Appendix B: Guidelines for Weighting Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Criteria

An overview of the evaluation process for reappointment, tenure and promotion for tenure-track Faculty is discussed in the Trumbull Faculty Handbook.  Complete guidelines are published by the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs annually.  Additional material can be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The aim of this appendix is to provide more specific weighting criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

Reappointment, tenure and promotion evaluations for Tenure-Track (TT) Faculty members are guided by the following general principles, which reflect the mission of the Trumbull Campus: 

  1. Teaching.  Because teaching is the primary mission of the Trumbull Campus, the goal     for a successful candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion is to demonstrate excellence in teaching.  Teaching excellence may include pedagogical research related to the discipline and disseminated for peer review.  Performance in teaching may be evaluated in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, effective course design and teaching materials, a pattern of positive comments on student evaluations, supportive peer evaluations, ongoing efforts to reflect upon and improve the act of teaching, and positive SSI scores.  When reviewing files for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, reviewers are advised to consider how and in what ways the shift to online SSIs can impact the assessment of a Faculty member’s teaching; specifically the submission rate and time spent in assessing instruction may both diminish when students’ evaluations of instruction are performed online and outside of the classroom rather than in the classroom and on paper. 
  2. Research, Scholarship and/or Creative Activity.  Because active engagement with the discipline is necessary to remain current in teaching, a successful candidate for reappointment must demonstrate excellence in research, scholarship and/or creative activity, appropriate to the discipline and which is disseminated for peer review.  In the early years of reappointment, the candidate must at least demonstrate a pathway for the development of appropriate scholarship. By the time of the tenure review, the candidate is to have his/her scholarship reviewed/performed/exhibited at the appropriate level of impact (e.g., international, national, regional) for the discipline.  Note that the “appropriate level” refers to the level of impact rather than to geography.  For example, an artistic performance or exhibition could have a regional or national impact even though it is held locally.  All candidates are to provide support for the case that their work is of an appropriate level for the discipline. 
  3. University Service/Citizenship. University service/citizenship is expected of all tenure-track Faculty members.  By the time of tenure review, the candidate is expected to demonstrate a pattern of increasing service contributions, including some form of leadership (e.g., committee chair or campus representative) or a variety of lesser but noteworthy contributions. Faculty members are encouraged to contribute to all levels of service: campus, department, college and university.
    In addition, service activities which are not necessarily tied to one's special field of knowledge but which make significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly and governance goals and missions of the university, college, campus, unit, or community are considered university citizenship.  Because of the mission of the Regional Campuses, Faculty members have a special responsibility to engage in teaching and university service/citizenship; indeed, greater consideration may be given to these areas in the evaluation of Faculty whose appointment is at a Regional Campus. However, evidence of research/creative activity (e.g., publications, performances, exhibitions of creative arts) may be required for successful tenure and promotion decisions.

On the Trumbull Campus, a candidate’s performance in each category--teaching; research, scholarship and creative activity; and university service/citizenship—will be evaluated using the following ranks: excellent, significant, satisfactory, and deficient. 

Because of the differences of publication, presentation, performance, and/or exhibition venues in different disciplines it is inappropriate to quantify absolutely the scale noted above.  Based on the standards of the relevant discipline, the testimony provided by the candidate’s file and peer reviewers, and the discussions during the Trumbull Campus Personnel Action Committee meetings, each member of the review Committee must necessarily apply his/her own professional judgment in the review to make a final written recommendation.  When all the evaluations are summarized, a recommendation regarding a candidate’s whole performance, viewed as a unified, integrated record of a teacher-scholar and university citizen should emerge.

Candidates standing for reappointment, tenure and promotion are strongly encouraged to acknowledge these facts as they prepare their files and to explain fully why they think their accomplishments should be considered excellent, significant, or satisfactory given their discipline, their year in the review process, and how they addressed issues raised in the previous year’s review. In a reappointment decision, evaluators are required to make a final written recommendation of “yes,” “yes with reservations,” or “no.”  For tenure decisions, only final written recommendations of “yes” or “no” are possible.  The minimum performance required for an unreserved positive ballot recommendation for a candidate’s reappointment or tenure can be illustrated by the following table:

Teaching

Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity

University Service/Citizenship

Excellent

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Significant

Significant

Satisfactory

Significant

Satisfactory

Excellent

 

The above provided table does not attempt to identify every possible combination of performance leading to specific ballot recommendations, as that would be inconsistent with the intent of University policy.  Instead, it is consistent with and intended to signal general principles which reflect the mission and values of the Trumbull Campus.  “Deficient” does not appear in the table because deficiency in any area signals that a “yes with reservation” or a “no” reappointment ballot recommendation is warranted.  In the case of tenure, it signals that a negative recommendation is indicated.  Finally, it should be reemphasized that this table makes no attempt to quantify absolutely what constitutes excellent, significant, satisfactory, or deficient performance. 

Tenure-track librarians, whose primary appointment is not as a classroom instructor, should consult the appropriate University Libraries documentation for the criteria used in assessing the performance of librarians.