Faculty Excellence Awards/Merit | School of Art Handbook | Kent State University

Faculty Excellence Awards/Merit

TT Faculty Excellence Awards (FEA) are established pursuant to the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Procedures and timelines for determining FEAs for any given year shall follow the general guide- and time-lines issued by the Office of the Provost as well as those procedures contained in this handbook and the timeline established within the School of Art each year to meet college and provost deadlines.

The purpose of the FEA review process within the School of Art is to award compensation to TT faculty members who have demonstrated excellence in the categories of a) teaching and service; and b) scholarship and/or creative activity within their professional disciplines.

Excellence is demonstrated, beyond normal contractual obligations, by evidence of significant contributions in teaching, advising, and service to the school, the university, and the profession; and of the candidate’s high level of engagement in scholarly and/or creative activity and impact on the discipline(s). Award levels from 0 (does not met threshold) through 1 (meets threshold), 2 (good), and 3 (excellent) correspond to the qualitative descriptions outlined in the Review Rubric (2013), which is intended as a general but not exhaustive guide for reviewers.

Publications. Evaluation of publication record includes an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as well as of quantity. Publication in journals having rigorous peer reviewing policies is more valued than publication in journals that are less rigorous in their editorial control. Documented forthcoming scholarly or creative works will be considered as part of the record of accomplishments. Refereed publications of impact and quality are given greater emphasis. A faculty member’s specific area of specialization should be a factor in the recognition of the scope and time required for research, production, and the resulting publication or other form of output.

Exhibitions. Evaluation of the record of exhibitions includes an assessment of quality and impact on the field. Consideration is given to documented showing of original work in solo, invited group/mixed or juried exhibitions, and competitions. Significance of the exhibition is considered in relation to prestige of the sponsoring organization, venue, curator, juror, and/or inclusiveness and/or scope e.g. international, national, regional, or local. Documented forthcoming scholarly or creative works will be considered as part of the record of accomplishments.  A faculty member’s specific area of specialization should be a factor in the recognition of the scope and time required for research, production and the resulting exhibition or other form of output

Application Procedure

Candidates must meet threshold levels (average levels of acceptability) and must apply in both categories in order that summative measurements can be calculated, if necessary to meet CBA- established maxima. The FEA Application Form (revised, 2013) may include a brief summary narrative (250 words maximum) to provide reviewers with useful context and reference to ongoing projects, while a line or two may be inserted for each listing to explain significance and/or impact.

Completed materials will be submitted as PDF documents via Google Docs and may also include links to full-text copies of articles, reviews, etc., as well as to websites with images and/or other documentation of creative activity and/or scholarship.  To provide evidence of teaching excellence, SSIs for the period under review will be assembled for each candidate by office staff and linked in Google Docs to the rest of the dossier. Candidates may also include other relevant course materials as evidence of teaching excellence in the dossier (uploaded to Google Docs in PDF format).

Review Process

Members of the FACULTY will serve as reviewers of FEA applications and will use the rubric devised for this purpose (included) to assure consistent, fair, and thorough consideration of each dossier at the time of individual review. Candidatesʼ dossiers will be reviewed on-line prior to the review meeting of the FACULTY.

At the review meeting, the respective division coordinator and/or division representative will present the dossier for each candidate. The purpose of such presentation will be to inform and clarify, not to advocate, and to answer any questions from colleagues prior to completion of ballot. Anyone in the meeting with a dossier under consideration will be excused for the period of discussion of that dossier.

Upon completion of the review meeting, reviewers will submit an anonymous ballot for each dossier under consideration. The scores will run from 0 (does not meet threshold) to 3 (excellent), as outlined in the rubric, for each dossier in each category. Scores will be tabulated for each candidate in each category and the cut-off point to meet required maximum number of awards per the CBA will be identified by the Director working with staff members. If the number of individuals in the two categories exceeds the maximum number of faculty who may be proposed for FEA that year, ratings in both categories will be totaled for each individual and that ranking used to identify the cut-off point.

Final results of the merit process will be distributed to all faculty members of the School of Art.

Requests for Reconsideration Requests for reconsideration, made in writing by notifying the Director and uploading onto Google Docs, will state the substance and basis of the appeal, indicating whether it is based on perceived misevaluation, misinterpretation, or verifiable error. The review committee will consider and weigh appeals in light of the whole and with respect to particular cases, recognizing that those appealing have a second opportunity to present their case which not all candidates exploit. A second vote on applications appealed will be carried out as above (rubric and anonymous ballot), tallied again by staff and director, and results announced to all faculty.

Adjustments to individual merit are made from the reserved pool of 10%; remaining amounts will be allocated proportionally among those awarded.

Forwarding Following the final announcement of proposed School of Art FEA awards, the Director  forwards the ranked list to the dean of the college and the process continues as outlined in the CBA.

Forms:   FEA Application form (revised 2013, 2015)

FEA Review Rubric, School of Art (2013, 2015)

SCHOOL OF ART FACULTY EXCELLENCE AWARDS APPLICATION FORM

Revised form, 2015

Starting date, 20xx through ending date, 20xx Teaching and Service and Research/Creative/Activity

(YOU ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY IN BOTH CATEGORIES)

Be sure your FEA Application:

  • Is organized, clear, and follows the format
  • Includes appropriate amount of material and/or link
  • Falls within the merit period
  • List an activity in only one category

NAME

DIVISION

1) TEACHING and SERVICE

(A LINE OR TWO MAY BE ADDED AFTER ANY ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN SIGNIFICANCE.)

A.  TEACHING

  1. Reviews/theses undergraduate Reviews/theses graduate
  2. Service responsibilities related to your instruction
  3. Special efforts, methods, or achievements in instruction
  4. Course or program development
  5. Advising beyond the required 5 hours per week
  6. Recognition / awards for teaching other than merit

B.     SERVICE

1. Committee service

          i. School

          ii. College / University

2. Service to community (related to your professional expertise, e.g. jurying local art competitions or guest lectures

3. Other service activities

4. Recognition / awards for service other than merit

2. RESEARCH / CREATIVE ACTIVITY (A LINE OR TWO MAY BE ADDED AFTER ANY ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN SIGNIFICANCE.)

  1. Exhibitions (regional, international; solo, group, juried, etc. Please provide complete information and / or link
  2. Publications (indicate scope of journal, publisher, whether referred or not. Please provide complete citation and / or link.
  3. Work-related travel, conferences, special efforts or presentations directly related to your research, creative activity or professional involvements.
  4. Other activities including current projects not listed above

Summary: You may include a brief (no more than 250 words) narrative to add clarifying or contextual information that may aid in assessment.

SCHOOL OF ART FACULTY EXCELLENCE AWARDS REVIEW RUBRIC (adopted 2013; modified 2015)

From School of Art Handbook: “Excellence is established through significant contributions in teaching and service to the school, the university, the profession and/or through the candidate’s high level of scholarly achievements.”

In addition to considering this rubric for assessing your FEA application, you may include a brief (no more than 250 words) narrative summary so as to add clarifying or contextual information that may aid in assessment.  Include an explanation of significance in each area, if and when appropriate.

EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AND SERVICE—Quality of service to school, college, and university

 

Quality of TEACHING

Excellent (3)

Good (2)

Meets threshold (1)

Does not meet threshold (0)

Measures 

 

 

 

 

Teaching performance above the minimum; development of courses or content; peer and/or student SSI ratings

Evidence of teaching performance far exceeds the minimum; development of course or program content is exemplary; high peer and/or student SSI ratings.  Advising far exceeds the required contractual obligation; evidence consistent extra time and effort committed to welfare and educational development of advises and other students outside of assigned coursework and beyond what is required.

Evidence of teaching performance is consistently above the minimum; development of course or program content is good; Good or above average peer and/or student SSI ratings.

Advising exceeds the required contractual obligation; substantial evidence of extra time and effort committed to welfare and educational development of advises and other students outside of assigned coursework and beyond what is required.

Evidence of teaching performance is inconsistently above or at the minimum level; average peer and/or student SSI ratings.  Advising meets required contractual obligation; evidence of time and effort committed to the welfare and educational development of advisees and other students outside of assigned coursework is present but inconsistently

Teaching does not meet the level of merit; little or no development of course or program content; poor peer and/or student SSI ratings.

Advising meets the required contractual obligation but little time and effort committed to welfare and educational development of advisees and other students outside of assigned coursework and beyond what is required is seen.

Quality of SERVICE

Measures

Excellent (3)

Good (2)

Meets threshold (1)

Does not meet threshold (0)

Time and energy given to committee service and activities for the school, college, university, community and/or profession

Service to school, college, university, community and/or profession is above and beyond compensated responsibilities, active committee membership, studio/classroom/lab maintenance, and/or curricular development

Amount of service  to school, college, university, community and/or profession in compensated responsibilities, active committee membership, studio/classroom maintenance and/or curricular development is substantial.

Amount of service  to school, college, university, community and/or profession in compensated responsibilities, active committee membership, studio/classroom maintenance and/or curricular development meets minimum service performance.

Little or no evidence of service to school, college, university, community and/or profession in compensated responsibilities,     active committee membership, studio/classroom/lab maintenance and/or curricular development that goes beyond the expected

 

EXCELLENCE IN SCHOLARLY /CREATIVE WORK

Quality of SCHOLARLY/ CREATIVE WORK Measures

Excellent (3)

Good (2)

Meets threshold (1)

Does not meet threshold (0)

 

 

 

 

 

Significant contributions to and engagement in discipline in the form of publications, presentations in a public or professional forum, including professional activities such as: publications (book article, review, editorship, conference proceedings, reproduction of a work), presentations (lecture, panel discussion, symposium participation, etc.), exhibitions, competitions, public commissions indicative of impact (e.g., readership of journal; venue of exhibition) – local, national, international; solo, group, juried, invited, exhibition; museums, galleries or other public venues

Evidence of exceptional engagement in and significant contributions to discipline.  High involvement in professional endeavors by the accepted standards of the scholarly or creative discipline. Impact deemed exceptional in scholarly and/or creative discipline.

Evidence of significant engagement in and contributions to discipline. Involvement in professional endeavors by the accepted standards of the scholarly or creative discipline.  Impact deemed strong in scholarly and/or creative discipline.

Evidence of engagement in and contributions to discipline meets threshold by accepted standards of the scholarly or creative discipline.   Impact meets threshold in scholarly and/or creative discipline.

No evidence of engagement in or contributions to discipline.

No impact on

scholarly and/or creative discipline.