Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion and Other Faculty Personnel Actions | Lifespan Development & Educational Sciences Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion and Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Graduate Faculty Status

    As a doctoral degree granting School, the School normally requires that all Faculty hired for tenure‐track positions be eligible for appointment to the graduate Faculty as associate or full members. The Administrative policy regarding graduate Faculty is included in the University Policy Register (University Policy Register).

  2. Reappointment

    The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding Faculty reappointment (See University Policy Register). Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Probationary Faculty members are reviewed by the School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (Section III of this Handbook). Probationary Faculty members are expected to work with the School Director to identify at least one Faculty member each year to visit their class and evaluate their teaching performance. A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the Director for placement in the Faculty member’s reappointment file. Probationary Faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Director who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary Faculty member is discussed by the committee who then votes on the Faculty member’s reappointment. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary Faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Director informs probationary Faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    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 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.

    From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured Faculty member to request that her/his probationary period be extended. Upon request, an untenured 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.

  3. Tenure and Promotion

    The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding Faculty tenure (University Policy Register) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the University policy and procedures regarding Faculty promotion (University Policy Register). 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 body of scholarship, high quality teaching, and a level of service that suggests continued success in these areas. The awarding of promotion must be based on convincing documented evidence that the Faculty member has achieved a body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, high quality teaching, and has demonstrated service consistent with his/her Faculty assignment. Specific criteria for promotion to different ranks are identified under “Candidates for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion.”

    1. Research

      Research is the systematic pursuit of new and generalizable or transferable knowledge. It is a systematic process of disciplined inquiry intended to give meaning to observed phenomena or ideas. This is done in part by putting ideas into perspective and applying knowledge to consequential problems in one’s specific area of expertise. The LDES School also recognizes equally the importance and benefits of  community-engaged research. This is an applied and basic research process that typically is responding to a community need and contributing to the faculty member’s discipline. Other outcomes include opportunities to translate findings into practice, increased research capacity built through faculty and community partnerships, and expanded grant opportunities. Community engagement can take place at all levels: local, regional, national, and/or global/international.

    2. Teaching

      Teaching is multifaceted and is informed by scholarly endeavors. Faculty are expected to be involved in continual professional development to enrich their instruction of students, which is not necessarily limited to simply transmitting information to students. Teaching involves interactions with students that fall into four categories: instruction in undergraduate and/or graduate classes, seminars, workshops, and institutes; supervision of students in practicum and internships; direction or co-direction of independent investigations, master’s theses/projects, and/or dissertations; and advising of students with respect to course work, licensure, and mentoring.

    3. Service

      Service for a Faculty member occurs through thoughtful or reflective deliberation and discourse relative to one’s own profession and the needs of the Program, School, College, and/or the University, as well as the community.  Again, community service can be applicable at all levels: local, regional, national, and/or global/international. The School also recognizes the importance of collaboration among Faculty and of the mentoring of students into a scholarly role through shared professional activities.

  4. Evaluation of Candidates for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

    Evaluation of candidates is a holistic process, whereby reviewers examine the candidate’s complete file as it relates to areas of Research, Teaching, and Service. Reviewers will rely upon the candidate’s contextual statement, curriculum vita, and other documenting evidence during the evaluative process. As such, the candidate is encouraged to consult with other colleagues, the School Director, and/or Dean (when appropriate) for assistance in the preparation of his or her file prior to review.

    1. For Pre-Tenure Reappointment

      It is expected that pre-tenured Assistant Professors will meet expectations in each of these areas on a yearly basis. At this level of evaluation, reviewers are required to make a final recommendation of “Yes,” “Yes with Reservations,” or “No.”

    2. For Promotion to Associate Professor

      Decisions for granting tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor are two different actions. Whereby decisions for tenure follow University Guidelines, evaluation for promotion to Associate Professor are based on the candidate’s overall performance within the domains of Research, Teaching, and Service. It is expected that a candidate who came into the School with a previous rank of Associate Professor continues to be productive at that rank, even though tenure may not yet have been earned. At this level of evaluation, reviewers are required to make a final recommendation of “Yes” or “No.”

    3. For Promotion to Professor

      Decisions for promotion to the rank of Professor are guided by a review of the candidates file in terms of continued demonstrated commitment to Research, Teaching, and Service. It is expected that candidates under consideration for Professor have demonstrated a continued commitment to Research, Teaching, and Service in the years following promotion to Associate. At this level of evaluation, reviewers are required to make a final recommendation of “Yes” or “No.”

  5. Purpose of the Contextual Statement

    For tenure, reappointment, promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion to Professor, the candidate must use his or her Contextual Statement to clearly articulate the quality and the significance of work within the respective discipline(s) and/or related field(s). Candidates can demonstrate the quality and significance of their work based on a number of factors. However, several key elements must be included in the Contextual Statement:
    1.    Evidence of quality research, which may include statements pertaining, but not limited, to:
         a.    Line(s) of scholarly inquiry. The candidate should define each line of research clearly and demonstrate if and where similar lines of investigation interconnect.
         b.    Contribution to profession or field through community-engaged research (e.g., a collaborative research process between faculty and community partners); 
         c.    Scholarly work that has implications for practice and/or implications for policy in the candidate’s profession/discipline or a relevant academic area;
         d.    Contribution to the profession or field (e.g., relevance, extension and refinement of existing research, generation of provocative ideas and/or innovative solutions). The candidate must demonstrate how his or her work connects to their specific discipline. 
         e.    Publication metrics (e.g., peer-reviewed, impact factor factor and their meaning in the candidate’s discipline, h-index, i10-index, acceptance rate, prominence in the field/journal status, readership/circulation, indexing, affiliation with professional organization or agency). The candidate also should provide information as to his or her specific role on manuscripts (e.g., first author, lab author, senior author) so reviewers can understand the importance of the candidate’s involvement on manuscripts that consist of multiple authors.
         f.    Characteristics of grant funding source and application process (e.g., prominence of the agency or organization, affiliation with professional organization or federal agency, level of rigor of application process or scrutiny of application review).  As was the case with publication characteristics, the candidate also should provide information as to his or her specific role on grants and the percentage of effort of involvement on each grant. Status of grant also is important (e.g., active, submitted/under review, completed, not funded).
    2.    Evidence of quality teaching, which should include statements pertaining, but not limited, to:
         a.   Discussion of the candidate’s teaching philosophy and how that philosophy is applied in teaching and mentorship endeavors.
         b.   Evaluations of teaching by students (i.e., student survey of instruction; SSI). Student evaluation ratings should be presented over time and should also include written statements by students. For documenting the effectiveness of online courses, the candidate should demonstrate how their course is aligned with Quality Matters Standards; and, as a peer who teachers online courses to complete a peer evaluation that includes review of both materials and delivery.
         c.    Evaluations of teaching received from peers, and/or others (i.e., peer reviews of teaching, summative evaluations for trainings and/or workshops provided at conferences and/or other venues). It is important that the candidate demonstrates consistent evaluations of their effectiveness as an instructor over time.
         d.    Demonstration of teaching efforts that are responsive to evaluations (e.g., methods to improve teaching, personal reflections, attending professional development offerings aimed at improving pedagogy). The candidate should indicate that they have reflected on their teaching and clearly indicate what changes were made as a result. In addition, the candidate should include any reflections/evidence of strategies to improve instructional effectiveness (i.e., teaching development workshops, teaching centered conferences). 
         e.    Advisement/mentorship to students (e.g., quantity and quality of student advising, quantity and quality of mentorship). The candidate should describe their role on any thesis, dissertation, and/or undergraduate research project. 
    3.    Evidence of quality service, which may include statements pertaining, but not limited, to:
         a.    Service to the Program, School, College, and/or University (e.g., serving as Program Coordinator, service to various ad hoc/standing committees); and
         b.    Service to the profession and community (e.g., serving as a reviewer and/or editor, appointment/service to professional and/or local organizations, appointment to an officiating role within a professional body).
    4.    The candidate’s response to any previous criticism or concerns, as well as recommendations, received in previous reviews for reappointment and/or promotion. Reflective statements should be provided that clearly articulate the previous criticism/concerns and methods/strategies/approaches that the candidate used to address stated concern(s) and the subsequent outcome(s).
    5.    Candidates are encouraged to describe their professional identity and articulate the clear connections between their research, teaching, and service in support of this identity.
    6.    Candidates are encouraged to limit the length of their contextual statement to six pages (excluding tables, figures, appendices). Candidates are welcome to use tables and appendices as part of their contextual statement. 
    7.    In drafting their contextual statement, candidates should access content about reappointment, tenure, and promotion (as applicable) contained in this LDES School Handbook.

    In addition to the candidate’s contextual statement, a current curriculuam vitae (CV) should be prepared. The CV provides an at-a-glance summary of the candidate’s scholarly activity. At a minimum, the candidate’s CV should delineate publications according to: (a) Refereed Journal Articles, (b) Referreed Books and Book Chapters, (c) Published Abstracts, (d) Conference Proceedings, (e) Other Manuscripts/Monographs, (f) Manuscripts Under Review (including the stage of review), and (g) Manuscripts Under Preparation. Presentations should be listed according the the venue (e.g., international, national, state, regional, local) and status as invited or refereed. The candidate should delineate all grants/contracts using the following subheadings: (a) Active, (b) Submitted or Under Review, (c) Completed, and (d) Not Funded.

  6. Research Expectations

    Overall, activities relevant to and impacting one’s professional field are prioritized when considering Faculty members for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion. As such, a Faculty member is expected to be an active researcher, as evidenced by having established and continuing to pursue one or more focused areas of inquiry that applies a clear and cogent method of investigation (or combination of methods). These methods include qualitative and quantitative research designs (or a mixture of the two), as well as conceptual or theoretical pursuits or other creative activities. Our School values applied and basic research equally, as well as community-engaged research (e.g., efforts to engage community stakeholders in research activities). Given the professional and practice-oriented nature of most of the programs in our School, we also value research that has implications for practice and/or implications for policy. When considered for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, various reviewing bodies will focus on the candidate’s scholarly productivity as evidenced by the quality of publications, presentations, grant applications and/or awards, and/or other creative products (e.g., academic/training materials, electronic and/or multi-media productions). Collaboration with professionals and students is encouraged; however, when preparing materials for review by reappointment, tenure, and promotion committees, the candidate must define his or her role in these shared efforts in the contextual statement.

    The dissemination of quality research is valued highly. Of equal importance is the dissemination of basic and/or applied data-based publications and/or theoretical/review articles that appear in peer-reviewed outlets (e.g., journals, books). Peer review is the process of evaluating another person’s (or collection of persons’) written work. It is conducted by scholars who are not the authors of the submitted work and in a structured manner (e.g., blind or masked review, multiple reviewers). Typically, the peer review process is made explicit by the publisher or journal editor and advertised to submitting authors. Invited works only reviewed by an editorial body or works that are self-published are not considered peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed invited work is considered peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed journals with a wide circulation and/or those peer-reviewed journals indexed in major and reputable bibliographic databases (e.g., PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC) are preferred.

    With regard to the dissemination of research, it is required that candidates provide evidence of a combination of peer-reviewed publications that include first and/or lead authorship and multi-authored projects. For multi-authored published works, descriptions of the candidate's role on and contribution to the publication is expected. That is, candidates are required to describe their leadership role on collaborative projects (e.g., content expert, methodological design consultant, data analysis, discussant, research advisor for student). Books, chapters within books, other publications (e.g., monographs, research and/or policy reports, white papers, invited works), and presentations to learned societies also are respected and valued as part of the candidate’s dissemination of scholarly endeavors. Another area pertaining to dissemination of research that is respected and valued includes scholarly products that have implications for practice and/or implications for policy in the candidate’s profession/discipline or a relevant academic area. 

     

    Examples of quality Research include, but are not limited to:

    • Publication of peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, monographs or books in the candidate’s field(s), jointly or solo-authored;
    • Peer-reviewed or invited presentations at recognized professional meetings at the international, national, regional, state, and/or local levels;
    • Invited publications and presentations within professional organizations;
    • Scholarly work that has implications for practice and/or implications for policy in the candidate’s profession/discipline or a relevant academic area;
    • Creative professional activity such as the creation of published media, software, and related professional materials;
    • Applications to fund research, training, or service endeavors submitted to local, state, or federal entities, or to foundations, that undergo a structured review process, and have yielded positive evaluations;
    • Competitively awarded grants that lead to publication; and
    • Development of measurement instruments/manuals and/or academic/training materials that have undergone a structured review process and will be disseminated.

     

    1. Considerations For Reappointment

      For reappointment, the candidate should demonstrate the development of an agenda of basic and/or applied research that is relevant and impacting within his or her discipline/field/profession. Such research should demonstrate that the candidate’s work is, or will be, deemed of high quality by peers in his or her profession. The quality of the candidate’s research and future directions for refining a line (or lines) of research must be clearly articulated in the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

    2. Considerations For Tenure

      University Guidelines identify the specific standards for tenure by which the School adheres. That is, the School’s guidelines for tenure mirror university policy. In general, tenure is established when a candidate establishes an agenda of basic and/or applied research within his or her profession. The candidate’s research, taken as a whole, should demonstrate clearly that his or her work is deemed of high quality by peers in his or her profession; and suggests continued success. Evidence of a pattern of research and a demonstrated record of continued meaningful professional inquiry is required. The quality and impact of the candidate’s research record and future directions must be articulated in the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

    3. Considerations For Promotion to Associate Professor

      For promotion to Associate Professor, the candidate must demonstrate emerging leadership through a sustained basic and/or applied research record with one or more systematic lines of inquiry within the candidate’s profession. A description of the candidate’s emerging leadership and developing expertise of his or her line(s) of inquiry must be clearly articulated in the Contextual Statement. The criteria that distinguish promotion to Associate Professor is a record demonstrating emerging leadership and/or mentorship as a scholar within the candidate’s field and establishment of a national or international expertise in one or more areas of focused research (i.e., including but not limited to, participating in invited presentations and/or colloquia; publishing with doctoral students; being part of a national panel; organizing a committee to examine an area of research germane to the candidate’s focused research; engaging as a consultant for external grant applications). The candidate’s unique contributions to the fruition of research products must be apparent.

    4. Considerations For Promotion to Professor

      For promotion to Professor, the candidate must demonstrate an extended quality record of basic and/or applied research that demonstrates sustained achievement and leadership in systematic line(s) of inquiry within the candidate’s profession. This scholarship demonstrates clearly that the candidate’s work continues to be recognized nationally or internationally for its excellence in one or more of the candidate’s area of expertise; and, demonstrates a broader impact on the literature. The quality of the candidate’s sustained line(s) of scholarship inquiry and his or her leadership as a researcher, and the recognized significance of his or her scholarship must be articulated in the Contextual Statement using factors identified in this Handbook. The criteria that distinguish promotion to Professor from promotion to Associate Professor are demonstrated leadership and/or mentorship as a scholar in the candidate’s profession and area(s) of expertise, and establishment of a national or international reputation for excellence in one or more areas of focused research (e.g., participating in invited presentations and/or colloquia; publishing with doctoral students; hosting post-doctoral residents; being part of a national panel; organizing a committee to examine an area of research germane to the candidate’s focused research; engaging as a consultant for external grant applications authoring major chapters or review articles that help pull together some body of research, authoring/editing books; conducting longer-term projects). The candidate’s leadership in the fruition of research products must be apparent.

  7. Teaching Expectations

    Teaching involves both instructional activities and the systematic reflection of the practice of teaching. Instruction and advisement are considered important functions of Faculty members in the School. Documented evidence must be submitted for review when personnel decisions are to be made.

    Instruction includes the teaching of lecture courses; the teaching of experiential-based and skill-building courses; the supervision of practicum and/or internships; the conducting of web-based seminars and workshops; the direction of individual investigations; and the direction or co-direction of dissertations and/or master’s theses/projects. In addition to course evaluation, which is systematically required from students enrolled in credit courses for the purpose of institutional evaluation, instructional evaluation will also include colleague (i.e., peer) review and administrative assessment. Evaluations by students, colleagues, School Director, and other administrators (where appropriate) shall be summarized in a self-appraisal and presented for consideration by reviewing bodies.

    Faculty members in the School are required to participate in and document a variety of activities to help improve their teaching. Faculty members within the School should continually hone their skills to promote active and engaged teaching and learning within the classroom. Faculty practicing the scholarship of teaching and learning may focus on change as they develop their practice through a cycle of action, reflection and improvement.  Reflection and responsiveness to peer and student feedback is another valued component of development of teaching skills regardless of level (undergraduate, master’s, doctoral). Faculty are expected to be responsive to the needs of students and provide high quality and sustained mentorship through their duties as advisors, committee members, and/or thesis/dissertation directors.  Additional activities may include self-study using materials such as books or journals that specialize in general college teaching practices.  Further, Faculty members may wish to participate in local workshops and seminars offered through the KSU Center for Teaching and Learning or go to sessions aimed at discipline specific educational practices when attending regional and national meetings of learned societies. 

     

    Examples of quality Teaching include, but are not limited to:

    • Positive evaluation by students, colleagues, and administrators; and evidence of growth as a result of such evaluations;
    • Formative and Summative feedback or data related to student outcomes;
    • Demonstration of teaching efforts that reflect consideration and modification of teaching practice based on data and feedback;
    • Involvement in establishing a meaningful line of inquiry around effective teaching practices;
    • Involvement of systematic examination of teaching and learning and dissemination of findings at the local, state and national/international levels through publications and presentations;
    • Recognitions for outstanding instruction such as Distinguished Teacher Award or nominations, commendatory letters, or other awards;
    • Any special circumstances or unusual efforts pertaining to specific instructional assignments or evaluations;
    • Evidence of both quality and quantity doctoral dissertation/co-direction and/or master’s theses/project direction;
    • Evidence of responsiveness and attentiveness to students’ concerns;
    • Evidence of quantity and quality of advisement of students;
    • Leadership in program development;
    • Leadership in committees that target personnel development and training opportunities;
    • Involvement in activities that seek external funds needed to engage in teaching and learning at all levels at the University;
    • Evidence of collaborative, interdisciplinary work across Faculty and institutions and where possible, include opportunities for support and mentorship of students;
    • Active involvement in the University Teaching Council or the Center for Teaching and Learning;
    • Incorporation of evidence-based instructional strategies into classroom practices; and
    • Internal and external grant funding to support curriculum, personnel development and/or to benefit the community at the local, state or national, and/or global/international levels

     

    In evaluating the candidate’s materials for teaching, reviewing bodies will note:

    1. Instructional Evaluation – In accordance with University and College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services policy, School Faculty shall systematically obtain student evaluations of their instruction according to established procedural guidelines. Faculty being considered for review shall submit the computer printouts containing summative data of student evaluations for department review. Faculty must also summarize these data and provide supplemental data from open-ended questions.
    2. Colleague Review – Faculty members in the School select appropriate experienced Faculty who are above the candidate’s current rank and who are knowledgeable in andragogy to conduct Peer Review of Teaching. Reviews may include class presentations, the course content, course objectives, methodology, grading and examinations, course organization, student achievement, homework assignments, and required materials.  Additionally, instructional design that promotes engaged teaching and learning may be evaluated.  Instructional design skills include the ability to sequence experiences and materials to induce learning in students and to measure or confirm that learning has occurred. In doing this task, reviewers may be supplied with course syllabi, tests, and/or handouts.
    3. Self-Appraisal – Thoughtful self-evaluation of teaching performance through a cycle of action, reflection, and change is a requisite for improved teaching and learning. It is important for Faculty to show evidence of an honest, active endeavor to assess their strengths and weaknesses and to refine their instructional approach. The process by which Faculty systematically evaluate and improve their teaching must be included in their Contextual Statement. Faculty (pre-tenured and tenured) may demonstrate competence in teaching as evidenced by a variety of means. Therefore, evidence of teaching effectiveness is demonstrated through constant reflection, change in practice, and improvement, and does not rely solely on university summative student evaluations.
    1. Considerations for Reappointment

      Ongoing progress toward strong performance in classroom instruction and advising.  Examples of ongoing progress toward strong performance requires student evaluations and comments, annual peer evaluations of teaching, participation in college teaching professional development, and self-appraisal of teaching evident in the contextual statement.

    2. Considerations for Tenure

      University Guidelines identify the specific standards for tenure by which the School adheres. That is, the School’s guidelines for tenure mirror university policy. In general, tenure is established when strong performance and commitment to ongoing improvement in classroom instruction and fulfillment of advising responsibilities is demonstrated. Evidence of mentoring students must be presented and, when possible, involvement in doctoral dissertation directing / co-directing and/or master’s level theses/project advisement. Examples of strong performance and ongoing improvement are required through multiple indicators. Such indicators may include, but are not limited to: positive peer evaluations, positive Student evaluations and comments, development of new courses and programs that are responsive to current needs, innovative teaching and learning methods, participation in learning communities, advising/mentorship of students, demonstration of teaching efforts that reflect consideration and modification of teaching practice based on data and feedback, and establishing a meaningful line of inquiry around effective teaching practices. The quality and impact of the candidate’s teaching record and must be articulated within the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

    3. Considerations for Promotion to Associate Professor

      Strong performance and commitment to ongoing improvement in classroom instruction and fulfillment of advising responsibilities must be demonstrated. Evidence of mentoring students must be presented and when possible involvement in doctoral dissertation directing / co-directing and/or master’s level theses/project advisement. Examples of strong performance and ongoing improvement are required through multiple indicators. Such indicators may include, but are not limited to: positive peer evaluations, positive student evaluations and comments, development of new courses and programs that are responsive to current needs, innovative teaching and learning methods, participation in learning communities, advising/mentorship of students, demonstration of teaching efforts that reflect consideration and modification of teaching practice based on data and feedback, and establishing a meaningful line of inquiry around effective teaching practices. The quality and impact of the candidate’s teaching record and must be articulated within the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

    4. Considerations for Promotion to Professor

      Strong performance and commitment to ongoing improvement in classroom instruction and fulfillment of advising responsibilities must be demonstrated. A pattern of mentoring students must be presented and, when possible, involvement in doctoral dissertation directing/ co-directing and/or master’s level theses/project advisement. Examples of strong performance and ongoing improvement are required through multiple indicators. Such indicators may include, but are not limited to: positive peer evaluations of recent teaching; positive student evaluations during the past three to four years; teaching awards; leadership in program development; directing doctoral dissertations and/or master’s theses; leadership in university committees in personnel preparation and training; leadership at the larger program level accreditation efforts and reporting; participation in external reviews for university programs; engagement in personnel preparation efforts at the local, state or national levels; and a record of seeking external funds to support personnel preparation and training efforts.

  8. Service Expectations

    Service is expressed in an array of activities that reflect positively on the program and university. Two types of service activities are required for tenure and/or promotion: (1) service to the Program, School, College, and/or University, and (2) service to the Community and/or Field. Faculty must clearly articulate within their contextual statement how they have contributed to the Program, School, College, University, Community, and/or Field. Reporting of these activities must include documentation of involvement. Our School values service activities that guide and influence policy and/or professional practices in disciplines related to our academic programs as well as contributing to and/or strengthening the community. 

    1. Service to the Program, School, College, and/or University

       

      Examples of Program, School, College, and/or University service involvement includes, but are not limited to:

      • Serving as Program Coordinator;
      • Engaged, responsive participation in Program development and improvement;
      • Cultivating community partnerships to address Program, School, and/or College priorities;
      • Linking local service initiatives with state and/or national initiatives;
      • Providing technical assistance/consultative service to a wide variety of campus and community partners;
      • Serving as Chair or demonstrating active membership on School, College, and/or University committees; 
      • Serving as Chair or participating on Faculty search committees;
      • Serving as the Library representative;
      • Serving as a member of the IRB committee;
      • Serving as a member of Faculty Advisory Council and/or College Advisory Council;
      • Serving on the University Tenure and Promotion Committee
      1. Considerations for Reappointment

        Service on various Program, School, or College ad hoc and standing committees appropriate to years of appointment and Faculty workload. At the beginning of the pre-tenure appointment, the candidate is expected to focus on the development of a research agenda research and teaching. However, during the years approaching tenure and promotion to Associate, the candidate must demonstrate more engagement in service commitments.

      2. Considerations for Tenure

        University Guidelines identify the specific standards for tenure by which the School adheres. That is, the School’s guidelines for tenure mirror university policy. In general, tenure is established when a candidate demonstrates involvement, and, potential for leadership, in service to the Program, School, and/or College through ad hoc and/or standing committee membership. A description of the nature and quantity of the candidate’s service is required and must be articulated within the contextual statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook. In particular, responsiveness to the needs of the Program and the needs of students must be demonstrated.

      3. Considerations for Promotion to Associate Professor

        A pattern of active involvement and emerging leadership in service to the Program, School, and/or College through ad hoc and/or standing committee membership is required. A description of the nature and quantity of the candidate’s service is required and must be articulated within the Contextual Statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook. In particular, responsiveness to the needs of the Program and the needs of students must be demonstrated.

      4. Considerations for Promotion to Professor

        A pattern of active leadership to the Program, School, College, and/or University through ad hoc and/or standing committee membership is required. For promotion to full professor, the candidate is expected to demonstrate high levels of professional service through committee membership at the School, College, and/or University levels, as well as other opportunities, including but not limited to, coordination of the program, directing dissertations, and serving as a graduate Faculty representative. Candidates for promotion will have been involved in the life of their Program, School, College, and/or University. A description of the nature and quantity of the candidate’s service is required and must be articulated within the contextual statement using factors as those identified in this Handbook. Responsiveness to the needs of the Program and to the needs of students must be demonstrated, as well as evidence of how service is related to the goals of the Program, School, College, and/or University.

    2. Service to the Community and/or Field

      Examples of service to Community and/or Field include, but are not limited to:

      • Serving as an Executive and/or Administrative Officer within a national and/or international professional organization;
      • Holding a position of leadership and/or committee membership in a national and/or international professional association;
      • Editorship or editorial board member of professional international, national, regional, and/or state peer-reviewed journals;
      • Serving as a reviewer for professional international, national, and/or state venues professional associations/learned societies;
      • Serving as an external reviewer for a Faculty member’s application for tenure and/or promotion at another academic institution;
      • Appointment and service on state and national and/or international commissions;
      • Internal or external grant funding to support collaboration between faculty and community partners,  community service, development, and/or demonstration projects
      • Community service related to one’s professional role. For example: (a) consultation with professional and non-professional organizations; (b) response to public request for professional expertise; (c) election or appointment to city, county, state, national boards, councils, task forces, networks related to the profession; (d) presentation of scholarly nature to radio, television, and/or press; and (e) service to community-based agencies and organizations.
      1. Considerations for Reappointment

        Service to the profession at the regional, state, or national and/or international level appropriate to years of appointment and Faculty workload. At the beginning of the pre-tenure appointment, the candidate is expected to focus on the development of a research agenda research and teaching. However, during the years approaching tenure and promotion to Associate, the candidate is expected to demonstrate more engagement in service commitments.

      2. Considerations for Tenure

        University Guidelines identify the specific standards for tenure by which the School adheres. That is, the School’s guidelines for tenure mirror university policy. In general, tenure is established when a candidate demonstrates involvement in service to the profession at the regional, state, or national and/or international level. Potential for emerging leadership to the profession at the national and/or international level is required. A description of the nature and quantity of the candidate’s service is required and must be articulated within the contextual statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

      3. Considerations for Promotion to Associate Professor

        A pattern of active involvement and emerging leadership in service at the regional, state, or national and/or international level. Emerging leadership to the profession at the national and/or international level is required. A description of the nature and quantity of the candidate’s service is required and must be articulated within the contextual statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

      4. Considerations for Promotion to Professor

        A pattern of active, noteworthy service to the profession at the local, regional, national and/or international level is required. For promotion to full professor, the candidate is required to demonstrate high levels of professional service as evidence through a variety of activities, including but not limited to, participation in learned society activities, service to advisory boards/panels, participation as a reviewer for grants, membership on journal editorial board(s), and/or accreditation reviews, consultancy to agencies/districts, etc. It is desirable that the candidate demonstrates evidence of contributions to or engagement within the broader community, and, in some cases, may be part of the candidate’s expectations (e.g., serving within an administrative capacity, chairing committees). A description of the nature and quantity of the candidate’s service is required and must be articulated within the contextual statement using factors such as those identified in this Handbook.

  9. Specific Programmatic Expectations

    LDES is a School comprised of programs with similar purpose and intent; and evaluates Faculty on the above general criteria. However, some programs (list below) within the School are unique enough to warrant additional clarification when consideration the candidate’s file for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion process. While all successful Faculty must adhere to the above guidelines, specific / programmatic guidelines have been developed in the area of scholarship/publication to provide the RTP Ad Hoc Committee with a lens to look through when reviewing a candidate’s materials.

    1. Counselor Education and Supervision

      The unique aspects of quality scholarship among the Counselor Education and Supervision Faculty include:

      • Collaboration with colleagues and/or students is highly valued in areas such as publication in peer-reviewed journals, book chapters, books, and professional presentations.
      • Sole authorship in journals is not required. However, first authorship is required for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.
      • Articles published in peer-reviewed journals sponsored by the American Counseling Association or other counseling related journals are highly valued. Publishing only books or book chapters is not sufficient for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor.
      • Publications in journals that conduct a blind or masked peer-review process are valued.
      • Peer-reviewed journals with a wide circulation and/or those peer-reviewed journals indexed in major and reputable bibliographic databases (e.g., PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC) are preferred.
      • Evidence of quality scholarship may also include comments on any of the following: why a journal is appropriate for an article’s content, whether a manuscript was peer-reviewed, including an explanation if not peer-reviewed (e.g., invited manuscript) a journal’s acceptance rates, impact factors, how it is that the journal is associated with a candidate’s area of research or professional practice, or a journal’s circulation. 
    2. Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS)

      Faculty are expected to conduct empirical research (basic or applied) using accepted research methodologies and analyses (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, etc.). Non-empirical scholarship (e.g., conceptual pieces, extensive reviews of the literature, and descriptions of professional practice or teaching strategies) is valued but should not be the exclusive focus of a candidate’s research agenda.

      Within HDFS, it is the norm to co-author publications and presentations with colleagues and students. Collaboration is viewed a strength when there is evidence of the person’s capacity to lead a project (e.g., first or sole authorship on some of the publications).
       
      It is important to note that HDFS are diverse interdisciplinary areas of study, and appropriate outlets for dissemination of research include numerous high-quality professional journals. When selecting a journal, Faculty members are advised to publish in highly regarded journals associated with national or international professional organizations, journals known for disseminating high quality scholarship related to the Faculty member’s specific area of focus, or journals having a high impact on research or practice within the candidate’s field. When journals may not be recognized as such by program Faculty or when candidates choose journals outside these parameters, it is imperative they provide justification for doing so.

      • When developing their contextual statement, candidates for reappointment, promotion, and tenure are advised to describe the journal’s audience and why that audience is an appropriate fit for the article’s content, explain whether or not the article was peer reviewed, including an explanation if not peer-reviewed, and identify the journal’s association with the candidate’s specific area of research or professional practice, the journal’s acceptance rates, impact factors, and the journal’s circulation. 
    3. Special Education

      Kent State's Special Education program is comprised of Faculty from several specialty areas (e.g., autism, deaf education, developmental disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, infants and toddlers, learning disabilities, transition) and offers undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees in addition to initial and secondary licenses, endorsements, and certificates. Special Education Faculty prepare personnel to work with children and students from birth through adulthood. Graduates of the Special Education program are highly qualified to work with a variety of professionals and a variety of settings including, but not limited to: schools, hospitals, child care centers, homes, residential facilities, county board agencies, businesses, and center-based schools.

      The overall mission of the Special Education program is to improve the lives of individuals with exceptionalities, their families, and the professionals who work with them. Faculty work toward meeting our mission by preparing highly competent educators, service providers, researchers, and leaders. We believe that conducting and using research will inform and improve the programs and services available and it is imperative that we provide leadership for, and advocacy of, the discipline and its stakeholders.

      In general, expectations for pre-tenured Faculty center on establishing one or more lines of research, gaining confidence in the scholarship of teaching and learning, and becoming a productive and supportive citizen through service to the program, school, college, university, community, and/or the profession. Expectations for post-tenured Faculty center on leadership in the larger context of the special education and related fields, maintaining an ongoing line(s) of research, continuing to document effective teaching and mentoring of pre-tenured Faculty and students, as well as continuing to contribute to the program, school, college, university, community, and profession. Regardless of rank or years in service, all Faculty are evaluated in terms of their research, teaching, and service.

      We expect Faculty (pre-tenured and tenured) to actively seek the support (e.g., funds, equipment, software, datasets, personnel) needed to conduct their research, teach, and to serve the special education program. Examples of acceptable ways for Faculty to support their research, teaching or service activities include participation in competitive grants/contracts, expert consultations, and/or collaborative projects with other institutions, agencies, or schools. We encourage collaborative, interdisciplinary work across Faculty and institutions and where possible, include opportunities for support and mentorship of students. For promotion to full professor, we expect Faculty to maintain productive trajectories in extramural support.

      1. Research

        We expect Faculty to conduct an on-going line(s) of inquiry through applied, experimental, and/or theoretical research using any combination of accepted research methodologies and analyses as appropriate to the research question (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, single subject, economic analyses, mixed-method). We expect research to be disseminated through peer-reviewed and other outlets (e.g., journals, book chapters, texts, presentations/meetings, grant applications, academic/training materials). The work of the Faculty may be disseminated through a variety of formats (e.g., print, virtual, electronic, multi-media). We expect research efforts to be ongoing and have one or more major themes.

        1. Publications

          For tenure and promotion to associate professor, we generally expect eight quality publications. Of the eight, a minimum of six must be in refereed journals where the candidate made substantial, meaningful contributions (both to the product and to the field) as documented in their contextual statement. Because we respect and value a variety of publications, the remaining required publications could include different types of dissemination outlets (e.g. Invited works, chapters, monographs, books, reports, white papers). In special education, publications are often collaborative endeavors and are frequently used to disseminate research knowledge to a broad audience of stakeholders/consumers (e.g., teacher educators, policymakers, practitioners, researchers, families). However, in the case of collaborative efforts, for promotion it is important that the candidate demonstrate a leadership role in the majority of publications as documented in their contextual statement.

          For promotion to full professor, we expect Faculty to maintain productive trajectories in publishing their work and that the work has evidence of making a substantial contribution to the field that is nationally and/or internationally recognized.  In addition, Faculty are expected to be positively reviewed for this rank by non-affiliated peers who hold rank.

          For tenure, promotion to associate, and promotion to full, we consider the quality of each publication and its significance for the field of special education and/or related fields. Faculty is expected to use their contextual statement to clearly articulate the merits of each publication. We evaluate the quality and significance of a publication based on a number of factors including, but not limited to:

          • contribution to the field (e.g., original research; applied research; research synthesis; conceptual contribution)
          • journal or publisher characteristics (e.g., prominence in the field; readership/circulation; affiliation with professional organizations; appropriateness to topic/focus; acceptance rates of journal, impact factor)
          • candidate's role/contribution (e.g., candidate's role in publishing the manuscript; collaboration with other KSU Faculty, scholars in the field, students, and/or scholars in related disciplines)

          In accordance with the significance we place on a variety of ways to impact the field and the wide range of stakeholders who are consumers of our research, we value many types of peer-reviewed journals as outlets for Faculty work. Specifically, we value journals (and other types of peer-reviewed outlets such as books and book chapters) that focus on one or more of the following areas: research; dissemination of knowledge to practitioners; specific disabilities or specific issues in special education; cross-disciplinary and/or related field issues, scholarship of teaching and learning; and/or issues related to policy. The following is an alphabetical listing of examples of peer-reviewed journals and their foci. This list is not meant to be inclusive, but instead, to provide primary examples of the types of journals we value in special education.

        2. Areas of Focus (Key)

          R = Research

          P = Practitioners

          SD/I = Specific Disability or Issue

          SoTL = Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

          Pol = Policy

          APO = Association with a Professional Organization

        3. Sample List of Journals

          American Annals of the Deaf (R, P, SD/I, SoTL)

          American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (R, APO, Pol)

          American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (R, P, APO)

          Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice (R, P, Pol)

          Behavioral Disorders (R, SD/I, APO)

          Career Development for Exceptional Individuals (R, P, Pol)

          Deafness and Education International (R, P, SD/I)

          Early Childhood Education Journal (R, P)

          Early Childhood Research Quarterly (R)

          Exceptional Children (R, APO, SD/I)

          Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities (P, SDI)

          Intervention in School and Clinic (P)

          Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (R, SD/I)

          Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling (R, P)

          Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (R, SD/I)

          Journal of Child and Family Studies (R, SD/I)

          Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (R, P, SD/I)

          Journal of Disability Policy Studies (R, Pol)

          Journal of Early Intervention (R, APO)

          Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (R, SD/I)

          Journal of Learning Disabilities (R, SD/I, APO)

          Journal of Positive Behavior Supports (R, SD/I, P)

          Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (R, Pol, APO)

          Journal of Special Education (R)

          Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (R, APO, P, Pol)

          Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools (P, R, APO)

          Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal (R, SD/I, P)

          Odyssey (P) Remedial and Special Education (R)

          Sign Language Studies (R, P, SD/I)

          Teacher Education and Special Education (R, SoTL, APO)

          Teaching Exceptional Children (P, APO)

          Teaching Young Exceptional Children (P, APO)

          Topics in Early Childhood Special Education (R)

          WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation (R, P)

          Young Children (P, APO)

        4. Presentations

          We expect Faculty to disseminate their research to the community and field through local, state, and national/international presentations. In order to be promoted and tenured, Faculty are expected to participate in a minimum of five peer-reviewed presentations and/or invited presentations (e.g., keynote address, panel discussion, featured speaker) of national/international significance (e.g., conferences of national organizations, briefings to legislators, webinars). For promotion to full professor, we expect Faculty to maintain productive trajectories in presentations and that the work has evidence of making a substantial contribution to the field that is nationally and/or internationally recognized.

  10. RTP Criteria for Regional Campus Faculty

    In accordance with University Policy as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the School of Lifespan Development and Educational Sciences (LDES) recognizes that there are differences in mission and teaching load at the Regional Campuses.  These variations will be considered when evaluating Faculty for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion.

    Candidates for review are not evaluated along single, isolated dimensions of performance, but rather on their whole performance; specifically on an integrated record of teaching, service, and scholarship/research.  Examples of this integrated record include, but are not limited to the following: 

    • A record of strong performance in the classroom (evidence includes teaching evaluations by students and peers) across assigned classes;
    • Peer reviews of instruction and instructional materials by senior Faculty members in the candidate’s program;
    • A contextual statement/narrative that describes the candidate’s efforts to address student and peer suggestions for improvement;
    • A contextual statement/narrative that provides plans for future course revisions and updates to better meet student needs and cover current knowledge;
    • A contextual statement/narrative that includes a clearly articulated teaching philosophy that reflects the candidate’s careful/thoughtful self-assessment;
    • A record of focused and strong service record to the campus, university, profession, and community along with efforts to assume leadership positions in service
    • A contextual statement/narrative that includes clearly defined lines of inquiry;
    • A contextual statement/narrative that clearly communicates/articulate s the importance and relevance of lines of inquiry to the candidate’s professional field;
    • A research/scholarship record that provides evidence that the candidate is actively disseminating research in quality and appropriate outlets;
    • A scholarship record that provides evidence that the candidate is moving research projects along to ensure quantity and quality of work;
    • A research/scholarship dissemination record (e.g., publications, grants, book chapters, presentations) that provides evidence that the candidate is a scholar in his/her professional field.
  11. Review of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty

    Appointments for full-time NTT Faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). According to the CBA, NTT Faculty members are full-time Faculty of Kent State University whose appointments are made annually and the term of each appointment is limited to a single academic year. Full-time NTT Faculty members typically are appointed in one of the following tracks: (a) Instructional, (b) Clinical, (c) Practitioner, or (d) Research. Occasionally, full-time NTT Faculty members may be assigned administrative duties, such as Coordinator of an academic program or department.

  12. NTT Performance Review Criteria

    Full-Time NTT Faculty are reviewed as described below, including consideration of the track to which the NTT Faculty member is assigned (i.e., Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner, or Research). Because of the varied contributions, responsibilities, and interests of Full-Time NTT Faculty members, a combination of instructional and/or professional activities likely will be part of the candidate’s performance review (duties assigned). An inherent part of the review process is to provide guidance and appropriate feedback to the NTT Faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria. Renewals of appointment and salaries for NTT Faculty should be tied to performance within the parameters established in the applicable CBA. Formats for the assessment of performance across appropriate areas (i.e., Instruction, Clinical, Practitioner, or Research) will be provided by the School Director. Performance reviews fall into two categories: (a) Full and (b) Simplified, which are described in more detail below:

    1. "Full" Performance Review

      A Full Performance Review occurs for those Full-Time NTT Faculty members completing three or six consecutive years of annually renewable contracts, respectively; and, is governed by the applicable CBA. Each academic year, guidelines for the Full Performance Reviews for Full-Time NTT Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The Full Performance Review concludes with the College’s review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is three or six full academic years of consecutive appointments, including that portion of the current appointment, which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. Each Full-Time NTT candidate who must complete a Full Performance Review is required to submit a dossier as described in the appropriate CBA. At a minimum, the candidate’s file must contain a narrative statement, updated curriculum vita, and other appropriate supporting documents based on the candidate’s responsibilities (i.e., Instruction, Clinical, Practitioner, or Research).

    2. "Simplified" Performance Reviews

      NTT Faculty members who are in their ninth year of consecutive employment, or and any subsequent third year of consecutive employment thereafter (e.g., 12th, 15th, 18th, etc., must complete a Simplified Performance Review as described in the applicable CBA. Each academic year, guidelines for the “simplified” performance reviews for Full-Time NTT Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The “Simplified” performance review concludes with the College’s and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three full academic years of consecutive appointments, including that portion of the current appointment, which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. Each Full-Time NTT Faculty who must complete a Simplified Performance Review is required to submit documentation as described in the appropriate CBA. At a minimum, the candidate’s file must contain a narrative statement, updated curriculum vita, and other appropriate supporting documents based on the candidate’s responsibilities (i.e., Instruction, Clinical, Practitioner, or Research).

      Each Full-Time NTT Faculty member is discussed by the committee which votes on a recommendation for renewal of the Faculty member’s appointment. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each NTT Faculty member and forwards to the Dean her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation. The Director informs the Full-Time NTT Faculty member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee's deliberations and provides the Faculty member a copy of the recommendation that the Director sends to the Dean. Full-Time NTT Faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable CBA 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.

  13. Evaluating Performance of Full-Time NTT Faculty with Instructional Appointments

    While acknowledging the varied contributions and responsibilities of Full-Time NTT Faculty members, classroom instruction is the principal responsibility. As such, the goal in either level of performance review (i.e., Full or Simplified) for those Full-Time NTT Faculty members whose primary appointment is instruction is to document excellence in teaching. The School defines and evaluates teaching by the broadly used term scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), which can be conceptualized as “scholarly inquiry into adult learning (pre-service and in-service) that which advances the practice of teaching by sharing this research publicly.” The scholarship of teaching and learning involves constant reflection regarding  the process and outcomes of teaching and learning; and, acknowledges the contextual nature of teaching.

    Faculty practicing the scholarship of teaching and learning focus on change as they develop their practice through a cycle of action, reflection, and improvement. Therefore, evidence of teaching effectiveness is demonstrated through constant reflection, change in practice, and improvement.

    For a Full Performance Review of Full-Time NTT Faculty with Instructional appointment, the candidate demonstrates competence in the SoTL, at a minimum, using the following required items:

    • Narrative statement that provides a self-evaluation of teaching performance during the period under review, as well as the candidate’s demonstration of reflective teaching efforts that reflect consideration and modification of teaching practice based on data and feedback;
    • Current curriculum vitae;
    • Course syllabi for courses taught during the period under review;
    • Sample course materials for course taught during the period under review;
    • One peer review of teaching for each year during the period under review; and
    • Evaluation summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review, including both numerical data and student written comments.

    At the candidate’s discretion, the Full Performance Review file may include other materials including but not limited to:

    • Evidence of instructional effectiveness through pre- and post-testing of objectives on basic data sheets (beyond exams and projects);
    • Formative and summative feedback related to aspects of instruction (not captured within official SSI);
    • Statement of teaching philosophy;
    • Formal and/or informal reviews of teaching by students, self, and/or peers who are considered experts in andragogy;
    • Overview of the candidate’s performance of other responsibilities, if any (e.g., student advising, program advising, supervising field experience students, etc.);
    • New course development during the period under review;
    • Involvement in the University Teaching Council;
    • Involvement in the Center for Teaching and Learning (i.e., teaching scholar's program and/or learning communities);
    • Involvement in establishing a meaningful line of inquiry around effective teaching practices; and
    • Incorporation of evidence-based instructional strategies

    For a Simplified Performance Review of Full-Time NTT Faculty with Instructional appointment, the candidate demonstrates competence in the SoTL, at a minimum, using the following required items:

    • Narrative statement that provides a self-evaluation of teaching performance during the period under review, as well as the candidate’s demonstration of reflective teaching efforts that reflect consideration and modification of teaching practice based on data and feedback;
    • Current curriculum vitae; and
    • Evaluation summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) for all courses taught during the period under review, including both numerical data and student written comments.

    At the candidate’s discretion, the Simplified Performance Review file may include other materials including but not limited to the aforementioned materials.

  14. Evaluating Performance of Full-Time NTT Faculty with Research Appointments

    Performance expectations for Full-Time NTT Faculty with research appointments will be specified by the School Director in consultation with the FAC and with the concurrence of the Dean. Overall, a Full-Time NTT Faculty member with research appointment is expected to be an active researcher, as evidenced by having established and continuing to pursue one or more focused areas of inquiry that applies a clear and cogent method of investigation (or combination of methods).

     

    Overall, Full-Time NTT Faculty with research appointments must demonstrate the quality and significance of their work based on a number of factors. However, several key elements must be included, at a minimum, within the candidate’s contextual statement:

    • Publication of research findings disseminated through peer-reviewed outlets (e.g., journals, chapters in books, books, academic/training materials);
    • Characteristics of all material published during the review period, including but not limited to impact factor, acceptance rates, prominence in the field, readership/circulation, indexing, affiliation with professional organization or agency);
    • Presentations to learned societies at local, regional, state, and national/international levels;
    • Grant applications, including characteristics of funding source and application process (i.e., prominence of the agency or organization, affiliation with professional organization or federal agency, level of rigor of application process).
  15. Evaluating Performance of Full-Time NTT Faculty Assigned Administrative Duties

    Performance expectations for Full-Time NTT Faculty with administrative duties will be specified by the School Director in consultation with the FAC and with the concurrence of the Dean. Overall, a Full-Time NTT Faculty member with administrative duties is expected to coordinate the daily academic operation of degree and/or certificate programs. Specific responsibilities may include facilitating Faculty meetings, representing a program at unit level Coordinators meetings, facilitating curriculum design and revision, providing oversight for course offerings, facilitating the collection of data to support accreditation renewals and self-study reports, oversight for student advising, maintaining a program’s website, admitting qualified applicants to graduate programs, and coordinating marketing, recruitment and retention activities. NTT Faculty members with administrative duties are also expected to teach courses and maintain an acceptable level of professional and academic service and activity.

    Overall, Full-Time NTT Faculty with administrative duties must demonstrate the quality and significance of their work based on a number of factors. However, several key elements must be included, at a minimum, within the candidate’s contextual statement:

    • Service on committees;
    • Program development activities (e.g., curricular changes, marketing, interviewing, data collection and dissemination); and
    • Involvement in accreditation reviews (e.g., APA, CACREP, CORE, NCATE, AQUIP, etc.)
  16. Evaluating Performance of Additional Professional or Academic Activity

    All of the following are valued as a means of demonstrating that a Full-Time NTT Faculty member has remained current and engaged as a professional in their field and should be accepted as evidence in a subsequent review portfolio. Because the majority of Full-Time NTT Faculty is responsible primarily for teaching, it is important to note that the following are examples from which Full-Time NTT Faculty may choose to demonstrate that they have remained active in their field, either professionally or academically. Please note that no specific area is required to be represented in a candidate’s performance review. Rather, the following are offered as elements to assist in guiding the performance review of those candidates who are involved with a variety of other activities.

    Research:  NTT Faculty may choose to engage in applied, experimental, and/or theoretical research using any combination of accepted research methodologies and analyses as appropriate to the research question (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, single subject, economic analyses, mixed-method). This may be undertaken independently or as a part of a research team.

    Publications:  NTT Faculty may choose to engage in publication of research findings, either as a single author, or as a part of a multiple author publication. Research may be disseminated through peer-reviewed and other outlets (e.g., journals, texts, presentations/meetings, grant applications, academic/training materials). The work of the NTT Faculty may be disseminated through a variety of formats (e.g., print, virtual, electronic, multi-media). Publication in non-refereed publications is also valued and encouraged.

    Presentations:  NTT Faculty may choose to disseminate their research to the community and field through local, state, and national/international presentations.

    Conferences:  We also value NTT Faculty who take measures to remain current and relevant in their profession as demonstrated through attendance/participation in conferences and/or learning communities related to the SoTL, as well as in effective teaching instruction to best prepare teacher candidates.

    External/Internal Support:  NTT Faculty may choose to actively seek the support (e.g., funds, equipment, software, datasets, personnel) needed to conduct their teaching or research. Examples of acceptable ways for Faculty to support their teaching or research include participation in competitive grants/contracts and/or collaborative projects with other institutions, agencies, or schools. We encourage collaborative, interdisciplinary work across Faculty and institutions and where possible, include opportunities for support and mentorship of students.

    Professional Service:  NTT Faculty member may choose to serve as an adviser to student organizations, reviewer for a journal, hold office in a professional organization, or provide professional consultation.

    Community Service/Partnerships: NTT Faculty may choose to cultivate partnerships within the community. Some examples might be creating educational programs for area schools, forming partnerships with area schools/agencies to enhance opportunities for participating in field experiences and/or service learning for our students, serving on school boards or working with County Boards of Developmental Disabilities and other community agencies.

  17. Renewal of Appointment

    A NTT Faculty member may be offered an appointment for a subsequent year if programmatic need, satisfaction with performance of previous responsibilities, and budgeted resources supporting the position continue.

  18. Promotion of Full-Time NTT Faculty

    Beginning in academic year 2011-12, Full-Time NTT Faculty members who have completed at least six (6) consecutive years of service, and at least two successful Full Performance Reviews, may apply for promotion at the time of their second Full Performance Review, or with any scheduled performance review thereafter. The criteria, guidelines, and procedures for Full-Time NTT promotions are included in the applicable CBA. As required by the CBA, evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of university citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the candidate’s NTT Faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment. The College’s Non-Tenure Track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB) shall be composed of Full-Time NTT Faculty representatives. The NPAB will review the applications for promotion and make a recommendation to the Dean.

  19. Emeriti Faculty Actions

    1. Overview

      Awarding of Emeritus status is an honor, designating a retired faculty member as having demonstrated a distinguished professional career and as having made significant contributions to the School/College/University.

    2. Criteria for Candidacy

      According to University Policy, emeritus status may be conferred to faculty, academic administrators with faculty rank, and unclassified (administrative-professional) and classified staff, following retirement, in recognition of exemplary service at Kent State University; and, implies demonstration of exemplary professional competence and university citizenship after service of at least ten years.

      Within LDES, successful candidates for Emeritus status will demonstrate a substantive and contemporary active record of performance at the time of application. The candidate’s application should provide evidence of exemplary activity since their last promotion and/or during the last 10 years. Exemplary activity shall be demonstrated in one or more of the following:

      • Recent and active record of research, scholarship, and/or creative work;
      • Noteworthy teaching and educational contributions; and/or
      • Significant service to the School/College/University.
    3. Procedure

      The procedures for recommending Emeritus status for faculty and academic administrators with faculty rank occurs first at the School level upon notification that a faculty member intends to retire. Typically, the candidate initiates the application with a letter to the School Director and supporting documentation that includes a current Curriculum Vita. The School Director convenes the FAC who reviews the request and delivers its recommendation to the School Director. Upon the FAC’s recommendation, the School Director forwards the recommendation, with the necessary supporting materials, to the College Dean. The College Dean reviews the recommendation and supporting materials and forwards a recommendation to the Provost. The Provost will make the final recommendation regarding the granting of Emeritus status, subject to approval by the President, and final confirmation by the Board of Trustees.

      The procedures for recommending Emeritus status for unclassified (administrative-professional) and classified staff is initiated at the School level upon notification that the staff members intends to retire.

      Typically, the candidate initiates the application with a letter to the School Director and supporting documentation. The School Director convenes the FAC who reviews the request and delivers its recommendation to the School Director. Upon the FAC’s recommendation, the School Director forwards the recommendation, with the necessary supporting materials, to the Vice President of Human Resources. The Vice President of Human Resources will make the final recommendation regarding the granting of Emeritus status, subject to approval by the President, and final confirmation by the Board of Trustees.