2000-2001
Following is the most recent draft of the ACHVE Department Handbook. This version has not been revised in light of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It is anticipated that further revisions will take place as feedback and approval processes ensue. The Draft is distributed for faculty comment and suggestion-as well as to the Dean of the College for suggestions prior to approval.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEPARTMENT MISSION
The Adult, Counseling, Health and Vocational Education (ACHVE) department supports the University and College mission statements. The ACHVE department sees its strength in its quality instruction leading to knowledge and skills for the attainment of a professional career in the fields of counselor education, health education, educational studies, and vocational education. Professional competence and usefulness to society is furthered in educational programs with interdisciplinary interests. The Department is committed to the nurturance of creativity, inquiry and breadth of perspective in students. Â
In learning how to serve others as well as realizing their own potential, students are offered the opportunity to explore and determine their responsibilities for enriching the individual and collective lives of a diverse constituency. The education of our students, therefore, must enable them to represent fairly the needs and rights of those they serve by fostering growth, opportunity, cooperation, and independence.Â
Emerging areas of departmental emphasis include health promotion in the school and worksite, employability, and the professional development and certification of human service providers in a variety of settings. Bachelor's, Master's, Educational Specialist, and Doctoral degrees are available to prepare persons for administrative, instructional, and/or human service roles. Graduates may be employed in a variety of settings: elementary or secondary schools, higher education, government or private community-based or human service organizations.Â
Within the ACHVE department several extramural-funded professional centers exist which supplement and enhance department programming in diverse settings.Â
The ACHVE department faculty are dedicated to enhancing students' professional growth while working with culturally diverse populations in settings deemed to place people "at risk." The faculty seek community partnerships to foster student inquiry and serve the contemporary needs of society. Service to students and their service to the contemporary needs of society are the Department's highest ideals.
 topÂ
DEPARTMENT MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES
Department Meetings:Â
Department Meetings will be held as announced by the Department Chair. The agenda for each department meeting will be announced in advance and distributed to interested parties including but not limited to the faculty and graduate appointees.
Full and Part-time faculty and graduate appointees are encouraged to attend and participate in department meetings.
Voting privileges are limited to full-time tenure track faculty.
A quorum is defined as those attending.
Regular program area meetings are encouraged for all members of the program area. These are open to any member of the department who announces to the program coordinator a desire to attend.
Minutes of department meetings will be distributed to all faculty and other interested parties.
Program area minutes will be given to the Chairperson and be made available to all interested faculty.
General Guidelines Regarding Committees:
Committee appointments and elections shall adhere to the guidelines established by the college and University.
Committee meetings will be scheduled by the committee Chairperson. The meeting announcement and agenda will be distributed ahead of time.
Committee meetings are open to all Department faculty members, with the exception of FAC meetings at which personnel reviews are being conducted. Others may attend at the invitation of the committee.
Committees make recommendations to the Chairperson. The recommendations of the committee can be reached by consensus or, in the failure to reach consensus, the majority vote of those attending. Exceptions are noted in University promotion and tenure review language.
Minutes of all committee meetings are to be distributed to all faculty members and others as appropriate.
A quorum is defined as a majority of those eligible to vote.
Departmental Committees:
There are two standing committees, the Faculty Advisory Committee (hereafter the FAC) and the Curriculum Committee.
The Faculty Advisory Committee:
The FAC is described in Article IV (Governance) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The committee, "...shall be the primary advisory and recommendatory body to the Departmental Chairperson on those academic matters which are central to the department's mission..." A list of some of these matters is included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Membership: The FAC shall be composed of an odd number of regular full-time faculty members, not less than one per program area, whose term shall be for one year. Should a FAC member be elected as its representative to the college's CAC, the single year term will be extended to two years to permit that person to serve a full term on the CAC. The FAC should represent a cross-section of the various programs in the department.
Eligibility, Nomination, Election: All ACHVE full-time tenure track faculty are eligible for membership and eligible to vote in the election. Nominations are made by any faculty member. Self nominations are encouraged. The permission of the nominee must be received prior to formal nomination. The election for membership on the FAC is held during the spring semester of each year.
Nominees will be identified by tenure status, graduate faculty status and program area. In order to insure full program representation, each faculty member shall vote for one nominee from each program area.
The role of the Department Chairperson as Chairperson of the FAC is outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The role of the FAC is outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Curriculum Committee:
The purposes of the curriculum committee include:
- review and recommendation of proposals to establish, inactivate and revise courses, degrees, programs, concentrations, majors and submajors, emphases and options
- review and recommendation of proposed course changes including but not limited to course titles, course descriptions, prerequisites, grading specifications, credits, and content
- periodic review of existing curriculum and recommendation to program faculty to initiate proposed changes in order to update, collaborate, integrate where appropriate
- review and recommendation of workshop proposal
The curriculum committee shall be composed of persons to include one faculty representative from each program area and one student. Nominations and election will be as in the case of the FAC. Terms, however, are for two years with half the membership being elected each year. All committee members have voting privileges.
Meetings are scheduled by the committee Chairperson based on need as established by the committee or by the receipt of proposals for consideration. Proposals must be reviewed by the program area and be forwarded by the program coordinator. Proposals should be received at least a week ahead of the first meeting in which they are reviewed. The agenda is to be announced publicly in advance. Generally, proposals are reviewed at a first reading and acted upon in a subsequent meeting. Proposals are to conform to the format and include all requested data specified in the latest edition of the "Guidelines for the Preparation of Curricular Proposals" issued by the Office of the Provost. Proposers are expected to speak in the meeting to the proposal and all interested parties are invited to attend and speak to the proposal.
Ad-hoc Committees:
Ad hoc committees may be created to deal with specific concerns and issues which may arise in the department. Generally, it is the responsibility of the FAC to recommend creation of such committees. An example is the "Student Academic Complaint Committee" which becomes established as a subcommittee of the FAC when needed. Other examples are specified in University policy language and deal with advising on personnel issues such as tenure and promotion. Yet other examples might include search committees, and review committees (i.e. Chairperson review, special program review). Generally these committees have specified charges and time limited existence.
LOAD CREDIT
Faculty work responsibilities within the College and Graduate School of Education shall be assigned consistent with provisions of University policy contained in the University Register and terms outlined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Full time faculty are expected to work full-time for the University. "Full time" is defined as 24 load credit hours per academic year, or an average of 12 load credit hours per semester. Elements besides instructional assignments that contribute to the calculation of load credits may include such professional activities as student advisement, research, dissertation, thesis, and individual project direction, and supervision of clinical field experiences.
In the absence of load credits for advisement, research or other professional activities, a "normal" teaching load shall consist of four courses per semester, or eight courses per year. Responsibility for teaching a regularly scheduled course of three semester credit hours shall normally constitute .25 of a typical semester's work load.
Every faculty member is expected as an absolute minimum to teach at least one course per semester that meets on a regular weekly basis at a prescribed time; for which the instructor bears full instructional responsibility; or an average of two such regularly scheduled courses per academic year. Exceptions may be granted for terms in which the faculty member is on Research Leave or Faculty Improvement Leave.
Full-time temporary faculty members normally shall be assigned teaching responsibilities of 15 hours per semester.
Regular full-time tenure-track faculty members at the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor normally shall receive a .25 reduction in total load during the initial semester of employment, and, if resources permit, for the first two consecutive semesters of initial employment.
Full graduate faculty status shall constitute .25 of a full semester work load, provided the faculty member has Full Graduate Faculty standing and evidence is supplied of significant involvement in:
- research or other scholarly activities;
- graduate academic advisement;
- service as a major advisor on advisory phase committees;
- undergraduate academic advisement;
- membership on advisory phase committees;
- membership on dissertation and thesis committees;
- service as Graduate Faculty Representative on dissertation committees;
- instruction of graduate level courses
- dissertation advisement
All load assignments will comply with collective bargaining agreements.
 top
Â
STUDENT ACADEMIC COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
The academic complaint procedures for students enrolled in ACHVE courses or admitted to ACHVE programs make explicit how the department is to comply with requirements set forth by University Policy.
Briefly stated, the purpose of such procedures includes improving the atmosphere of trust, to protect the integrity of the academic environment, to give both parties the right to be heard, to answer problems before they grow out of proportion to the original incidents, and to answer problems at the lowest level possible in the University hierarchy. At the departmental level, students are expected to attempt to resolve their concerns informally by first consulting the instructor, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
There are both informal and formal procedures to follow relative to resolution of the complaint. In both informal and formal procedures, only written and signed complaints will be considered.
Failing satisfactory resolution with the instructor and the Department Chairperson, the student may lodge a formal complaint. The Student Ombudsman (225 Michael Schwartz Center, 672-4050) is available to assist in the filing of a formal complaint. The Assistant Dean for Student Life in the College of Education (219 White Hall, 672--2828) may also be consulted. Formal complaints must be submitted within a reasonable time as determined by the Chairperson. The formal complaint procedure is as follows. Â
1. The student submits a written complaint to the Chairperson who then distributes copies to the respondent (instructor) and the Student Academic Complaint Committee (SACC). The SACC shall consist of the Faculty Advisory Committee and be made up of one faculty member from each program area and at least one student, graduate or undergraduate (depending on the level of the complaint). If the Chairperson is the respondent, a Dean's representative will act in the role of the Chairperson.
2. The Chairperson asks that the respondent make a written response to the Chairperson within a specified time frame, usually 10 days, and the Chairperson then provides copies to the SACC and the student.
3. The SACC will review the materials submitted to it by the Chairperson from both the student and the instructor. The committee may ask to speak with either or both.
4. The SACC will formulate a recommendation regarding disposition of the complaint. The Chairperson receives the recommendation of the committee, makes a decision and communicates the decision to the student, the instructor and the committee. As part of its recommendation the SACC will consider any recommendations offered by the Office of Affirmative Action and by the Office of the Vice President of Human Resources.
5. A student who is not satisfied with the decision of the Chairperson may appeal the decision to the Dean of the College of Education. An instructor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Chairperson may appeal the decision to the Dean of the College of Education.
6. The student, instructor and all who are involved in the complaint process are expected to view the matter as confidential.
topÂ
WORKSHOPS
Workshops are designed to meet the current needs of target populations. Workshops will be organized and conducted in cooperation with and in accordance with the policy and procedures of the College of Continuing Studies and the College of Education Office of Off-Campus Programs and Field Experiences.
All workshops must have approval of the Program Coordinator, the Department Curriculum Committee, the Department Chairperson and the Office of Off-Campus Programs and Field Experiences.
Funding for workshops may be through Kent State University sources, contracts with other agencies, or other outside sources.
If a workshop is offered at the graduate level, the instructor of record (up to 80% of instruction) must have (or qualify for) Graduate Faculty status. When new workshops are proposed, encroachment on other program areas must be cleared by the instructor of record prior to approval by the Curriculum Committee.
It will be the responsibility of the instructor of record to establish grading procedures and to determine a grade(s) for the participants in accordance with established University policy.
Arrangements and information can be obtained by contacting the College of Continuing Studies.
topÂ
REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION
The ACHVE Department seeks to have scholarly activity serve as the integrating principle of a faculty members role. The Department views such scholarly inquiry as integrally intertwined with all three dimensions of a faculty members commitment to the university, i.e., (a) the scholarship of discovery, integration, and/or application, (b) the scholarship of teaching, and (c) university citizenship. That is, the essence of being a university faculty member resides in scholarly inquiry in ones area of professional preparation and its subsequent expression throughout one's faculty role.
The scholarship of discovery, integration, and application permeates the faculty members own inquiry. The scholarship of discovery may be reflected in research, disciplined inquiry, and production of knowledge. The scholarship of integration may be reflected in serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring insight to bear on original research; giving meaning to facts, putting them in perspective; making connections; and illuminating data in revealing ways. The scholarship of application is reflected in knowledge applied to consequential problems in ones special field of expertise. Applications may be either the production of knowledge as a result of application activities or the activities themselves.
The scholarship of teaching is multifaceted. Faculty are expected to be involved in the study of teaching as well as in the instruction of students, which is not limited to simply transmitting information to students, but also includes the mentoring of students to help them gain an appreciation of scholarship. The scholarship of teaching involves interactions with students that fall into three categories: instruction in undergraduate and/or graduate classes, seminars, workshops, and institutes; supervision of students in student teaching and field components of methods courses, internships, and practica; and advising of students with respect to course work, certification programs, mentoring, and thesis and dissertation direction. That is, in addition to credit-producing classroom instruction, teaching encompasses other forms of communication of or about knowledge (both to students registered in the University and to other persons in the community) as well as the supervision and advising of individual graduate or undergraduate students.
Scholarship also informs ones role in university citizenship, which is reflected in service to the university, profession, and community. The essence of citizenship for a faculty member occurs through thoughtful or reflective deliberation and discourse relative to ones own profession and the needs of the community and the university.
The ACHVE Department is supportive of a system of personnel actions that is conducive to the support of faculty in a lifetime of scholarship and to the development of a community of scholars. The system of personnel actions should also be compatible with a desire to mentor students into the role of scholar. The ACHVE Department therefore recognizes the importance of collaboration among faculty and of the mentoring of students into a scholarly role through shared professional activities. A number of assumptions underlie departmental personnel decisions:
a.) The ACHVE Department believes that criteria for reappointment, faculty excellence awards, tenure, and promotion should be in agreement in order to provide more consistent guidelines in the development of a community of scholars.
b.) In conjunction with the university emphasis on unit productivity, faculty performance needs to be judged in terms of its contribution to overall departmental mission and productivity, as well as in terms of individual achievement.
c.) It is important to set expectations regarding the scholarship of discovery, integration, and application; the scholarship of teaching; and university citizenship.
d.) Individual faculty/programmatic/ and departmental interests and needs are dynamic.
e.) Unique differences exist among faculty which must be considered as one addresses the full array of important tasks embodied within the overall mission of the department.
f.) Collaboration among faculty and with students is highly valued.
g.) The overall framework for personnel decisions in the ACHVE Department views scholarship in an integrated fashion; therefore, holistic appraisals are required.Â
ProcessÂ
In order to make the criteria for reappointment, faculty excellence awards, tenure, and promotion consistent and yet allow for the uniqueness of faculty, a process will take place which involves input from the faculty member, the ACHVE Department Chair, the Coordinator of the program in which the faculty member holds his or her primary appointment, and the Faculty Advisory Committee.
Each spring each tenure-track faculty member (both tenured and not yet tenured) will meet in a performance review/planning meeting with the department chairperson and the coordinator of the program in which the faculty member holds his/her primary appointment. The purpose of this meeting is twofold: (a) to provide feedback regarding the past academic years performance, and (b) to ascertain expectations within each of the dimensions of scholarship and the balance between the dimensions that would be mutually beneficial to the individual faculty member and to the program/department for the following academic year. These expectations will be determined with consideration for departmental productivity and for individual faculty needs and interests.
At the meeting the faculty member will provide both his or her annual report for the present academic year and his or her tentative plan for next academic year. In discussion with the department chair and the coordinator, modifications may be made to the plan. The plan which is agreed upon will be signed by all parties.
The FAC will then review each faculty members plan; occasionally the FAC may recommend modification of the plan. Once the plan is approved by all parties, it will be placed in the faculty members departmental personnel file. At the end of each academic year, faculty performance will be evaluated in light of the expectations set the preceding spring; and the expectations (plan) will be used as a standard along with other reappointment, or excellence criteria, by the FAC for the evaluations required for reappointment and/or faculty excellence awards. These expectations will also be used as a standard along with other criteria by the Department Ad hoc Committee for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure for recommendations relative to reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. These formal evaluations by the FAC will contribute to the feedback given to the faculty member each year.
It is assumed that satisfactory fulfillment of these expectations will in most cases lead to tenure and/or promotion in a timely fashion. It is also understood that plans are sometimes not accomplished within the anticipated time frame and that at times opportunities for scholarship arise mid-year; thus, alteration of plans is expected.
Two exceptions to this process need to be noted. For a new faculty member this process will begin with an initial meeting within the first month of the semester in which his/her appointment takes effect. In the case of the coordinators evaluation and plan, a senior faculty member, mutually agreeable to the coordinator and chair, will participate in the meeting.
Personnel decisions address issues related to the development and maintenance of a community of scholars. Given Kent State Universitys status as a Carnegie II research institution, it is reasonable that scholarly contributions are viewed as particularly important. In addition to a faculty members contribution in the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching, these decisions involve the fit between the faculty member's scholarly activity and the program, department, and college mission. Therefore, the faculty member's fulfillment of the responsibilities of university citizenship is also evaluated. Faculty should consult the University Policy Register for other requirements regarding personnel decisions, such as degree requirements and time in rank.
Reappointment and Tenure
It is expected that tenure-track but non-tenured assistant professors will be making satisfactory progress for reappointment if they are productive at a level that would lead to a recommendation for promotion at that point at which they are required to be considered for tenure. Thus, they should be establishing an increasing record in the scholarly and service areas as they are described for an assistant professor and they should set as their benchmark for tenure meeting the criteria needed for promotion to associate professor. Under unusual circumstances a faculty member might be recommended for tenure who has not yet met the criteria for an associate professor. This would, however, be considered exceptional and done only if the person was thought to be at the cusp of making unusual accomplishment that showed strong evidence of being sustainable. For the person who came into the Department at the rank of associate professor and was tenure-track but non-tenured, the expectation is that they would continue to be productive at the level of associate professor.
PromotionÂ
ACHVE is part of a "professional" School of Education; therefore, scholarship has a strong flavor in informing, validating, and improving professional practice. Faculty are professionals as well as academicians, thereby directing scholarly effort toward applied work. Varied forms of scholarship are manifested and encouraged in a professional school - discovery, integration, application and teaching are all recognized to be important and valid forms of scholarship. University citizenship is also important. The overall framework for promotion in the ACHVE Department views scholarship in an integrated fashion. Therefore, dividing faculty achievements into mutually exclusive categories is not always beneficial; holistic appraisals are required.
Categories for Evaluation:
I. Scholarship of Discovery, Integration, and ApplicationÂ
Activities impacting on one's professional field are given the greatest consideration. Reviewing bodies will be concerned primarily with the configuration of scholarly productivity, including publications, presentations, grants and other creative products (e.g., refereed material, reviews, the professionality and status of the publishing body and publication, citations, prominence of the presentation, distribution patterns of creative products, etc.). Collaboration between professionals in scholarly activity is encouraged. In submitting such material for review, the candidate's role in such collaborative efforts should be defined. Collaboration with students in presentations/publications is also highly valued.
Examples of the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration, and Application include, but are not limited to:
� Publication of reviewed or refereed articles, chapters, monographs or books in the candidate=s field(s), jointly or individually-authored;
� Refereed and invited papers at recognized professional meetings at the international, national, regional, state, and local levels;
� Creative professional activity such as exhibitions, conference presentations and programs, performances, compositions, and the creation of published media, software, and related professional materials;
� Application for and reception of professionally reviewed research grants (for discovery and integration) and training/service grants (for application). Extramural grants are valued more highly than internal grants.
By rank, standard expectations are:Â
To Assistant Professor- Clear emergence of a pattern of effort at scholarly productivity (i.e., publication, regional and national presentations). Recognition by the profession of the merit of one's work may include positive critical reviews; publication and presentation in quality, refereed settings; citations, letters of recommendation, etc.
To Associate Professor - Full involvement in developing a scholarly agenda in the areas of discovery, integration, and/or application. A pattern of scholarly activity might include refereed professional journal articles, book chapters, books, grant awards, and presentations at regional, and national or international conferences. This configuration, taken as a whole, should clearly demonstrate that the candidate's scholarly work is deemed of high quality by peers in the professional community of the candidate's area of expertise. The quality of one's work must be reviewed by at least three reputable fellow professionals outside of Kent State University. Evidence of sustained scholarship and demonstrated potential for excellence is required.
To Professor - An extended, quality record of scholarship in the areas of discovery, integration, and/or application. This includes a configuration of refereed professional journal articles, book chapters, books, grant awards, and presentations at regional, national, and/or international conferences that clearly demonstrates that the candidate's scholarly work is recognized for its excellence in the professional community of the candidate's area of expertise. At least three reputable fellow professionals outside of Kent State University shall review scholarly work in terms of sustained excellence and national recognition. Â
II. Scholarship of Teaching:Â
The scholarship of teaching involves both instructional activities and the systematic study of the practice of teaching, which might result in scholarly publication and presentations. Instruction and advisement are considered important functions of faculty members in ACHVE. All faculty are expected to provide quality instruction, regardless of rank or level of instruction. 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 practica, field placements and internships; the conduct of seminars and workshops; and the direction of individual investigations, research, theses and dissertations. In addition to the course evaluation which is systemically required from students enrolled in credit courses for the purpose of institutional evaluation, instructional evaluation shall also include colleague review, administrative assessment, and self appraisal. Evaluations by students, colleagues, program coordinators, Department Chairpersons, and other administrators (where appropriate) shall be summarized and presented for consideration by reviewing bodies. In evaluating a faculty members materials for personnel decisions, reviewing bodies will note:Â
Instructional EvaluationÂ
In accordance with University and College of Education policy, ACHVE faculty shall systematically obtain student evaluations of their instruction according to established procedural guidelines. The student evaluation form is designed to evaluate the instructor's knowledge of content, organizational ability, delivery skills, and interactive skills which contribute to the establishment of a positive learning environment. Faculty being considered for review shall submit the computer printouts containing summative data of student evaluations for department review. These data must also be summarized. In addition, faculty are encouraged to provide supplemental data from open-ended questions, unsolicited letters or comments and formative data to support the qualitative analysis of their instruction.Â
Colleague ReviewÂ
Faculty peers are uniquely qualified to evaluate the instructional design of instructors. 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, colleagues should be supplied with course syllabi, tests, handouts, sample student work, and reports of classroom visitations. Peer reviews may be of class presentations, the course content, course objectives, methodology, grading and examinations, course organization, student achievement, interest in teaching, homework assignments, and required materials.Â
Administrative AssessmentÂ
The following areas are more uniquely the province of administration (Department Chairperson and Program Coordinator) to evaluate--the content expertise of the instructor, description of the teaching load, workload required by specific course, enrollment, availability of the instructor to students, teaching improvement efforts, and the summarization and appraisal of instructor evaluations in comparison to department norms.Â
Self-Appraisal Â
Thoughtful self-evaluation of teaching performance is a requisite for improved teaching and learning. It is important for instructors to show evidence of an honest, active endeavor to assess their strengths and weaknesses and to refine their instructional approach.Â
Examples of the Scholarship of Teaching include, but are not limited to:
*Class teaching responsibilities;
*Individual studies teaching responsibilities;
*Development of new courses;
*Attendance at and participation in conferences related to teaching assignments;
*Evaluations by students, colleagues, and administrators;
*Self-evaluation of instruction;
*Scholarly works regarding teaching practice;
*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 responsiveness and attentiveness to students' concerns;
*Evidence of quantity and quality of advisement of students;
*Quality and quantity of directorship of dissertations, theses
By rank, standard expectations are:Â
To Assistant Professor: Excellence in classroom instruction and satisfactory fulfillment of advising responsibilities must be demonstrated.
To Associate Professor: Excellence in classroom instruction and satisfactory fulfillment of advising responsibilities must be demonstrated. Evidence of sustained involvement in dissertations and of mentoring of students must be presented.
 To Full Professor: Excellence in classroom instruction and satisfactory fulfillment of advising responsibilities must be demonstrated. Sustained dissertation involvement and direction must be present. Inclusion of students in presentations and publications must be documented.
III. University CitizenshipÂ
University citizenship is expressed in an array of activities that reflect positively on the university. These activities may serve the program, department, college, and/or university. They may also serve the profession and/or the community. The configuration of such service activities will be evaluated. Reporting of these activities, including the role played by the faculty member, must include full documentation.Â
University Service:
 Examples of University Service include, but are not limited to
� Being a member or a chair of various program/department/college/ university standing
and ad hoc committees.
� Serving as Library representative.
� Being a member of Faculty Advisory Council, College Advisory Council.
� Serving on Admissions Committees.
Â
By rank, standard expectations for university service are:
To Assistant Professor - Service to the program and/or department through ad hoc and standing committee membership is required. Responsiveness to the needs of the program and to the needs of students must be demonstrated.Â
To Associate Professor - Consistent and active involvement in service to the program, department, and college through ad hoc and standing committee membership is required. Description of the nature and quantity of this service is required. Responsiveness to the needs of the program and to the needs of students must be demonstrated.Â
To Professor - Leadership in service to the program, department, college and/or universitythrough ad hoc and standing committee membership is required. Description of the nature and quantity of this service is required. Responsiveness to the needs of the program and to the needs of students must be demonstrated Â
Professional Service:Â
Faculty members are expected to provide professional service to ones own discipline and to the community which reflects positively on the university.Â
Examples of Professional Service include, but are not limited to:
� Performance as an executive or administrative officer with a professional organization
� Position of leadership or committee membership in a professional association
� Editorship of a journal
� Referee for book or journal publisher
� Appointment and service on state and national commissions
� Membership on an editorial board
� Community service related to one=s professional role; for example:
� Speeches to professional and non-professional organizations
� Response to public request for professional expertise
� Election or appointment to city, county, state, national boards, councils, task forces, networks related to profession
� Presentations of scholarly nature on radio, TV, press
� Service to community-based agencies and organizations
Â
By rank, standard expectations are:
To Assistant Professor - Evidence of service at the local or regional level is required.
To Associate Professor - Active involvement in service to the profession at the regional, state, or national level is required.Â
To Professor- Noteworthy service to the profession at the local, regional and national level is required.
 topÂ
TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES, FACULTY EVALUATIONS
Faculty Teaching PerformanceÂ
The Faculty Senate has endorsed the Report on Faculty Teaching Performance for distribution through the Office of the Vice-President of Academic and Student Affairs to Deans and Heads of all academic units throughout the University. It is the specific intent of the Faculty Senate that this document be the subject of discussion among the faculty at Kent State University, that the list of the basic requirements stated below be included in the Faculty Handbook of each department or school, and that the report be advertised and discussed with new faculty, with part-time and temporary instructors, and with graduate fellows and teaching assistants in every academic unit.
The list below does not address those subtle and complex questions that go toward making an outstanding course or an outstanding professor. Rather it addresses those items that lie within the power of all faculty to follow, exhibit, or adopt.Â
Class Management:Â
The following items are seen as minimal expectations of any college instructor. For the most part they involve actions and procedures easily undertaken and readily assessable. Regular and reasonable office hours consistent with departmental policy and the needs of students.Â
Provision of syllabus, including but not limited to the following:Â
1. a statement on course objectives and expectations;
2. a general calendar indicating the substance and sequence of the course and important dates and deadlines; and
3. a clear statement of grading policy and grade weighing
4. an invitation to students who require accommodations for a disability
Punctuality in starting/ending classes
Reasonable notification of and provision for faculty absence
Adequate notification of assignments, examinations, changes in syllabus
Provision of reasonable make-up procedures for legitimately missed exams or other graded work
Evaluation of work with adequate and constructive comments written on the students papers or orally to the whole class as is appropriate to the character of the test or assignment
Evaluation of work within a reasonable time frame that allows the student to benefit from the instructors comments prior to the next assignment.
Basic Pedagogy:Â
While the intellectual and judgmental skills essential for acceptable teaching are more open to interpretation than class management techniques, the following items are presented as constructive suggestions for the improvement of teaching on our campuses:
- content, assignments, and approach reasonable to the level, aims, and nature of the course
- concern for appropriate teaching technique
- effective use of class time
- adequate class and course preparation
- testing and grading practices that relate directly to course content and assignmentsÂ
Student-Faculty Relations:Â
Interpersonal relations inevitably are difficult to prescribe and evaluate, and yet they set the tone and environment for the learning experience. In this regard, the Committee views the following as essential.Â
Courtesy/civility/respect
Establishing a climate wherein questions, relevant comments, and intellectual interaction are encouraged
nondiscriminatory treatment of students based on their personal or social background, preferences, or characteristics.Â
Teaching (includes instruction and advising)Â
A summative evaluation will be conducted for every course using the colleges standard form.
All evaluation instruments will be distributed and collected in the established manner. The faculty member (or suitable substitute in her/his absence) will explain the process and request that the completed forms be turned over to a student volunteer. The faculty member will leave the room before the students fill in the evaluation instrument. The student volunteer will be responsible for seeing that the completed instruments are placed in an envelope, the envelope is sealed, and the sealed envelope is returned to the faulty members academic department. The department will remove the separate sheets (containing comments in response to the open-ended questions) and send the completed instruments to the computer center. Two copies of the results will be returned to the department (one copy for the faculty member and one copy for the departments records.)
The summative evaluations should include the input of all students in each course. All reports of evaluation data should include the number actively enrolled and the number completing the evaluation instrument.
Evaluations will be administered in a uniform way (see recommendation above) and will assure student anonymity. Uniform procedures will include:
1. All evaluations will be conducted in week 13 or week 14.
2. Teachers will not be present when the students complete the instruments.
3. Teachers will not see the results until after final grades are submitted.
Unstructured student comments and raw data from systematic evaluation should not be forwarded beyond the department level.
topÂ
FACULTY EXCELLENCE (MERIT) AWARDS (FEA)
Faculty Excellence (Merit) Awards are addressed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article XII Section 2 (September 16, 1995).
When available, FEA evaluation is based on criteria similar to those used for annual review, promotion and tenure. The evaluation criteria will address the total function of faculty members with recognition being given to the diverse emphases of faculty members.
FEAs may be awarded in (1) teaching/service; and/or (2) research/scholarly contribution. To be considered for merit review, products, publications, grants, awards must be completed, or in the case of grants and awards, received during the review period. Works in press will be considered when excellence decisions are made (documentation of status required). Materials will not be considered for more than one excellence award time period.
Procedures for review:
1. Within one week of receiving notification of dates and deadlines for FEAs from the Provosts Office, the Department Chair will notify faculty of the upcoming review.
2. Faculty who wish to be reviewed for a FEA are responsible for submitting their documentation materials, in accordance with departmental guidelines, to the Department Chairperson by the due date.
3. Each FAC member is responsible for evaluating the materials submitted by each faculty member for excellence consideration and will collectively recommend to the Department Chairperson whether monies should be awarded and in what amount. These faculty recommendations will include a rationale and the documentation evidence to support the recommendation.
4. The Department Chairperson will, after consideration of FAC recommendations, make a preliminary determination of FEAs and will notify faculty of the preliminary determination.
5. Faculty members have the right to request reconsideration of the preliminary determination. Such requests will be considered by the FAC which will, on the merits of the request, make a recommendation to the Department Chair.
6. The Department Chairperson will, after review of any reconsideration materials, transmit the final decision to the Dean.
7. The Department Chairpersons final recommendation shall be distributed to each faculty member concerned.
Documentation:
With regard to documentation, the desire is to gather enough material to have a fair and adequate evaluation and yet not request material to the extent that applying for such faculty excellence funds becomes unduly burdensome. The FAC does reserve the right to seek additional materials or clarification of materials if they believe doing so is important to making an adequate and fair recommendation. Three major items of information are requested:
1. a brief (two page or less) contextual statement that gives voice to the mission and function of the faculty member. It is through this document that the unique aspects of the faculty members role need to be explained.
2. a curriculum vita for the time period of service for which the FEA is given. Such vita should contain publications, presentations, offices, services activities, etc.
3. a summary of courses taught, student evaluations, peer reviews, or other evidence of excellent teaching. The FAC may consult summaries of student evaluations if more specific information is needed.
Criteria:Â
In a most general sense the criteria used will be those of a person making consistent and timely progress toward promotion or contributing beyond that which might be expected at a satisfactory level of performance.
 top
