Minimum Levels of Performance | Kent State University

Minimum Levels of Performance

To be eligible for a Merit Award within the Fashion School, a faculty member must exceed the minimum threshold performance levels in the area under which the application is being considered.  The following represents the School’s understanding of threshold performance.  A minimum average score of "3" must be achieved in each category in order to receive funding in one of three categories.

All Tenure Track faculty are required to review and score submitted materials for Merit Awards.  For all three categories, the following scale must be used: (use integers only – no decimals)

a score of 5 (excellent)

a score of 4 (very good)

a score of 3 (average)

a score of 2 (fair)

a score of 1 (poor )

a score of 0 (no/inadequate activity or no documentation submitted)

  1. Research and/or Creative Activity

    All faculty members in the School are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary foci and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity may vary across sub-disciplines.  Indicators of a faculty member’s scholarship record include both quality and quantity of exhibitions and/or published work.   In addition to scholarly publications, creative scholarship, and funded research, other scholarly activities including but not limited to presenting at refereed professional meetings, presenting papers before learned societies, etc. should be considered.

    Scholarship Rating

    Research or Creative Scholarship is defined by:

    Typical Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment

    Excellent (5)

    Record

    with emerging national/international recognition

     

    Demonstrated significant record of peer-reviewed publications and/or exhibitions.  Presentations at professional meetings with rigorous peer review criteria.  Invitations to give presentations/lectures/exhibitions.  Review of works featured in national/international journals.  Recognition by professional organizations at regional/national/international level.  Recognition of scholarly impact by peers in the profession.

    Very Good

     (4)

    Defined emphasis and emerging national recognition

    Demonstrated consistent record of peer-reviewed publications and/or exhibitions.  Presentations at professional meetings with peer review criteria. 

    Average (3)

    Developing focus and active engagement

    Some Publications and/or exhibitions.  Some Presentations at professional meetings/seminars. 

    Fair

    (2)

    Unfocused direction and limited engagement

    Occasional publications/exhibitions or meeting presentations.

    Poor

     (1)

    Undefined research program or creative practice

    Few or no publications, presentations, exhibitions, or professional recognition.

  2. Teaching

    The mission of the Fashion School is “To inspire students to become creative and resourceful fashion leader.” Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching can include development and revision of courses, peer evaluations of teaching performance, student feedback, and other relevant documentation. 

    Scholarship Rating

    Definition

    Typical Activities Corresponding to the Assessment

    Excellent

    (5)

    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course evaluation and peer reviews

    Actively participates in curricular development/revisions.

    Demonstrates evidences excellent student evaluations and peer review. Demonstrates instructional creativity and effort. Establishes excellent record of graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative scholarship.  Receives recognition of educational impact by peers in the institution and profession.

    Very Good

    (4)

    Innovative teacher; maintains very good course evaluations and peer reviews

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student evaluations and peer review. Demonstrate good record of fostering graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative scholarship.

    Average

    (3)

    Effective teacher; maintains good course evaluations and peer reviews

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student evaluations and peer review.

    Develops moderate level of fostering graduate and undergraduate research projects and/or creative activity.

    Fair

    (2)

    Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations; below average course evaluations and peer reviews

    Establishes below-average student evaluations and peer review; has limited supervision of student research, limited participation in curriculum development and/or revision.

    Poor

    (1)

    Substandard, ineffective teacher; unacceptable course evaluations and peer reviews

    Establishes below-average student and peer perceptions, Receives as a pattern of complaints Have not engaged in curriculum development or research supervision

  3. Service

    The merits of University and Professional service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of service include active participation in School events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, meetings and seminars, etc.

    Service

    Typical Activities Corresponding to the Assessment

     

    Excellent

    (5)

    Plays significant role (including some leadership) in the division, school, college, university and national/international professional organizations, as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including public outreach.

    Very Good

    (4)

    Plays role (including some leadership) in the division, school, college, university and national/international professional organizations, as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including public outreach.

    Average

    (3)

    Has some participation in the division, school, college, university, and national/international professional organizations, as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including minimal public outreach.

    Fair

    (2)

    Has little participation in the division, school, college, university, and national/international professional organizations, as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including minimal public outreach.

    Poor

    (1)

    Does not engage in division, school, college, university committee work or functions, or does not participate in a collegial manner