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.
Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
- Broad knowledge of the field
- Implementation of appropriate methods and procedures
- Effective use of appropriate resources
- Effective communication and presentation
- Significance of results
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:
- 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.
- Syllabi for courses taught during the period under review as well as examples of course materials used in teaching.
- Measures of student achievement, such as student performances, portfolios, publications, etc.
- Evaluation Summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review.
- An up-to-date curriculum vita.
- Peer reviews of teaching.
- Other materials that may document his/her responsibilities during the period under review.
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
- 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.)
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.