Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty | School of Information Handbook | Kent State University

Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

Introduction. A variety of disciplines under the umbrella of the information sciences are represented in SLIS. There are multiple discourses that take place in parallel among these disciplines over which a non-tenure-track faculty member might exert impact. The discourses include teaching, university citizenship, and professional development.

 

At SLIS, the expectation is that NTT faculty will make contributions primarily through teaching and other curricular activities. When appropriate, an NTT faculty member may be assigned non-instructional duties as part of an annual workload.  Such non-instructional duties may include but are not limited to advising responsibilities; committee responsibilities of the school, college, or at the university level; outreach responsibilities, or other administrative duties to meet programmatic needs.

 

It is the responsibility of individual faculty members to demonstrate and provide evidence of the impact of their efforts. The degree to which any of these or other efforts might be considered rigorous or substantial should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the faculty who review efforts to assess whether the efforts are rigorous, substantial and legitimate, as determined in this Handbook.

 

  1. Procedures

    General statements regarding review, renewal of appointment, and promotion, including means of initiating review procedures and appointment terms, conditions, and renewals are contained in the FT-NTT Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article X; Addendum B and Addendum C, effective, August 16, 2013.  The School determines criteria and procedures for reappointment; the College determines promotion criteria and procedures.

     

    While it is recognized that appointments for FT-NTT Faculty members covered by their CBA are made annually and that the term of each appointment is limited to a single academic year, a FT-NTT Faculty member may be offered an appointment for a subsequent academic year if programmatic need, satisfaction with performance of previous responsibilities, and budgeted resources supporting the position continue.

     

    Per FT-NTT CBA, Section 4, “FT-NTT Faculty members in year one (1), two (2) or three (3) of employment with the University may expect to be notified by the responsible academic administrative officer as early as possible, but no later than May 1, of opportunities for additional appointment for the subsequent academic year or that an opportunity for additional appointment is not anticipated. Absent written notification prior to May 1 of an academic year that the appointment is not to be renewed for the next academic year, the appointment for the next academic year shall be regarded as renewed.” It is the Director’s discretion to perform a review in the first and/or second year of employment.

     

    After the initial continuous three years, renewals of appointment reviews occur every three years, unless otherwise specified in the appointment agreement.  Full reviews occur in years three and six, before the next annual appointment is anticipated or authorized. After nine (9) years of consecutive appointments, and every three (3) years thereafter, FT-NTT Faculty members shall undergo a simplified review. Per FT-NTT CBA “FTNTT Faculty members in years four (4) and five (5) of employment with the University may expect to be notified by the responsible academic administrative officer as early as possible, but no later than March 1, of opportunities for additional appointment for the subsequent academic year or that an opportunity for additional appointment is not anticipated. Absent written notification prior to March 1 of a given year that the appointment is not to be renewed, the appointment for the next academic year within the three-year term shall be regarded as renewed.”

     

    At SLIS, the FAC Ad Hoc RTP Committee members provide written evaluation of a NTT candidate for full review to the Director via individual ballots. In addition, NTT faculty members who have successfully completed two full performance reviews also provide written evaluation of a NTT candidate for full review to the Director.  The Director will discuss reappointment decisions with all faculty members who are eligible to evaluate the particular NTT candidate, similarly to the TT reappointment reviews. Annual reviews by the RTP committee and regular meetings with the Director are recommended.

     

    In addition to the indices listed for each area below, evidence may be documented by self-evaluation, peer evaluation, client evaluation, external colleague evaluation (which should be detached and dispassionate) and adjudication.

  2. Teaching

    Teaching involves activities that promote the development of effective strategies to impart knowledge or skills and effectively communicate information to students. Teaching involves the investigation, planning, and examination of pedagogical techniques, dissemination of such information in peer-reviewed contexts (e.g., publications in refereed journals, juried papers or conference presentations, juried proceedings and/or abstracts), as well as the act and practice of teaching.  In accordance with the definitions of teaching adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the School of Library and Information Science is guided by the following points:

     

    1. Quality teaching is engaging. The Quality teacher is deeply engaged is his or her subject matter and uses a variety of teaching techniques and technologies to engage students in learning.
    2. Quality teaching is current. The Quality teacher makes a demonstrable effort to remain current in his or her discipline by remaining abreast of the literature in his or her discipline, attending appropriate professional conferences.
    3. Quality teaching is ethical.  The Quality teacher respects his or her students. This respect extends to learning the students already have achieved, to students’ continued ability to learn and to where students are now in the learning process. It also extends to a mindfulness of challenges students face, whether these are physical, mental or economic. The Quality teacher is fair and impartial in his or her evaluation of all students, is cognizant of the fact that he or she is a learner, and shows empathy for his or her students.
    4. Quality teaching is experiential. The Quality teacher recognizes the value of and incorporates experiential learning opportunities that permit students to observe, examine and apply the knowledge gained in the classroom.
    5. Quality teaching goes beyond the classroom. The quality teacher assumes mentoring of students at all levels and provides sound academic advice, as well as expert guidance for Thesis, Culminating Experiences, Research Papers/Projects, Internships and Practica. The Quality teacher, as appropriate, develops research projects for students and facilitates publication opportunities for students.

     

    Indices of Teaching include but are not limited to:

    • Design and development of new courses or workshops for any mode of delivery;
    • Design, revision or reviewing of areas of study (programs, specializations, concentrations);
    • Peer evaluation based on observation of instruction by multiple faculty;
    • Peer evaluation of syllabi and instructional materials, including but not limited to course outlines and up-to-date readings and resources;
    • Measures of student achievement, such as publications by students, etc.;
    • Teaching awards;
    • Publication of textbooks;
    • Invited participation in programs or presentations of papers on teaching at professional meetings at international, national, state, and local levels;
    • Publication of research findings that enhance curricular content and teaching;
    • Significant creative or innovative activity related to teaching, such as development or innovative use of technology, effective active learning activities, etc.;
    • Evidence of effective advising and mentoring;
    • Supervision of culminating experience (research paper/project and internship) and thesis;
    • Serving on thesis committees;
    • Submitted curricular or program development proposals for external funding; and
    • Secured professionally reviewed grants to support education, especially external awards.

     

    Table 4, provides a guideline for assessing teaching for candidates for review in the school.

     

    Table 4: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Teaching

    At the completion of Year 2, for the 3rd Year First Full Performance Review:

    Does NOT meet Expectations

    MEETS Expectations
     

    EXCEEDS Expectations
     

    Candidate receives below average student and peer evaluations with significant concerns regarding teaching style, and/or knowledge of material or is not engaged in teaching and or demonstrates little or no reflection on their teaching. The candidate makes no demonstrable effort to communicate with advisees.

    Candidate receives teaching evaluations from students with scores around the School’s or course norm, and faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate demonstrates reflection on teaching and student learning and articulates a teaching plan that addresses areas for growth or improvement. Candidate has instituted systematic communication or strategies for engaging advising with students.

    Candidate receives teaching evaluations from students well above the mean, and faculty evaluations are scored, " meets expectations." Candidate is deeply engaged in the teaching and learning process. Candidate designs and implements engaging & innovative strategies for academic advising.

    At the completion of Year 5, for 6th Year, Second Full Performance Review:

    Does NOT meet Expectations

    MEETS Expectations
     

    EXCEEDS Expectations
     

    Candidate continues to receive below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations, and does not articulate ideas for improving his/her teaching. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. The candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience, internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise.

    The majority of the evaluations a candidate receives are positive; that is, scores from student evaluations are around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses, and the majority of faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations". Candidate demonstrates and maintains currency in subject content. Candidate demonstrates reflection on the teaching and learning process and is able to articulate refinement and revision of teaching methodologies to engage students in the learning process. Candidate provides opportunities for continued student learning outside the classroom; i.e., research, writing, publishing, applied/practice opportunities, moving from an advising to a mentoring role. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects.

    Consistent student evaluations of teaching with ratings well above the School’s or course norms, and faculty evaluations are scored as meets expectations". Has developed courses beyond initial expectations; is deeply engaged in the learning process or assumes leadership responsibilities at the course or curricular level. Candidate demonstrates outstanding academic advising & mentoring. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, research projects, and Thesis.

    At the completion of Year 8, for a 9th Year Simplified Performance Review and Every 3 Years after, 12th, 15th, etc.:

    Does NOT meet Expectations

    MEETS Expectations
     

    EXCEEDS Expectations
     

    Candidate continues to receive below average (e.g., regularly below the mean) from student evaluations and below expectations from faculty evaluations.
    Candidate has made no contributions to curriculum development or revision. Candidate does not regularly communicate with advisees. Candidate makes no demonstrable effort to supervise culminating experience, internships, or research projects relevant to their area of expertise.

    The majority of the evaluations a candidate receives are positive, that is, scores from student evaluations are around the School’s or course norms in the majority of courses, and the majority of faculty evaluations are scored as "meets expectations".
    Candidate has created a new course or workshop, or helped create or revise an existing course or workshop. Candidate demonstrates evidence of reflection and growth in teaching. Candidate regularly communicates with advisees. Candidate regularly supervises culminating experiences, internships, and research projects. Candidate is a member of thesis committees. Candidate serves as a mentor to new information professionals.

    The majority of the evaluations from students are well above the School’s or course norms, and faculty evaluations are scored as meets expectations."
    Candidate offers evidence of substantial curriculum development or leadership beyond contract expectations. Candidate has received teaching award(s), has demonstrated leadership in teaching training. Candidate demonstrates outstanding advising & advising. Candidate demonstrates outstanding supervision of culminating experiences, internships, practica and research projects.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  3. University Citizenship and Professional Development

    University Citizenship and Professional Development are broadly defined to include administrative service to the university, professional service to the faculty member’s discipline, and the provision of professional expertise to public and private entities beyond the university, at regional, national, and international levels.  FT-NTT may be assigned administrative and other non-instructional duties in addition to a teaching load. If this is the case, any performance review will be based on the effective and efficient completion of the assigned duties as established in the annual appointment letter and statement of workload.

     

    In accordance with the definition of service adopted by the College of Communication and Information, the School of Library and Information Science is guided by the following points:

    1. Quality service involves a commitment to the shared obligation of administering the school, the college, the university and the discipline.
    2. Quality service involves meaningful engagement with both internal and external constituencies.
    3. Quality service is performed with integrity. It involves more than nominal membership on committees but a duty-conscious performance of activities that improve and advance the university, the discipline or the larger community.
    4. Quality service is ideally connected in meaningful ways to a faculty member’s teaching.

     

    Indices of University Citizenship and Professional Development include but are not limited to:

    • Service to the university, college, and school;
    • Participation, leadership, and/or election on university, college, and school committees and boards;
    • Serving as an advisor to student groups;
    • Service to the professional community and professional associations at international, national, state, and local levels;
    • Active participation or leadership in professional committees and working groups at international, national, state, and local levels;
    • Secured professionally reviewed grants, especially external awards, related to one’s service as defined above;
    • Peer review activities for journals, conferences, publication, proposals, and funding agencies;
    • Journal or monograph editorial activities;
    • Presentations related to one’s service as defined above.

     

    Table 5, provides a guideline for assessing service for candidates for review in the school.

     

    Table 5: Expectations for Progress and Excellence in Service

    SERVICE

    At the completion of Year 2, for the 3rd Year First Full Performance Review:

    Does NOT meet Expectations

    MEETS Expectations

    EXCEEDS Expectations

    Candidate failed to contribute regularly in assigned committee work; presented no evidence of engagement with professional organizations.

    Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work and/or administrative duties at the school, college, or university level; helped set and reach committee goals; as requested, accepted work on ad hoc committees. Candidate is actively engaged with local, state, or national professional organizations. Candidate is engaged in events in SLIS academic specialization areas and the school in general.

    Candidate met expectations and also helped lead efforts in setting and reaching committee goals; has established an active presence in the professional community; has assumed office in a professional organization at the state or national level.

    At the completion of Year 5, for 6th Year, Second Full Performance Review:

    Does NOT meet Expectations

    MEETS Expectations

    EXCEEDS Expectations

    Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; Is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state, or national level.

    Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work and/or administrative duties at the school, college, or university level; worked to help set and reach committee goals; as requested, accepted work on ad-hoc committees; demonstrated relevant community service; served on at least one professional committee at local, state, or national level. Represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees.

    Candidate met expectations and also contributed in leadership role. Evidence of exceptional contributions to the School, College, University, profession, and community beyond normal expectations.

    At the completion of Year 8, for a 9th Year Simplified Performance Review and Every 3 Years after, 12th, 15th, etc.:

    Does NOT meet Expectations

    MEETS Expectations

    EXCEEDS Expectations

    Candidate failed to regularly contribute in assigned committee work; did not accept requests to chair committees, to join ad hoc committees, or to join committees at the college and university level; Is not engaged with professional organizations at local, state, or national level.

    Candidate contributed regularly in assigned committee work and/or administrative duties at the school, college, or university level; worked to help set and reach committee goals; represented SLIS and/or CCI on college or university committees; demonstrated relevant community service. Candidate has established a presence in the professional community through active engagement and has evidenced interest in professional leadership by chairing a committee at local, state, or national level.

    Candidate met expectations and also assumed a committee chair role for School. College, or University; exhibited a leadership role such as chairing committees or creating special interest groups in the professional community. Candidate has established a presence at the national or international level and has shaped the direction of the profession through their efforts.

     

     

     

     

     

  4. Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Promotion

    Statements regarding promotion are contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Addendum C, Sections 1 and 2, effective, August 16, 2013. Promotion of Full-time Non-Tenure-track Faculty is determined by a College-level Non-tenure-track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB). This board is convened by the Dean of the College and consists of FTNTT Faculty members and the Dean who shall act as chair and a non-voting member.

     

     

    Addendum C of the CBA, effective, August 16, 2013, clearly states:

    Evidence of significant accomplishments in both Performance and Professional Development is required for promotion. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of University Citizenship are neither required nor expected, except as to the extent such accomplishments and/or contributions are appropriate to the FTNTT Faculty member’s track and/or workload assignments, but will, when they exist, contribute to the bargaining unit member’s overall record of accomplishments.