Teaching | Physics Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Teaching

Typical characterizations of five levels of performance are provided in Table 3.    For each level, the listed characterizations are meant to convey a clear sense of standards; they are not meant to be an exhaustive list or a mandatory check-list.  It is recognized that individual cases can bring accomplishments in areas that can’t be listed ahead of time.   Likewise, individual cases can sometimes display exceptionally high levels of accomplishment in some matters that outweigh lesser accomplishments in other matters.[1]

Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratory exercises, addition of distance learning options, effecting major change of course curriculum/format, etc.  Other information such as written comments from students and/or Faculty within and beyond the Department or College shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses. 

 

 

[1] E.g., it can happen that, through contacts made via  internship of  several students at an area company, an instructor/mentor is invited by the company to give informal scientific advice  to regular employees, and thereby a strong working relationship is set up which leads to a stronger future internship program.   It is appropriate to recognize this as an important and innovative teaching/mentoring achievement even though it was not an official course during the evaluation period.   It can also happen that an instructional grant award is so large and prestigious that it overshadows below average student evaluations for the period.  

 

Table 3. Kent CampusCharacterizations of Performance Levels for Evaluation of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion

Performance Level

Characterization

       Typical Indicators

Excellent

Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional program/curricular

development

Develop or lead major revision of courses or labs;  excellent supervision of undergrads in Honors theses or Individual Investigations etc.,  as well as excellent research supervision of graduate students; teaching awards or other instructional recognition; excellent student and peer reviews; PhD or MS graduations; instructional grant support.

Very Good

Innovative teacher

Revise courses or labs; very good student and peer reviews; effective research supervision of grad students; instructional grant proposal.

Good

Meets obligations well

Good student and peer reviews;  contributes to curricular revisions

Fair

Substandard teacher

Fair student and peer reviews

Poor

Substandard, ineffective teacher

Poor student and peer reviews; complaints





















Departmental criteria are used to assess the teaching of Department Faculty who are assigned to the Regional Campuses; however, due to differences in the missions of the Kent and Regional Campuses, resources that may be available for research, and differences in the nature of Faculty appointments on the Kent and Regional Campuses, the weighting of the categories of scholarship, teaching and University citizenship for Regional Campus Faculty in the Department of Physics is established by the Regional Campus to which the Faculty member is assigned.  Thus, the Kent Campus Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Chair will provide recommendations based on the Departmental criteria, as weighted by the Regional Campus.

To this end, Regional Campus Faculty should ensure that a copy of their particular campus handbook weighting of criteria are included with the Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion materials submitted to the Department for evaluation.