Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | School of Theatre and Dance Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Reappointment

    The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16). Each academic year reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee.

    Overall Evaluation: The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, creative activity, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the School. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

    Peer Review: Probationary faculty will provide, in consultation with the Director, two peer reviews (2) by faculty members and/or professionals with expertise in the field to evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance. A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the faculty member for placement in his/ her reappointment file.  

    File:Probationary faculty will create an updated file that is submitted electronically via the online system designated by the University for this purpose. These materials are made available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the committee, which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment. Individual ballots are uploaded by each AD Hoc RTP Committee members through the online system designated by the University. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean.

    Feedback and Concerns: In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Director shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback .If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Director, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the School’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.

    Notification: Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For faculty members whose appointment is on the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Director are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

    Planning: For probationary faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure. The faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals. For faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success. The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence of impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s research and creative activities, teaching and service.

    Responding to Concerns and Suggestions: Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Director during the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews.

    Tolling/Stopping the Tenure Clock: From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to request an extension of her/his probationary period. Upon request, a faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.” The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13)

  2. Tenure and Promotion

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15).  Each academic year tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. 

    Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of university faculty and the national and international status of the University. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service

    Overall Evaluation: The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek tenure and promotion in the School.

    Tenure: The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to pursue a productive career. On the other hand, promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period and promotion decisions are based on performances, exhibitions and installations reviewed, papers published, grants received as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University. 

    The candidate is expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and service relevant to the mission of the candidate’s academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. For tenure, evaluation may refer to (but not count) accomplishments prior to appointment at Kent State in order to establish consistency.  Grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, creative works and papers “in review” or papers “in press,” graduate students currently advised, and any other materials that may reflect on the candidate’s potential for a long-term successful career may be considered.

    Promotion: Consideration for promotion to Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor.  Promotion to Associate Professor is recognition for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by performances, exhibitions and installations reviewed, extramural grants received, papers published in refereed literature, presentations, students graduated, etc. Promotion to Professor recognizes the highest level of university achievement and national/international prominence. Evidence for this prominence includes a record of sustained creative activity in highly significant venues, major extramural funding from highly competitive funding sources and a record of increased prominence in and impact on the field. 

    Regional Campus Faculty: Regional campus faculty are evaluated by the same criteria/categories as Kent campus faculty.  However, as the categories of teaching and service are the primary missions of the regional campus system, they should be given a higher priority in their review.

    Mentoring: The School affirms the university policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (see the University Faculty Handbook)which states probationary faculty members will have the opportunity to establish a mentoring relationship ( formal or informal)  as an aid in satisfying unit and/or regional campus requirements for tenure. Probationary faculty will, shortly after appointment, consult with the Director to determine the mentoring plan. The mentoring experience will be reviewed during annual reappointment conferences with the Director and as needed throughout the academic year.

  3. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

    The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider Scholarship, Teaching and Service of faculty performance when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

    Tables (Charts): Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in either scholarship or teaching with at least a “very good” rating in the other category. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum School criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.

    Promotion for Professor: A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must exceed the minimum School criteria.  A candidate for promotion to Professor may not necessarily have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as he/she becomes more specialized.

    Documentation of a faculty member’s achievements may be demonstrated in a seminar, performance or other presentation of scholarly or creative work (lecture, demonstration, etc.) presented to the School prior to a faculty member’s application for tenure or promotion.  For Assistant Professors, this seminar/presentation of creative work may typically be presented during the faculty member’s third full year in this rank.  For promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the seminar/presentation of creative work may be the year prior to an anticipated promotion application.

    1. Scholarship

      Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. To assist this process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity.  A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the number and size of grants received and in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications. 

      In addition to creative activity, research and scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including but not limited to serving on national grant review bodies, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered. These activities complement creative activity, scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies.  Expected activities include attending and participating in institutes, conferences and seminars; inclusive of the organization of institutes, conferences, seminars, and workshops.

      1. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        The School of Theatre and Dance utilizes the following standards for assessing scholarship:

        • Broad knowledge of the field
        • Clarity of goals
        • Implementation of appropriate methods and procedures
        • Effective use of appropriate resources
        • Effective communication and presentation
        • Significance of results and impact on the field

        All faculty of the School are expected to seek excellence in research/creative activity. Assessment indicators are provided in Tables 1A and 1B.

        Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research/ creative activity record include the quality and quantity of performances, exhibitions, installations and 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 in research/ creative activity that reflect their disciplinary focus. Attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity may vary across disciplines.

        To achieve “excellent” in the category of research/creative activity at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, she/he should have established a research and or creative activity program which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline.

        Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her record of research/creative activity. This obligation will be met by providing specific information about the significance of performances, exhibitions and installations, article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans, and description in the faculty member’s supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship that the faculty member deems appropriate. In turn, the members of the School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Director shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the School’s expectations for a successful tenure decision.   

      2. Tables

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

        Table 1A. Reappointment Tenure and Promotion Rubric for Scholarship in Research/Creative Activity

         Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” throughout Table 1 A.

         

        1Publications include: plays, scripts, scores, reviews, articles in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality books, and book chapters. Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality, length, and quantity and impact on the field..

        2“Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including, as appropriate funds for supplies, materials and personnel (graduate students, research technicians and/or post-doctoral associates).  - “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support doctoral students or are intramural grants.  "Seed Grants" should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.” Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields.

        3Performance refers to creative activity subject to critical review. Evaluation of performance creative activity record will include an assessment of quality and quantity. For venue ranking, see Table B.

        Examples: The following are examples of scholarship in research/creative activity in the disciplines of theatre and dance. All should be either juried, reviewed, adjudicated, commissioned, invited or otherwise subject to critical review.”

        (Note: This list is not exhaustive)

        • Basic refereed or invited researched publications- books, articles, plays, scores
        • Professional creative activity- including invited juried exhibitions, paid presentations/performances, services, choreographic, directorial works and design work normally subjected to critical review.
        • Presentation of original work normally subjected to critical review through jury, referee, invitation, or commission.
        • Technical solutions of design problems
        • Research patents
        • Presentations, lecture-demonstrations normally subject to critical review through jury, referee, invitation or commission
        • Conference presentations with national organizations.
        • Editing of journals, books anthologies normally subject to critical review
        • Professional Vocal/ Movement/Acting Coaching – inclusive of voice/dialect coaching and fight coaching.
        • Restaging or recreating original work for productions outside the University
        • Dramaturgical work for professional companies
        • Creative works with digital technologies
        • Pedagogical research and publication in refereed publications
        • Development of new techniques, technologies that advance the profession
        • Producing Professional work for the University
        • Guest Artist Performances for the University
        • Professional consulting work
        • Published technical solutions/drawings
        • Computer applications

        Table 1B Creative Activity Venue Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions

        This list is not comprehensive, is meant to serve as examples only and does not represent multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, creative activity, publication and presentation.

        Rank

        Venues

        A Venues Highest ranking venues in discipline as measured by impact

         

        • Tier 1 and Tier 2 Opera Companies
        • National / International  Dance Companies
        • National and International Dance Theatres
        • National and International Festivals (choreography and performance)
        • Broadway/ Off  Broadway
        • Production contracts
        • LORT A, B, C Theatre Companies
        • Feature film / commercial releases

        B Venues Middle tier venues

         

        • Off-Off Broadway
        • (Regional Opera Companies not Tier 1 or 2)
        • Regional Dance Companies
        • Regional Dance Theatres
        • Regional Festivals (choreography and performance)
        • Professional Regional Theatres (CORST, COST non-LORT or LORTD, URTA contract, SPT or letter of  agreement, LOA, guest artist contract)
        • Independent films/ web series
        • Non- Profit Theatre Companies  (ANCT) agreement
        • Casino/ Cabaret Union contracts
        • Academic Guest artist positions with accredited institutions ( URTA, NASD, NAST)

        C Venues Lower tier venues

         

        Community Theatres with guest contracts Code showcases

        • Community-based Dance Companies
        • Community-based Dance Theatres
        • Community Festivals (choreography and performance)
        • Academic Guest artist positions  with  non-accredited institutions
        • Volunteer design work

         

    2. Teaching

      Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 2. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc.

      Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the School, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review. Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students. Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses. 

      The following are examples of teaching scholarship in the disciplines of theatre and dance. (Note: This list is not exhaustive)

      • Publications and  presentations on pedagogy
      • Teaching awards
      • Graduate student research training/creative activity
      • Undergraduate student research training/creative activity
      • Involvement in curricular development or review
      • Classroom presentations
      • Coaching or advising student creative projects
      • Original pedagogical research
      • Grant applications, funding for teaching methods
      • Thesis/ MFA project direction
      • Culminating or Comprehensive Project Direction.
      • Writing/editing textbooks, manuals, worksheets
      • Published study guides or instructors’ manuals
      • Conducting instructional workshops
      • Development of instructional materials and methods
      • Demonstration of creative teaching strategies
      • Significant contributions to course content
      • Active involvement in a teaching-related professional organization.
      • Advising student organizations
      • Student academic advising and supervision of students
      • Vocal/movement/acting coaching for the school
      • Advising student creative work
      • Restaging or reconstructing choreography for the school
      • Restaging theatrical productions for the school
      • Dramaturgical work for the school
      • Performing in School productions
      • Direction, choreography, music direction for the school
      • Dance therapy
      • Professional certification (e.g. Combat, rigging, Somatic, etc.)

      Table 2. RTP Teaching Evaluation Rubric

      Teaching Assessment 

      Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Excellent

      Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional

      development

      Develop/revise courses, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), excellent student and peer perceptions, and instructional creativity, and actively participate in curricular revisions.   Positive peer reviews and student assessments.

      Very Good

      Innovative teacher. Provides consistent evaluation and communication measurements.

      Develop/revise courses, good student and peer perceptions, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity.  Positive peer reviews and student reviews.

      Good

      Improving teacher. Provides consistent evaluation and communication measurements.

      Meets obligations well Evidence supports good student and peer communications.  Peer reviews and student reviews indicate improvement.

       

      Fair

      Average teacher

      Evidence supports average student and peer perceptions. Peer reviews and student assessments may be inconsistent/ indicate improvement.

       

      Poor

      Substandard,

      ineffective teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions, pattern of

      Complaints. Consistent negative  Peer reviews and student assessments

       

    3. Service

      1. Faculty member's contributions in Service include service to the School, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Table 3. The merits of University 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 citizenship include active participation in School events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, School meetings and seminars, contributions to School and University special events (e.g. development/fund raising events), etc.

      Being an active and useful citizen of the School, Campus, College, and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities. Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

      Table 3.Reappointment/Promotion and Tenure Evaluation Rubric for Service

      Service Assessment

      Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Exceeds obligations

      Significant role in School, Campus

      College and/ or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, to the profession, and community; active participation in significant events, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach.

      Meets obligations

      Meets the minimal School/Campus

      Obligations.

      Does not meet obligations

      Does not meet School/Campus

      obligations in a timely manner and/ or does not actively participate in significant departmental/campus events.

      2. Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the School.

      Examples: The following are examples of Service in the disciplines of theatre and dance. (Note: This list is not exhaustive)

      • Non-refereed reviews of books, journals, performances
      • Non-refereed symposium/conference presentations
      • Lecture-demonstrations not subject to critical review through jury, referee, invitation, or commission
      • Serving on advisory boards within/outside university community   
      • Public presentations of university activities
      • Serving in professional organizations
      • School development including recruitment, public relations
      • Manuscript and grant application reviews
      • Consulting within/outside university
      • Organizing/coordinating exhibitions, performances, projects
      • Mentorship of junior faculty
      • Participation on boards, Arts councils and community events
      • Producing student performances, exhibitions
      • Participating in university development productions
      • Serving on school, college and university committee
  4. Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty

    1. Renewal of Appointment

      Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually.  Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position. Each NTT faculty member has a specified track: Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner, or Research as defined in the CBA for Full-time, NTT faculty.

    2. Third-Year and Six-Year Full Performance Review

      The third-year full performance reviews of (NTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the third-year full performance reviews for NTT faculty at the Kent and Regional Campus are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The third-year full performance review concludes with the College or, if applicable, the division of the Regional Campuses’ level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of appointments including that portion of the third appointment that is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.

    3. Performance Reviews (after (9) years of consecutive employment and two (2) Full Perfromance Reviews)

      After nine (9) years of consecutive appointments, and every three (3) years thereafter, bargaining unit members shall undergo a “simplified” performance review. The performance review will follow the procedures and timelines established by the University, as annually distributed through the Office of Faculty Affairs, concluding with the college or, if applicable, the division of the regional campuses’ level of review and determination. Members will electronically submit to the unit a vitae, summaries of student surveys of instruction, if applicable, and a narrative of up to five (5) pages in which the faculty member describes her/his professional activities during the past three (3) years.

    4. Criteria for considerations in performance reviews for third year faculty

      Non-tenure track faculty members usually make their primary contribution in undergraduate teaching or emphasize contributions to the co-curricular production program. In each specialization, a high quality of teaching is expected. Therefore greater weight will be given to these areas. Activities emphasized will reflect individual assignments made by the School Director and the specific track of each faculty member (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner, Research). Collegial behavior should be reflected in the record of each faculty member.

      1. Teaching-Related Performance:

        This category embraces activities related to the teaching of specific courses, creative work on the school’s main stage production season, and the interaction with students in and out of the classroom. Creative contributions to the theatre and dance seasons may also be evaluated as Teaching. Areas of evaluation include knowledge of subject matter, teaching methodologies, intellectual and educational integrity, and faculty/student interaction.

        1. Mode of Evaluation of Teaching

          1. Demonstration of excellence in teaching may be shown through (but not limited to) measures of student achievement, self-evaluation, workshops, teaching portfolios, peer and student evaluations, external evaluators, letters, awards. 

          2. Qualitative standards. No distinction is made on the basis of quantity alone, e.g., a “magic number” guaranteeing reappointment does not exist. Teaching is an ongoing activity and work is normally spread among a variety of evaluative documents.

        2. Criteria for Evaluation

          1. Broad knowledge of the field
          2. Implementation of appropriate methods and procedures
          3. Effective use of appropriate resources
          4. Effective communication and presentation
          5. Significance of results
        3. Criteria Governing Documentation

          Evidence of performance for reviews may be demonstrated by self-evaluation, peer evaluation and student evaluation.  Candidates must document their accomplishments by offering appropriate evidence, such as the following:

          1. A self-evaluation providing an assessment of the candidate’s teaching during the period under review as well as the candidate’s performance of other responsibilities and accomplishments during the period under review.
          2. Syllabi for courses taught during the period under review as well as examples of course materials used in teaching.
          3. Measures of student achievement, such as student performances, portfolios, publications, etc.
          4. Evaluation Summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review.
          5. An up-to-date curriculum vita.
          6. Peer reviews of teaching.
          7. Other materials that may document his/her responsibilities during the period under review.
        4. The following is a list of examples by which teaching may be assessed in the discipline (List is not exhaustive)

          • Publications, presentations on pedagogy
          • Teaching awards
          • Graduate student research training/creative activity
          • Undergraduate student research training/creative activity
          • Involvement in curricular development or review
          • Development and restructuring of courses
          • The creation of course syllabi
          • Classroom presentations
          • Coaching or advising projects
          • Choreography
          • Original pedagogical research
          • Grant applications, funding for teaching methods
          • Thesis/MFA Comprehensive/Culminating project direction
          • Writing/editing textbooks, manuals, worksheets
          • Published study guides or instructors’ manuals
          • Conducting instructional workshops
          • Development of instructional materials
          • Advising student organizations
          • Student advising and supervision of students
          • Advising student creative work
          • Vocal/movement/acting coaching
          • Dance Therapy
          • Professional certification (e.g. Combat, rigging, Somatic, etc.)
      2. Others:

        The following is a list of some examples of work in the discipline in an additional area of specialization as outlined in the Offer of Appointment (List is not exhaustive)

        • Creative activity for the school, such as design, performance, technical direction, musical direction
        • Musical Accompaniment for dance or theatre courses
        • Technical solutions/drawings
        • Technical solutions of design problems
        • Consulting within/outside the University
        • Writing computer materials
        • Directing or choreographing school productions
        • Choreography and performance in school productions

        NTT faculty members are expected to undergo a Full Performance Review. The Full Performance Review will follow the format, procedures and timelines established by the University, as annually distributed through the Office of Faculty Affairs, concluding with the college or, if applicable, the division of the regional campuses' level of review and determination. The Ad Hoc RTP Committee in consultation with the Director, will provide NTT faculty members undergoing review two peer reviews (2) by faculty members and/or professionals with expertise in the field to evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance. A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the faculty member for placement in his/ her reappointment file.

        A written report is submitted to the Director for placement in the faculty member's electronic review file. NTT faculty will also submit an updated file electronically online via the system that is designated by the University for this purpose. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each NTT faculty member and forwards to the Dean her/his recommendation. NTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.

        The overall evaluation during the third-year full performance review shall include consideration of the faculty member’s personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach is expected of all NTT faculty members who seek renewal of appointment in the School.