Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

  1. General Expectations

    Evaluations of Kent campus probationary TT and NTT faculty members follow the School of Art guidelines (below), while evaluations of regional campus probationary faculty members follow the guidelines of their campus. Differences between criteria reflect differentials in mission, available resources, and nature of faculty appointments. Dossiers are presented through the on-line FlashFolio system.

    1. Reappointment

      In general, successful annual reappointment reviews for non-tenured TT faculty will show evidence of progress toward the requirements for tenure on three measurable criteria: scholarship and/or creative activity, teaching, and service to the profession and the institution. In addition to these, consideration is given to personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community and as demonstrated in all aspects of scholarship and citizenship. Specific concerns expressed by the RT&P review committee and/or the director during annual reviews must be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reviews.

      1. Research and Creative Activity - see table 2.A

      To attain a rating of “very good”, candidates should be professionally active as researchers or creative artists, which activity is indicated by publications or exhibitions each year, with a clear research focus emerging over time. As an external indicator of this activity, candidates will have begun to establish a strong positive professional reputation, with publications, presentations, and exhibitions at the regional, and increasingly, national and international levels over time which shows promise for having significant impact on the field (or discipline) during the pre-tenure years. Ratings of “excellent” are awarded only exceptionally at this stage, since reputation is still being built.

      2. Teaching - see table 2.B

      In order to be reappointed, candidates should attain a minimum rating of “good” in the scholarship of teaching by the end of the third year, recognizing that strong teaching takes time to develop. Candidates should demonstrate aspiration to “very good” ratings, even as differentials of assignment across the School mean that some assignments typically involve formats in which it is difficult to achieve strongly positive results.

      Teaching quality will be evidenced in official teaching evaluation forms (SSIs), reports by the teaching observation committee based on observed classroom instruction, and/or other activity related to pedagogy, such as supervision of student research or publication of pedagogical research, advising, and curricular/course development.

      3. Service and University Citizenship - see table 2.C

      In order to be reappointed, candidates will have demonstrated some amount of active and cooperative service at one or more of the following levels: the program, division, school, college, university. This service and collegiality will increase as their experience grows.

      Special Note for Reappointment

      The third-year review is particularly important: during this review, evidence for all three categories must rate minimally as “good,” with the understanding that a “very good” will be required for tenure. If at any time any criterion is assessed below the level of “good”, the candidate will, in consultation with the school director, devise plans for improvement and/or development, in order to attain levels of at least “very good.”

    2. Tenure

      Because tenure review is required in the next-to-last year of the probationary period, while promotional review is not mandated, tenure and promotion reviews require separate decisions.

      The granting of tenure is viewed as the recognition of successful completion of the probationary period of appointment, as well as the conviction, by those involved in making the tenure decision, that the individual will continue to make a positive contribution to her/his discipline, unit, campus, university and community over the long term. The decision is initiated by the candidate’s peers and eventually made by the trustees of the university. Since this decision could result in life-long employment at this institution, it involves more than a mere survey of the candidate’s minimum quantifiable activities. (University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Tenure, section D, 28 November, 2001).

      For tenure, evaluation may refer to (but not count) accomplishments prior to appointment at Kent State in order to establish consistency: in addition, work under review or in press, grant proposals submitted but not funded, graduate students currently in progress, and other materials which may reflect on the candidate’s potential for long-term success and recognition will be considered.

      Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are to be weighed in the decision to recommend for tenure, including differentials in assignments.  In addition, consideration of the individual’s personal integrity and professional behavior will be a factor, with the expectation that School of Art faculty observe ethical standards in all aspects of the academic profession.

      Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research and creative activity record include the quality and quantity of performances, exhibitions, installations or published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds.  All faculty members in the School are expected to produce records of scholarship and creative activity that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines. 

      For Kent Campus TT faculty members to receive a positive recommendation for tenure, candidates must attain at least the level of “very good” in scholarship and/or creative activity on the indicators noted. The scholarship of teaching must also, at the minimum, be rated “very good” and service as “meets obligations.”

    3. Promotion

      Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are weighed in the decision to recommend for promotion in rank. Differentials in assignments shall be considered in decisions concerning promotion. In addition, consideration of the individual’s personal integrity and professional behavior will be a factor, with the expectation that School of Art TT faculty observe ethical standards in all aspects of the academic profession.

      1. Promotion to Associate Professor

        On the Kent campus, promotion to Associate Professor is a recognition to an individual for having established a career which has a research focus promising sustained development and which has begun to achieve national and/or international distinction deserving of an “excellent” or “very good” rating. Such distinction in scholarly or creative activity will be evidenced by publications in refereed journals or with recognized presses; by exhibitions in prominent institutions, in distinguished company, or by selection of noteworthy individuals; by theses and projects directed; and/or by election to office in the relevant disciplinary/professional organization(s), and/or by appointment to boards or jury panels at the regional, national or international level.

        Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research and creative activity record include the quality and quantity of performances, exhibitions, installations or published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds.  All faculty members in the School are expected to produce records of scholarship and creative activity that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines. 

        Candidates for promotion to Associate Professor will also have demonstrated “very good” or “excellent” ratings in teaching; no one should expect to be promoted unless s/he can present solid evidence of strong teaching. We recognize that not all TT faculty members will engage in every activity listed above but it is expected that “excellence” will be achieved in at least one of the categories above. Service activities – to the program, division, school, college, university, community, and/or profession – will have increased in significance and visibility over the probationary period and will have been carried out with recognized effectiveness and cooperation.  However, excellent ratings in service alone will not warrant promotion in rank.

      2. Promotion to Professor

        On the Kent campus, promotion to Professor is a recognition to an individual for having brought his/her career to national or international prominence, with a demonstrated record of sustained creative activity or research and increased distinction in the discipline/field, as evidenced by invitations and/or selection for service to disciplinary and/or professional organizations, based on recognition by peers so as to be rated “excellent.”

        Candidates for promotion to Professor will also have a consistent record of rating as “very good” or “excellent” in teaching and will have made effective use of their professional and academic competence in service to the program, division, school, college, university, community, and/or profession.  When scholarship, teaching and service are recognized as “excellent” or “exceeding expectations,” they contribute to the positive assessment for promotion to Professor. However, excellent ratings in service alone will not warrant promotion in rank.

  2. Components of Evaluation

    1. Research/Creative Activity

      In evaluating the credentials of a candidate in the three areas of research, the following factors will be considered (note: numbers in the table 2A refer to descriptions in the categories listed below):

      1. Recognition. A TT faculty memberʼs scholarly reputation is a reflection of the quality, extent, and creativity of his/her research output and is, therefore, an issue that is carefully evaluated for advancement. To be recommended for advancement, a candidate must provide evidence that her/his work has had an impact on the discipline. Recognition by professional peers can include, for example: citations of research, inclusion of images of work in publications, reviews of work in publications, invited lectures, inclusion in festschrifts, and special honors of any type including editorship of journals, service on boards at an international or national level, service on juries, curating of significant exhibitions, inclusion of work in significant public or private collections, receipts of awards, and commissioned work.
      2. Publications. Evaluation of publication record includes an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as well as of quantity. Publication in journals having stringent 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. Documentation can include galley proofs of the article or book or advanced notices (published advertisements of same) from the publisher. Refereed publications of impact and quality are given greater emphasis. A faculty member’s specific area of specialization may be a factor in the recognition of the scope and time required for research, production, and the resulting publication or other form of output.
      3. 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.  Documentation can include galley proofs of a forthcoming catalogue or interview, advanced notices (published advertisements of same) from the gallery and so on.  A faculty member’s specific area of specialization may be a factor in the recognition of the scope and time required for research, production and the resulting exhibition or other form of output. 
      4. Presentations. Presentation of papers of original research/creative work is evaluated according to significance of the venue and sponsoring organization, with greater weight given to refereed presentations or peer-invited presentations to scholarly audiences. Conference papers are encouraged, but because of their relatively narrow range of dissemination and sometimes superficial reviewing policies, they represent a more nominal level of research accomplishment.
      5. Professional Activity. TT faculty members are expected to be active participants in the field. Some evidence of outside professional activity is necessary for advancement. Examples of such activity are curating an exhibition, reviewing for journals, attending professional meetings, holding office in a professional organization, serving on professional committees, exhibition juries or as juror, publishing in non-refereed publications, editing, or writing for a newsletter, etc.

      Table 2A. EVALUATION COMPONENTS FOR RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY

      Scholarship Rating

      Creative Practice and/or Research is defined by:

      Indicators Corresponding to the Assessment Score – Indicators will vary across disciplines.

      Excellent

      Sustained focus with national/international recognition

      Demonstrated record of publications and/or exhibitions, invitations to give presentations/lectures,

      Review of works featured in national/international journals, appointment to boards of professional organizations at state/national/international level, recognition by professional peers, election to office in a professional organization, chair of a conference, or has extramural funding

      Very Good

      Clear direction and emerging national recognition

      Demonstrated record of publications and/or exhibitions, presentations at professional meetings with rigorous review criteria or committee membership in a professional organization

      ,

      Good

      Developing focus and active engagement

      Some publications and/or exhibitions,

      Some presentations at professional meetings/seminars.

      or chaired sessions at professional conferences/meetings, curated or

      juried exhibitions, edited or reviewed work in journals

       

      Fair

      Unfocused direction and limited engagement

      Occasional publications/exhibitions or meeting presentations

      Poor

      No research program or creative practice

      No publications, presentations, exhibitions, or professional recognition

       

    2. Teaching

      Quality of teaching is a very important consideration in evaluating a TT faculty member for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. No one should expect to be reappointed, tenured, or promoted unless he/she can present solid evidence of good teaching.

      Similarly, poor teaching can retard the advancement of TT faculty who might otherwise meet the criteria. Teaching excellence is a concept that covers a variety of areas, although not all TT faculty members may engage equally in all these activities.

      1. Classroom instruction. Performance of the TT faculty member in the classroom is an important part of teaching evaluation and includes such characteristics as preparedness, coherence, innovation, interest-level, organization, interpersonal communication, etc. The quality of course content is also critically important. An ad hoc “Teaching Observation Committee* will assist in the evaluation of classroom instruction as outlined below.
      2. Research supervision. Advising student research is an integral part of the responsibility of TT faculty members and properly serves as an important area in consideration for advancement. Graduate TT faculty members are responsible for the educational and professional development of graduate students and so need to be regularly available (within the period of contract.)  Participation as member of a thesis committee is an important factor in evaluation of this aspect.
      3. Pedagogical research. Field study beyond the contract load, collaboration with other units, obtaining teaching grants, teaching recognition
      4. Curriculum development, design, and revision. Indicators of active engagement in curriculum development, design, and revision including currency in appropriate new technology concepts, and methods. Teaching related grants also indicate innovation and engagement in curriculum development. Course and curriculum revision is defined as making a substantial modification in a course or curriculum.
      5. Other indicators in the scholarship of teaching. These could include supervision of teaching assistants, assuring a professional and creative learning environment in the studio or classroom, but activity is not limited to the aforementioned.

      Table 2B.  EVALUATION COMPONENTS FOR TEACHING

      Teaching Rating

      Definition

      Indicators corresponding to the Assessment Score. Indicators will vary across disciplines.

       

       

      Excellent

      Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course, peer and committee evaluations

      Actively participates in curricular development

      /revisions, establishes record of thesis supervision, evidence of excellent peer evaluations, demonstrates instructional creativity and effort, and/or evidence of excellent student evaluations.

      Very Good

      Innovative teacher; maintains good teaching evaluations

      Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student and peer evaluations, consistently engages with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity.

      Good

      Effective teacher; maintains moderate to good teaching evaluations

      Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student and peer evaluations, has supervised a few graduate and undergraduate

      research projects

      Fair

      Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations

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

      Poor

      Substandard, ineffective teacher

      Establishes below- average student and peer evaluations, has a pattern of complaints, does not engage in curriculum supervision

    3. Teaching

      Quality of teaching is a very important consideration in evaluating a TT faculty member for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. No one should expect to be reappointed, tenured, or promoted unless he/she can present solid evidence of good teaching.

      Similarly, poor teaching can retard the advancement of TT faculty who might otherwise meet the criteria. Teaching excellence is a concept that covers a variety of areas, although not all TT faculty members may engage equally in all these activities.

      1. Classroom instruction. Performance of the TT faculty member in the classroom is an important part of teaching evaluation and includes such characteristics as preparedness, coherence, innovation, interest-level, organization, interpersonal communication, etc. The quality of course content is also critically important. An ad hoc “Teaching Observation Committee* will assist in the evaluation of classroom instruction as outlined below.
      2. Research supervision. Advising student research is an integral part of the responsibility of TT faculty members and properly serves as an important area in consideration for advancement. Graduate TT faculty members are responsible for the educational and professional development of graduate students and so need to be regularly available (within the period of contract.)  Participation as member of a thesis committee is an important factor in evaluation of this aspect.
      3. Pedagogical research. Field study beyond the contract load, collaboration with other units, obtaining teaching grants, teaching recognition
      4. Curriculum development, design, and revision. Indicators of active engagement in curriculum development, design, and revision including currency in appropriate new technology concepts, and methods. Teaching related grants also indicate innovation and engagement in curriculum development. Course and curriculum revision is defined as making a substantial modification in a course or curriculum.
      5. Other indicators in the scholarship of teaching. These could include supervision of teaching assistants, assuring a professional and creative learning environment in the studio or classroom, but activity is not limited to the aforementioned.

      Table 2B.  EVALUATION COMPONENTS FOR TEACHING

      Teaching Rating

      Definition

      Indicators corresponding to the Assessment Score. Indicators will vary across disciplines.

       

       

      Excellent

      Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course, peer and committee evaluations

      Actively participates in curricular development

      /revisions, establishes record of thesis supervision, evidence of excellent peer evaluations, demonstrates instructional creativity and effort, and/or evidence of excellent student evaluations.

      Very Good

      Innovative teacher; maintains good teaching evaluations

      Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student and peer evaluations, consistently engages with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity.

      Good

      Effective teacher; maintains moderate to good teaching evaluations

      Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student and peer evaluations, has supervised a few graduate and undergraduate

      research projects

      Fair

      Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations

      Establishes below-average student and peer evaluations; has limited/moderate supervision of student research, limited participation in curriculum revision
      Poor Substandard, ineffective teacher Establishes below-average student and peer evaluations, has a pattern of complaints, does not engage in curriculum supervision

      Fair

      Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations

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

      Poor

      Substandard, ineffective teacher

      Establishes below- average student and peer evaluations, has a pattern of complaints, does not engage in curriculum supervision

  3. Teaching Observation Committee: Composition and Responsibilities

    Evaluation of teaching will be, in part, conducted by a two-person ad hoc Teaching Observation Committee. The Teaching Observation Committee will be especially composed for each candidate for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. One committee member will be appointed each by (a) the director, and (b) the candidate for promotion. As there may be a large number of candidates for reappointment, tenure, or promotion in any given year, the Teaching Observation Committees will need to balance its work over the Fall and Spring semesters of the previous year in order not to overtax available TT faculty members. The appointment of each Teaching Observation Committee will be made well in advance of the semester(s) of its planned service, ideally just after the previous yearʼs reappointment review but certainly no later than early in the spring semester (for cases of promotion).

    The duties of this committee are as follows:

    1. Review all available SSIs since the candidateʼs appointment or last promotion, with an emphasis on the most recent available reviews. Committee members will review both statistical data and written comments on the evaluations. The school will provide copies of the statistical summaries of the Student Survey of Instruction furnished by Computer Services for the candidateʼs promotion file; however, the candidate should include all forms having written narrative comments in his/her supplementary materials.
    2. Read course materials provided by the candidate; e.g. syllabi, class handouts, exams, web materials.
    3. Attend at least one class session of the candidate under review. The committee will consult with the candidate for class sessions that might be most appropriate for visitation.
    4. Meet to consider the information gathered on the candidate--the SSIs, the course materials, the class visits of each member--and produce a written evaluation of the committeeʼs estimate of the candidateʼs teaching qualifications. This evaluation will be kept with the notes of the PTR Committee meeting on the candidateʼs reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, as a document of the committeeʼs observations.

    Components for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 2B.

    Other information on teaching, such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the School, or University administrators, shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and student evaluation results (including all student comments) must be a part of the candidateʼs dossier for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant materials should be available for review. Documentation related to undergraduate and graduate student instruction, graduate and undergraduate student research, including thesis and Honors work, should be included in materials provided by the candidate for evaluation.

    a.) Service and University Citizenship

    TT faculty members are expected to serve on division, school, college and/or university committees as part of their responsibilities. Regional campus TT faculty are expected to serve on committees at their regional campus and, when elected or appointed, on those in the regional campus System. It is also desirable for TT faculty to make use of their professional competence in service to the community. When such university and public service is truly exceptional, it can contribute toward a positive reappointment, tenure and/or promotion recommendation. Service may be provided in a variety of ways, such as effectively chairing committees, fulfilling specific administrative assignments, conducting meaningful public outreach (including recruitment,) etc.

    Service activities are those not necessarily tied to oneʼs special field of knowledge, but which make significant contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly and governance goals and missions of the university, college, campus, unit or one’s discipline. Both quantity and quality of the personʼs service contribution will be carefully evaluated, however, service with demonstrated impact will be considered very important.

    Table 2C. COMPONENTS OF EVALUATING SERVICE AND UNIVERSITY CITIZENSHIP

    Service & University Citizenship Rating

    Indicators Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Exceeds Expectations

    Plays significant role (including some leadership) in the division, school, college, university or discipline as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including public outreach

    Meets Expectations

    Has some participation in the division, school, college, university or discipline as evidenced by collegial engagement with committee work and related functions including minimal public outreach

    Does Not Meet Expectations

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