Assessing Job Performance/Teaching | Kent State University

Assessing Job Performance/Teaching

A candidate for reappointment in UL shall demonstrate a satisfactory record in job performance/teaching. For UL, teaching is the sharing of professional expertise and specialized knowledge, primarily with students, in individual or group settings. Consideration shall be given to the varying emphases on teaching responsibilities among UL faculty positions when assessing this area.

In addition to opportunities to engage in teaching that come with one's position within UL, job performance, pedagogical practice, and professional awareness may be enriched by adjunct teaching for other departments. For the purposes of this document, adjunct teaching is defined as that done under a separate contract for additional compensation. In such cases, a candidate may choose to describe the connection between the adjunct teaching and the teaching that is part of job responsibilities, but student evaluations of instruction for an adjunct appointment will not be considered.

To be successful for reappointment, a candidate should have achieved a "good," "very good," or "excellent" assessment rating in the category of job performance/teaching. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "very good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.

Assessment

Definition

Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment

Excellent

Exemplary job performance: innovative, exemplary problem solver, possesses a strong sphere of influence, actively engaged

Demonstration of creativity, leadership, and innovation and of problem solving. Significant impact on the department, UL, and the University. Thoroughly addresses any improvements needed based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Significant evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession and on campus through publications and presentations.

Very Good

Good job performance, engaged

Evidence of innovation and contributions toward problem solving. Positive impact on the department, UL, and the University. Significant effort demonstrated to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or on campus through publications or presentations.

 Good

 Satisfactory job performance, moderately engaged

Some evidence of innovations. Maintains a positive yet modest impact on the department, UL, and the University. Modest effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Some evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or campus through publications or presentations.

 Fair

 Marginal job performance, little engagement

 Little evidence of innovation or impact on the department, UL, or University. Minimal effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Little evidence of engagement within the profession.

 Poor

 Unsatisfactory job performance, no engagement

Lack of initiative. Documented negative impact on patrons or colleagues. No effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. No evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or campus through publications or presentations.