Guidelines for Weighting Evaluation Criteria

Kent State University at East Liverpool considers the annual probationary reappointment review to be a formative and mentoring evaluation. It is an opportunity to help colleagues establish a record of performance in teaching, research and creative activity, as well as service/university citizenship that will be sufficient for continued reappointment and ultimately a successful tenure review. In return, each year candidates are expected to demonstrate through their self-reflection materials and improvement activities how they addressed issues raised in the previous year’s review. The electronic file submitted is to be an accurate, complete, and well-organized representation of the candidate’s record.

Candidates for review are not evaluated along single, isolated dimensions of performance, but rather on their whole performance, viewed as a unified, integrated record of a teacher-scholar and university citizen. Because candidates are evaluated on their entire record, it is inappropriate to assume that excellence in one area can offset a deficiency in another. Generally, faculty will be evaluated on departmental/school criteria based on the following weighting:

70% of the evaluation shall be based on demonstrated evidence of teaching effectiveness,

15-20% of the evaluation shall be based on scholarship, and

10-15% of the evaluation shall be based on service/university citizenship 

There is an expectation that all tenure track faculty demonstrate an appropriate level of scholarship according to the faculty member’s discipline. Reappointment and tenure evaluations are guided by the following general principles, which reflect the mission and values of the campus:

  1. Teaching

    Because teaching is the primary mission of the East Liverpool Campus, the goal for a successful candidate for reappointment and eventual tenure is to demonstrate excellence in the scholarship of teaching, defined as “the act of teaching as well as the planning and examination of pedagogical procedures”. It may also include pedagogical research related to the discipline and disseminated for peer review. Performance in the act of teaching may be evaluated in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, effective course design and teaching materials, a pattern of positive comments on student evaluations, supportive peer evaluations, ongoing efforts to reflect upon and improve the act of teaching, and positive course evaluations (SSI scores).

    Teaching Criteria: (70% weighting)

    An Excellent rating in teaching would include but not limited to: Innovative teaching methods; constant assessment of effectiveness, superior student and peer evaluation of instruction that are consistent over time; development/revisions of courses in innovative ways using best practices; developing research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate); instructional creativity; actively participating in curricular revisions for a program; significant involvement in undergraduate projects and/or honors’ theses or projects or graduate theses; self-reflections on teaching with action plans to improve; and recognition of teaching excellence through instructional/teaching awards.

    A Significant rating in teaching would include but not limited to: Developing/revising courses to improve instructional delivery and student success; good student evaluations of instruction and good peer perceptions; work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research or community outreach projects; self-reflections on teaching and evaluation of successes and areas of improvement; seeking out resources for instructional improvement and attending workshops/seminars on pedagogy.

    A Satisfactory Teaching rating would include appropriate delivery of course materials; good student and peer perceptions; appropriate updating of course materials; and self-reflective statement of instructional effectiveness.

  2. Research and Creative Activity

    Because active engagement with the discipline is necessary to remain current in teaching, a successful candidate for reappointment must demonstrate scholarship or creative activity appropriate to the discipline, which is disseminated for peer review. In early years of reappointment, the candidate must at least demonstrate the development of appropriate scholarship.

    By the time of the tenure review, it is expected that this scholarship will have been reviewed/performed/exhibited at the appropriate level of impact (e.g., international, national, regional) for the discipline. Note that the “appropriate level” refers to level of impact rather than to geography. For example, an artistic performance or exhibition could have a regional or national impact even though it is held locally. All candidates are to provide support for the case that their work is of an appropriate level for the discipline.

    Research and Creative Activity Criteria (15-20%)

    Excellence in scholarship would be demonstrated by a record of scholarship or creative work that exemplifies expertise in a field of study. For example, invitations to present papers/performances at national, international professional conferences; juried articles in important journals in a field of study or juried presentations/shows; presentations of papers, panels, workshops at professional meetings; research-related service to federal/state organizations; recognition from professional societies; receiving grants and awards for research or creative activities; advisory boards for major journals in the field of study or other related activities.

    A Significant rating in scholarship would be demonstrated by a record of research or creative activity demonstrating a level of expertise in the field of study. For example, research or creative activity that would have a regional or state audience; juried articles in regional or state journals; presentation of papers, workshops in conferences at state, regional or local levels; writing of grants for research or creative activities.

    A Satisfactory rating in scholarship would be demonstrated by a minimal amount of  scholarship in the discipline according to standards set by the department/school/college; attendance at regional or state conferences or workshops, presenting papers at conferences, workshops.

  3. Service/University Citizenship

    Service/University citizenship is expected of all tenure-track faculty. By the time of the tenure review, it is expected that the candidate will demonstrate a pattern of increasing service contributions, including some form of leadership (e.g., committee chair or campus representative) or a variety of lesser but noteworthy contributions. Faculty are encouraged to contribute to all levels of service: campus, department and university, and service to one’s profession.

    Service/University Citizenship (10-15% weighting)

    Excellence Significant leadership role at the Campus, College and/or University/Professional levels as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach.

    Significance Involvement in campus and university wide committees, community presence; involvement as members on important campus and university committees; shows some leadership by chairing committees at the local level or county level.

    Satisfactory membership on standing campus committees and some community involvement; minimal leadership role.