the quantitative expectations of the department; AND
    • Invitations to present or collaborate by disinterested colleagues in the field, research-related service in professional organizations, or other forms of scholarly recognition.

    Weak

    Weak research agenda with limited outcomes

    • Occasional publications or meeting presentations; falls well below the quantitative expectations of the department

    Poor

    Research agenda with no outcomes, or undeveloped research agenda

    • No publications, presentations, or grants

    *External funding refers to extramural competitive research grants, instructional grants, fellowships, and contracts as well as the securing of substantial gifts in kind in support of the research and/or teaching missions of the department. Internal funding refers to intramural competitive research or instructional grants, appointments and fellowships.

    1. Categories and Examples of Scholarship

    Examples of Scholarship in Language, Literature and Culture include but are not limited to: books, edited books, and articles that expand existing knowledge in literary studies, cultural studies, philology, textual criticism, second language acquisition and related disciplines. Examples include original criticism and analysis of literary or popular texts, films, or other visual or aural media; studies of the relationship between texts and their historical and cultural contexts; studies of material culture and its relationship to other aspects of a given culture; studies dealing with linguistic and philological questions in individual texts or parts of texts; quantitative or qualitative studies of issues in language acquisition. Scholarship also includes the integrative work involved in interpretations of literary texts, films, other visual and aural media, or material culture according to psychological, sociological, historical, or philosophical perspectives; studies that use comparative techniques or combine methods from more than one discipline; synthetic studies that draw upon existing scholarship to summarize the state of an issue or problem in a given field.

    Applied scholarship in Language, Literature and Culture includes but is not limited to: studies in language, literature, culture, linguistics, or language pedagogy applied to such non-academic matters as business, economic issues, social problems, and political activity; projects, events and programs that target audiences outside the academy (such as elementary or high school students, employees of a business, or self-selected members of the general public) and increase awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity; public readings, film presentations or exhibits organized around societal issues relevant to cultural diversity and/or the global community; language/cultural immersion projects; outreach projects that address awareness of cultural and/or linguistic diversity.

    Examples of Scholarship in Pedagogy include but are not limited to: books, edited books, and articles that expand existing knowledge as it relates to the foreign language classroom and instruction in foreign languages. Examples include development of new methodologies and theories; creating infrastructures for future instruction and theories; implementation of new or innovative teaching strategies in the classroom; making private teacher knowledge public; case studies; quantitative and qualitative empirical studies; action research; critical evaluation and testing of learning strategies; critical reflection on one’s own or others' teaching practices, theories, methodologies or strategies; articles and books on pedagogy that can be used for multiple disciplines; articles and books that bridge previous research on foreign language theories, methodologies or strategies; technological innovations; analysis of interdisciplinary pedagogical methodologies, strategies or theories; interdisciplinary models for formative and summative assessments.

    Applied scholarship in Pedagogy includes but is not limited to: pedagogical manuals; language acquisition textbooks; pre-service and in-service teacher training; articles on language pedagogy outside of education settings; collaboration with businesses and governmental agencies; serving schools and school districts as an external consultant; models for pre-service and in-service teacher training.

    Examples of Scholarship in Translation Studies include but are not limited to: books, edited books, and articles that critique specific translations, compare multiple translations, analyze the linguistic, cultural, cognitive or semantic patterns or variables in translators’ practices synchronically or diachronically; translators’ prefaces or essays discussing the methods used; translations of, for instance, a novel, a play, a book of poems, or a scholarly non-fiction text; studies that analyze translation corpora to reveal patterns or variables in translation; the development of innovative teaching methods; research on assessment and quality control issues; articles and books that integrate existing knowledge and provide an innovative interpretive analysis; the interpretation of texts; terminology articles and resources such as handbooks and guides that integrate the principles of terminology with specific field content in technical communications, information science, computational linguistics, etc.; the creation of corpora or of CAT tools; innovative computational approaches to terminology management.

    Applied scholarship in Translation studies includes but is not limited to: textbooks; translations for the purposes of a non-academic public that are available for peer review and evaluation according to accepted standards; development of assessment tools; trade articles about new translation tools or programs; standards for specific industries; the creation of monolingual and multilingual technical glossaries and dictionaries in accordance with terminological principles.

  5. Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 2. The threshold criteria for tenure are “Very Good” student and peer perceptions of teaching and evidence of ongoing professional development plus contributions to one or more of the related processes of curricular design, advising, instructional delivery, and the evaluation of student performance and learning outcomes. The following categories with examples indicate the range of activities that may be used as examples of teaching success. For tenure and promotion to Associate, there may be cases where a teaching record indicates lower levels of success in the earlier periods of review. In such cases the Committee will weigh more heavily evidence of successful teaching covering the three years just prior to the tenure review.

    Instruction and Delivery:

    • Positive student evaluation scores that reflect high-quality teaching and are at or above College norms. The record must include all available student evaluations of sections taught during the review period, summarized by the candidate, as well as the summaries of narrative comment compiled by the department.
    • Peer evaluations conducted according to departmental policy, arranged by the Chair in consultation with the FAC.
    • Course portfolios, including such items as syllabi, tests and examinations, handouts.
    • Teaching awards or nominations.
    • Design of innovative instructional materials, including on-line materials
    • Design of new modes of instructional delivery, including on-line courses and distance learning
    • Reflective self-evaluation of course planning and classroom experiences

    Curriculum Design and Review:

    • Significant and major involvement in creating and developing new curricula and/or new courses that meet the Department’s mission and address the expressed needs of departmental initiatives.
    • Curricular and program reviews conducted on behalf of other universities or colleges.

    Advising, Mentoring and Supervision:

    • Direction to completion of honors theses, M.A. theses, Ph.D. dissertations, translation/pedagogy projects, or individual investigations, as well as other individual supervision of students, especially when such direction does not constitute a formal part of the faculty member’s workload.
    • Supervision or evaluation of the work of students at other universities
    • Advising of students, participation in the university freshman orientation program, and serving as faculty advisor to student organizations.

    Professional Development:

    • Development and delivery of instructional workshops
    • Involvement (as organizer or participant) in internal or external workshops and programs that enhance teaching, curriculum or assessment in furtherance of the departmental mission, especially when such participation has demonstrable results.

    Evaluation and Assessment:

    • Design and implementation of new methods of evaluation and assessment, including placement examinations, outcomes assessment instruments, and proficiency assessments.
    • Certification as an ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview tester.

    Documentation of student learning is one of the ways to achieve recognition as an “Excellent” or “Very Good” teacher. This criterion can be met in many ways, including but not limited to the following:

    • documentation of a successful student project (e.g., an individual investigation or a research project that went on to be presented at a conference or published);
    • documentation of learning using pre- and post-tests;
    • external recognition of student success through awards, placements, etc.;
    • use of outcomes-based teaching strategies with appropriate assessments

    Table 2: Assessment of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure

    Rating

    Definition

    Accomplishments

    Excellent

    Highly successful, innovative teacher; provides leadership in the areas of instruction, advising, curriculum and/or assessment

    • Excellent student and peer perceptions* AND
    • Seeks professional development opportunities**

    Plus at least two of the following:

    • Involvement in curricular design/review and/or assessment;
    • Substantial advising or mentoring of students outside normal office hours;
    • Documentation of student learning;
    • Documented application of professional development experience(s) to candidate’s teaching;
    • Sharing of professional knowledge with colleagues through workshops or other methods

    Very Good

    Successful, innovative teacher; participates actively in improvement of instruction, advising, curriculum and/or assessment

    • Very good student and peer perceptions* AND
    • Seeks professional development opportunities**

    Plus at least one of the following:

    • Involvement in curricular design/review and/or assessment;
    • Substantial advising or mentoring of students outside normal office hours;
    • Documentation of student learning;
    • Documented application of professional development experience(s) to candidate’s teaching;
    • Sharing of professional knowledge with colleagues through workshops or other methods

    Good

    Successful teacher; seeks professional development

    • Good student and peer perceptions* AND
    • Seeks professional development opportunities**

    Plus at least one of the following:

    • Advising or mentoring of students outside normal office hours;
    • Other evidence of continuous improvement in instruction, advising, curriculum and/or assessment

    Fair

    Adequate teacher

    • Adequate student and peer perceptions* AND
    • Consistently maintains normal office hours

    Poor

    Poor teacher

    • Poor student and peer perceptions* AND
    • Fails to consistently maintain office hours or otherwise demonstrates failure to perform teaching duties satisfactorily

    *Student perceptions are documented primarily through SSI scores and comments in relation to departmental norms; peer perceptions are documented primarily by departmental peer reviews; both student and peer perceptions may be documented through receipt of or nomination for a teaching award.

    **This criterion is fulfilled when the candidate participates in a minimum of two professional development opportunities (as defined above) during the probationary period.

  6. Citizenship

    The category of citizenship includes a variety of activities that are not necessarily tied to one’s special field of knowledge but that make significant contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, or governance goals and missions of the University, Campus, College, Department, Community or Profession. The following classifications provide examples of activities recognized as citizenship:

    Departmental Citizenship:

    • Membership or the chairing of Department committees, including service (as determined by the FAC) on ad hoc committees
    • Activities in support of departmental goals, such as director of study abroad programs, conference organizer, or other departmental endeavors inlcuding activities fostering student success
    • Service as Departmental Coordinator, Assistant to the Chair, or Acting Chair, except when given workload equivalencies

    University Citizenship:

    • Membership or the chairing of College and University committees, including service on ad hoc committees
    • Membership or service as an officer of Faculty Senate

    Professional Citizenship:

    • Professional service such as external referee or reviewer (e.g., refereeing for a journal or press, evaluating tenure/promotion candidates at other universities, agency panel reviewer, etc.)
    • Officer of a professional body, service on state-wide advisory boards, service on national or international professional organizations
    • Pro bono work in a professional capacity for other universities or professional organizations
    • Service awards

    Community Citizenship:

    • The pro bono dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of the broader community
    • Volunteer or outreach work that furthers departmental, college or university missions

    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 citizenship for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

    Table 3. Assessment of Citizenship for promotion and tenure

    Rating

    Examples Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Excellent Citizenship

    • Actively contributes at the unit, departmental, and College or University levels in ways that further the missions of these bodies; takes leadership roles AND
    • Serves the profession by acting as external reviewer, holding offices in professional organizations, or other means; AND
    • Serves the community through outreach efforts; AND
    • Meets basic obligations to unit and department

    Very Good Citizenship

    • Actively contributes at the unit, departmental, and College or University levels in ways that further the missions of these bodies; AND
    • Serves the profession or the community as described above; AND
    • Meets basic obligations to unit and department

    Good Citizenship

    • Makes solid contributions at the unit and departmental levels; some involvement at the college and/or university levels AND
    • Meets basic obligations to unit and department

    Poor Citizenship

    • Makes inconsistent and limited contributions at the unit and departmental levels; AND
    • Often fails to meet basic obligations to unit and department



     

  7. Policies Relating to Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty

    1. Procedures for Obtaining and Filling Non-Tenure-Track Positions

      In consultation with the FAC, the Department Chairperson will establish need for any additional non-tenure-track faculty and draft a description of the position to be filled. The Chairperson will seek administrative authorization to fill the position; upon obtaining authorization, the Chairperson will post and advertise the position. The FAC will designate an ad hoc Search Committee which will work in close collaboration with the Department Chairperson and the FAC. The Search Committee will establish more specific procedures suited to the position and the candidates, if need be. If possible, the Chairperson and (an) appropriate designate(s) will conduct preliminary interviews.

      Evaluation of dossiers and interviewees will focus on the characteristics directly related to matters specified in the position description. This evaluation will result in a list of finalists who will be invited to campus to teach a class appropriate to the position and to participate in a formal interview with the Search Committee and other University representatives and officials as may be appropriate. Following the interviews, the Search Committee will make its recommendation to the Department Chairperson. The Chairperson will forward this recommendation to the Dean. If, however, the Chair finds the Search Committee’s recommendation unsatisfactory, a joint meeting of the Search Committee and the FAC will be called for discussion and resolution.

      The Chairperson will be responsible for keeping candidates apprised of their status from the initial inquiry until an appointment, if any, is made. In the case of an affirmative decision, the Chairperson issues an Offer of Appointment specifying the effective date, academic rank, campus, anticipated salary, and instructional and related assignments equivalent to 15 credit hours per semester or 30 hours for the academic year.

    2. Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Appointments

      Full-time non-tenure track faculty (NTT) appointments are made on an annual basis (See, Section VI of this Handbook). NTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and NTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure.

    3. Renewal of Appointment

      Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Access to Tenure

      Full-time non-tenure-track faculty may apply for any tenure-track position in the Department which becomes available and for which they qualify. They will compete on an equal standing with other qualifying candidates and without prejudice to the non-tenure-track position currently held.

  8. Student Evaluations of Instruction

    General Principles Concerning the Evaluation and the Use of Results

    Students in every class offered by the Department will evaluate their instructor near the end of each semester using a questionnaire provided by the University. This questionnaire includes questions developed by the Department. Not all questions apply to all courses, however; see below, paragraph C. In order to provide a basis for a meaningful comparison of results among similar courses, each class to be evaluated will belong to one of several norming groups. The Curriculum Committee will develop and periodically review a plan for the number and construction of these groups.

    On the day of evaluation, the instructor will distribute the materials, select a student to collect them, and leave the room without further comment. The student will collect the materials, seal the questionnaires in the envelope provided, and deposit all materials promptly in the Department office.

    Results of Student evaluations are part of the public record and may be used in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions, performance evaluations for NTT faculty and part time faculty, evaluations for Faculty Excellence Awards, and other personnel evaluations as appropriate.

    Directions to the Instructor for Administering the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI)

    1. The Student Evaluation of Instruction questionnaire is to be completed by students in your class during the last two weeks of each fall and spring semester and near the end of each summer session. It is NOT to be administered during the portion of the semester or summer session allotted for the final examination. Please follow any additional instructions from the Department Chairperson.

    2. Set aside approximately 15 minutes of class time for this activity, and be sure to provide your students with No. 2 pencils from the Department office.

    3. Unless the task has been assigned to another person, ask for a student volunteer from the class to administer the survey and return the packet and pencils to the Department office immediately afterward.

    4. Write the section number and norming group indicated below on the board.

    Section Number:       Norming Group:      

    5. Distribute the questionnaires and pencils, and ask the students to complete the survey as accurately and honestly as possible.

    6. Leave the room without further comment.

  9. Dossiers and Vitae for Personnel Reviews: Guidelines

    1. Curriculum Vitae

      All faculty members are responsible for providing the Department with a current curriculum vitae in a standard form. When submitted as documentation for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, however, the curriculum vitae should include the following items as appropriate:

      a. General information: name, address, telephone number.

      b. Educational background: institutions, degrees, dates of attendance, thesis/ dissertation title(s) and name(s) of director(s), assistantships and/or fellowships, awards, recognitions, honors.

      c. Non-academic work experience: titles, ranks, positions, etc., names of employers and dates of employment, time in each position, total years of experience other than academic.

      d. Academic experience: present rank at KSU followed by other ranks at KSU, together with time in each rank, time in each rank elsewhere, total years service at KSU, total years service elsewhere, graduate faculty status.

      e. Scholarly productivity and research (briefly annotated): books, chapters in books, articles (indicate whether invited, refereed or non-refereed), translations, textbook, edited book, review articles, reviews, notes, proceedings articles, essays, software, data files, contributions to electronic journals, journal editorship, management of professional electronic list server, unpublished translations and technical reports, papers read at professional meetings, refereeing for a scholarly journal or press, thesis or dissertation (co-)direction or committee membership, creative accomplishments (e.g., published original compositions, play production, etc.), research accepted for publication or in progress, grant proposals submitted and/or obtained.

      f. Teaching: summary of courses taught, summary of student teaching evaluations, teaching recognition, awards.

      g. Citizenship: summary of service to the Department, College University, or Community, including committee membership (including chair or other position), administrative assignments, student advising and other activities, community service.

    2. Dossier

      Candidates for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion will provide the Department with a complete dossier which includes a current curriculum vitae and full documentation, properly and clearly organized and indexed. While the contents of this dossier are described in detail in each year’s statement of “Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty” from the Office of the Associate Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, the Department expects candidates to include the following items as appropriate:

      a. Current curriculum vitae.

      b. Department statement of criteria governing assessment of candidates for reappointment, tenure or promotion.

      c. Chairperson’s evaluation of the candidate’s performance with respect to the various forms of scholarship; the Chairperson will include copies of all reappointment review letters and the original offer of appointment (in the instance of Regional Campus faculty, the Regional Campus Dean will forward the appropriate materials to the Department Chairperson prior to the deadline).

      d. Candidates for tenure or promotion must submit to the Chairperson the names of five qualified individuals outside the University who will provide letters evaluating the candidate’s research and service to the discipline; accompanying the names will be a brief biographical sketch of each referee which may be drawn from entries in standard biographical sources. The Chair may also solicit additional letters from referees outside the University but must inform the candidate of the identity of these individuals. All referees must be informed that their letters will be available to the candidate and to review committees and administrative officers.

      e. Documentation of teaching, including peer reviews and assessments by colleagues at KSU and elsewhere not on the committee, summary of student teaching evaluations with comparison to department norms for courses at the same level of instruction, summary of administrative evaluations, Chair’s summary statement, Dean’s summary statement, teaching awards or other recognition, academic advising and counseling experience and evaluations.

      f. Documentation of scholarly publication and research, including refereed research and scholarly publications, including books, articles, chapters in books, reviews, technical reports, monographs, textbooks; non-refereed scholarly publications; record of work cited in other publications; papers presented with indication of whether invited or refereed; creative accomplishments, including published compositions and play productions (provide program); awards, recognitions and honors; grant proposals submitted and grants awarded; direction and co-direction of theses and dissertations; service on thesis or dissertation committees; instructional resource development.

      g. Documentation of University, professional or public service, including committee or administrative assignments, student advising and counseling beyond a normal assignment, student recruitment, teaching or consulting outside the department, assistance with workshops, clinics and conferences; lectures, papers, etc., and other awards and recognition.