AA 20 Curriculum Review Policy

POLICY STATEMENT

This policy explains the curriculum review process at Nevada State College. Curriculum review occurs through a shared governance model that involves faculty and academic administrators at multiple levels.

DEFINITIONS

Academic Year: A nine (9)-month faculty contract period beginning in August and ending in May.

Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee: A body consisting of academic faculty representatives from each School and the Library, a staff member from the Office of the Registrar, and other members as deemed necessary by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Chair.

Academic Faculty (as defined by NSHE B/R 1/03): Includes instructional, counseling, and library faculty.

PROCEDURES

I. Types of Proposals

The curriculum review process involves five types of curriculum proposals:

A. Prerequisite proposals: Adding, deleting, or changing the prerequisite(s) for a course.

B. Individual course proposals:

  1. Adding or deleting a course;
  2. Changing an existing course prefix, number, title, number of credits, grading method, or catalog description.

C. Core Curriculum proposals: Any change to the Core Curriculum, including:

  1. Adding or deleting courses from a category;
  2. Changing the categories that comprise the Core Curriculum;
  3. Changing the number of credits required in a category.

D. Minor curricular changes:

  1. Adding, deleting, or changing a course that is required for a degree program, or groups of courses students may choose among to fulfill a degree requirement, when those changes affect less than one-third (1/3) of the total major requirements for the program;
  2. Adding, deleting, or changing Concentrations or Tracks within an existing degree.

E. Substantive curricular changes:

  1. Adding or deleting programs;
  2. Changing a program’s title, mission statement, or learning objectives;
  3. Curricular changes that affect more than one-third (1/3) of the required credits within a program.

II. Levels and Types of Review

To ensure the integrity and quality of the NSC academic curriculum, proposals are developed by faculty in the related program(s) and proceed through multiple levels of review, beginning with the individual School in which a course or program is housed. The Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee and other reviewers will not consider proposals that have not been approved and forwarded by the appropriate School-level curriculum committee.

Proposal authors are responsible for ensuring that all levels of review are completed, including securing relevant external approvals by bodies such as the NSHE Common Course Numbering System or the NSHE Board of Regents. This may include working closely with the Office of the Registrar and the Office of the Provost to complete and submit all application materials.

Some levels of review are advisory; in this case, the reviewing body provides a recommendation to approve or deny the proposal and submits it to the next reviewing body for consideration. Other levels have denial authority; proposals do not move further in the review process if they are not approved at that level. The authority at each level of review varies by the type of proposal. Proposals must progress through each level in the order prescribed. As the chief academic officer for the college, the Provost has ultimate authority over curriculum decisions.

In the summary of stages of review provided below, all advisory levels are so noted; any level of review that is not noted as advisory must approve a proposal before it may move to the next level of review.

A. Prerequisite proposals:

    1. School-level Curriculum Committee
    2. Academic dean (advisory)
    3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee

B. Course proposals:

    1. School-level Curriculum Committee
    2. Academic dean (advisory)
    3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
    4. NSHE Common Course Numbering System (external body)

C. Core Curriculum proposals:

    1. Proposals submitted by Schools other than Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) begin with the following levels of review:
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • LAS School-level Curriculum Committee (advisory)
    1. Proposals submitted by LAS go directly to the LAS School-level Curriculum Committee. SOE and SON Academic Deans may view LAS Core Curriculum proposals through the curriculum tracking software and may submit suggestions or concerns to the LAS Dean and/or LAS School-level Curriculum Committee.
    2. After review by the LAS School-level Curriculum Committee, all Core Curriculum proposals then go through the following levels of review:
      • LAS Dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost

D. Minor curricular changes:

    1. School-level Curriculum Committee
    2. Academic dean (advisory)
    3. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
    4. Office of the Provost

E. Substantive curricular changes:

    1. Substantive changes to existing programs and new minors under 30 credits
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost
  1. Substantive changes leading to new programs or minors over 30 credits
      • School-level Curriculum Committee
      • Academic dean (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (advisory)
      • Faculty Senate (advisory)
      • Office of the Provost
      • NSHE Academic Affairs Council (for program additions or deletions; external body)
      • Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (for program    additions, deletions, and some changes; external body)

III. Curriculum Committees

A. School-level curriculum committees: The Dean of each School shall appoint a curriculum committee consisting of Academic Faculty. This committee is responsible for reviewing all curriculum proposals that fall under the School’s purview. The individual Schools may develop appropriate procedures and guidelines for School-level curriculum review processes.

B. Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (FSCC): The FSCC is charged with reviewing all course, core curriculum, and degree program proposals, as well as proposals to change course prerequisites. Generally, the FSCC is an advisory body that reviews and makes recommendations on curriculum proposals; however, the FSCC has the authority to deny or move forward prerequisite and course proposals (i.e., these two categories of proposals cannot move forward without FSCC approval).

  1. Membership:
    • Chair: The FSCC Chair is a voting member of the committee. Annually, during the May meeting, the Faculty Senate elects the FSCC chair from among its members; the Chair serves a term of one academic year, beginning the following July 1. Per the Senate Bylaws, the FSCC will receive a stipend for the academic year. Chairs may serve more than one consecutive term. The Chair’s responsibilities include:
      • scheduling monthly meetings of the FSCC during the academic year;
      • informing proposal authors of the date and time of the meeting at which their proposal will be discussed;
      • updating FSCC records and minutes, including records of all proposals received and reviewed;
      • facilitating the Committee’s voting process;
      • providing Committee updates to the Faculty Senate;
      • updating authors as their proposals move through the review process;
      • indicating the FSCC’s decision and moving proposals to the next stage in the review process, as appropriate;
      • compiling a list at the end of each fall and spring semester of all prerequisite and course proposals approved during that term and submitting the list to the Provost.
    • Voting members: Each School and the Library have two representatives on the FSCC; the FSCC Chair serves as one of the representatives from their academic unit. With the exception of the FSCC Chair, Deans select the academic faculty representatives from their Schools; these representatives do not have to be members of the Faculty Senate. The Library Director will select the academic faculty representatives from the Library. The Library Director may serve as one voting member from the Library.
    • Non-voting members: The Registrar is a non-voting member of the FSCC. The FSCC Chair may invite additional non-voting members to serve on the Committee.
  1. Proposal approval: Proposals are approved by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of voting members.

IV. Review Criteria

Curriculum proposals are reviewed based on the following considerations:

A. Consistency with mission: The consistency between the proposal and the mission of the School and the College.

    1. The FSCC and other reviewers will consider the judgment and input of the relevant Dean, department chair (if applicable), and School-level curriculum committee. Reviewers beyond the level of the individual School will also exercise their independent judgment to evaluate whether a proposal is consistent with the mission of the School and the College.

B. Appropriate rigor: The extent to which the proposal reflects the academic content and rigor expected at a comprehensive state institution. Reviewers consider the following factors:

    1. Whether the proposal author demonstrates that similar courses or programs are offered at comparable comprehensive state institutions in the U.S.;
    2. Whether the content of courses and programs are consistent with course/program titles and descriptions;
    3. Whether the academic content appears commensurate with the level of the course or program (e.g., lower- or upper-division; undergraduate or graduate).

C. Sufficient evidence: Whether the proposal provides sufficient detail and evidence for reviewers to determine if the proposal is reasonable and appropriate given available resources and the College’s mission.

V. Timeline

The FSCC meets to consider proposals once per month from September through December and February through April of each Academic Year. Proposals are submitted online. All proposals must be received by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee by the first day of each month to be considered at that month’s meeting. Incomplete proposals may be returned to submitters for revisions; this may delay the review process.

Proposals that require full Faculty Senate review will be introduced by the FSCC Chair as an information item at the next Senate meeting after review by the FSCC. At minimum, proposals will be on the Faculty Senate agenda item one month as an informational item and voted on as an action item at the next Senate meeting. However, Faculty Senate may delay a vote if Senators request additional information or via a majority vote by Faculty Senate.

All proposals must be fully approved at all levels and received by the Registrar’s Office by December 1st  of each year to be included in the next academic catalog.

The Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee establishes and disseminates guidelines with detailed information about timelines and the approval process; these guidelines are updated as needed.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

  • The following NSC Curriculum Forms and information are available on the NSC portal:
    • Prerequisite Proposal E-Form
    • Course Approval Form
    • Core Curriculum Approval Form
    • Degree Approval Form
    • Course Fee Form
    • Course Fee Policy
    • Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Guidelines

ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

Faculty Senate Executive Council
fsec@nsc.edu

HISTORY

Curriculum Committee Procedure approved 2/24/2009.
Curriculum Committee Procedure revised 05/2019.

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Serge Ballif, Faculty Senate Chair, October 4, 2019.
Approved by Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, October 15, 2019.
Approved by Mr. Bart Patterson, Esq., President, December 19, 2019.

AA 19 Scholarly Misconduct Policy

POLICY STATEMENT

Nevada State College neither condones nor tolerates scholarly misconduct by its employees, including academic faculty. Scholars and researchers bear the primary responsibility for the monitoring and rigorous evaluation of procedures and results of research and other scholarly activities under their supervision. All members of the College community adhere to the College’s strict standards of integrity in academic scholarship and research and are ethically obligated to report any fraudulent acts when they are known or suspected to have occurred.

DEFINITIONS

Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as authentic.

Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Scholarly Misconduct: Dishonesty in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting results. Includes Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, or other practices which seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Does not include honest error.

PROCEDURES

I. Ethical Standards for Research and Other Scholarly Activity

The NSHE Code (Chapter 6, Sections 6.2.1(y)) prohibits faculty from conducting “acts of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, falsifying research data or results, or assisting others to do the same.” Faculty and staff at Nevada State College shall uphold the following ethical standards in the performance of their activities:

A. Project Directors (PDs) and Principal Investigators (PIs) must comply with all internal and external requirements for protecting human subjects, project personnel, and the public and for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals.

B. Scholars and researchers must not fall below accepted professional standards in proposing their activities, carrying them out, and reporting their results. Primary data must be scrupulously collected and retained.

C. All participants in scholarly/research activity must avoid both intentional and negligent behavior which may result in violation of the law; dishonesty or fraud; Fabrication; Falsification; or Plagiarism.

D. Cooperative efforts require mutual attention to the integrity of the scholarly processes involved. Joint authorship entails joint responsibility; each author claiming shared credit must be aware of the risk of shared discredit.

E. Senior scholars and researchers must avoid exploitation of junior colleagues and students. Claims of credit, co-authorship, and intellectual property should reflect actual involvement, responsibility, and effort.

F. Project Directors and Principal Investigators performing sponsored scholarly/research activity (e.g., supported through a grant, contract, or gift) must be free to manage their sponsored funding to the maximum extent allowed by the funding agency and the rules of the College. They must be knowledgeable of and responsive to internal and external requirements of financial responsibility and accountability to avoid misallocation, misappropriation, or misuse of sponsor/donor funds.

G. Present or proposed activities or relationships which present a conflict of interest (e.g., affect the objectivity of research or scholarship, give the appearance of being motivated by private financial gain, and/or involve unacceptable commitments for a scholar/researcher) must be disclosed and approved by the employee’s supervisor and the Office of the Provost prior to committing to such activities or relationships.

II. Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Research or Scholarly Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 6 of the NSHE Handbook.

A. All allegations of misconduct should be reported in writing to the Executive Vice Provost (or, in the absence of this individual, to the Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives). Allegations must be signed by the submitter. Wherever possible, the allegation must specify details including the date, time, place, persons involved, witnesses, and circumstances of the alleged misconduct.

B. The Executive Vice Provost will conduct an inquiry in accordance with NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2 and, based on this inquiry, will make a determination regarding whether a valid allegation of misconduct exists. The Executive Vice Provost will make a recommendation to the President to dismiss the allegation, accept an informal resolution (as described in NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2(c)), or conduct a hearing (NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2(d)). If the President determines that a hearing is warranted, a hearing will be conducted in accordance with NSHE Code, Sections 6.8.2.(3) and 6.9. The President may instead dismiss the complaint, accept an informal resolution, or determine that a reprimand or warning is appropriate, as set forth in NSHE Code Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

C. The maintenance of confidentiality is the guiding principle for this process, to protect both those who make the allegations and those against whom the allegations are made. As few people as are necessary shall be involved in the process, and all records dealing with an allegation, its review, and its disposition shall be treated in accordance with NSHE Code Chapter 5, Section 5.6 and Chapter 6, Sections 6.14 and 6.15.

D. If an inquiry involves funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the College is required to immediately report such inquiry to the Federal DHHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The Hearing Committee and any federal sponsors must submit a report to ORI within 120 days of the beginning of the hearing.

E. If an allegation of Scholarly Misconduct is made regarding a research project involving human subjects, the Executive Vice Provost may inform the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which may conduct an audit or other oversight activities according to IRB policy.

RELATED INFORMATION

  • NSHE Handbook Title 2, Section 5.6, 6.1, 6.6, 6.8, and 6.9
  • NSC Institutional Review Board Policy (RE 1)

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Serge Ballif, Faculty Senate Chair, September 7, 2019.
Approved by Dr. Vickie Shields, Provost, September 11, 2019.
Approved by Bart Patterson, President, September 24, 2019.

AA 18 Standards of Academe (School of Nursing)

1. PHILOSOPHY

1.1 Overview

The School of Nursing (SON) subscribes to the philosophy that teaching should be the primary area of emphasis for faculty members, with scholarship and service as important but lower priorities. Faculty will be recruited, evaluated, awarded tenure, and promoted predicated on this perspective. Scholarship is valued and encouraged, but is not required as part of a lecturer contract.

The academic evaluation and reward system in the SON has three purposes: (a) to provide the means by which faculty, through annual reviews, progress through the academic ranks; (b) to certify high achievement; (c) to determine eligibility for merit pay.

1.2 Definitions of Concepts

The following section defines pertinent concepts.

Teaching: For annual reviews, teaching refers to the act of cultivating a rich learning environment, which includes sharing knowledge, nurturing critical inquiry, inspiring curiosity, and encouraging students to apply what they have learned. Teaching primary reflects instruction-related activities that directly impact student learning. Because Nevada State College is a teaching institution, offering engaging and meaningful instruction is a highly valued activity in the SON. Section 2.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within the SON to evaluate teaching.

Scholarship: For annual reviews, the SON defines scholarship as the process of exploring a relevant question or problem, synthesizing existing knowledge, developing new ideas, and sharing the results through professional, discipline-appropriate outlets. SOE values scholarly efforts that represent the spectrum of orientation from basic to applied, including the scholarship of teaching. Section 3.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within the SON to document accomplishment in scholarship. However, unlike tenured and tenure-track faculty, lecturer positions do not include a scholarship requirement. Accordingly, scholarship is not formally evaluated in annual evaluations, though all scholarly accomplishments will be noted by the Dean, School of Nursing in the annual evaluation form; nor is scholarship used in merit pay calculations for lecturers.

Service: The SON defines service as a faculty member’s professional responsibilities to Nevada State College and its external community. Although we value all forms of service (institutional, professional, and community/governmental), the SON places most emphasis on service at the institutional level. Section 4.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within SON to document accomplishment in service.

1.3 Annual Review Plans

At each annual review, the faculty member and evaluator will develop an annual review plan for the following year. The annual review plan will include goals for the faculty member to achieve in teaching, scholarship, and service. At each annual review, the faculty member must provide a copy of the annual review plan agreed upon at the previous year’s review and indicate which items they completed.

1.4 Annual Review Portfolios

Faculty will submit a portfolio of annual review materials each year; this portfolio will include an updated CV; syllabi; and a narrative or table of no more than 5 pages (single-spaced Times New Roman 12-point font with 1-inch borders) summarizing accomplishments throughout the year; and no more than 10 pages of evidence chosen by the faculty member to illustrate those accomplishments. The page limit does NOT include any of the following:

  • CV;
  • Syllabi (courses taught during review period only);
  • Topical calendar (courses taught during review period only) – separate document from syllabi;
  • Student evaluations (student evaluations conducted during review period only);
  • Student papers turned in to sh ow an example of the instructor’s feedback on an assignment (one exemplar of outstanding work and one exemplar of unsatisfactory work with original comments and score) from review period only;
  • Items or evidence specifically requested by the Dean or Dean’s designee after receiving the annual review file.

1.5 Flexibility in Annual Review Ratings

Both the Standards of Academe and the Tenure Guidelines utilize many of the same evaluative criteria. Initially, they were part of the same document. However, there was a strong rationale for separating the Standards of Academe from the Tenure Guidelines. The Standards of Academe require more frequent updates to reflect institutional changes, faculty concerns, modifications of service priorities, and research o n best practices in andragogy. The Tenure Guidelines, however, need to remain consistent throughout a faculty member’s progress toward tenure. Therefore, in 2016, the School of Nursing separated the two documents. The Standards of Academe now apply specifically to annual reviews and the Tenure Guidelines apply specifically to tenure. Appointed Faculty Affairs committees will evaluate and update the Standards of Academe as needed, and faculty will be required to follow these standards for annual reviews upon approval by the Provost. The Dean, School of Nursing will appoint a School of Nursing faculty work group to evaluate and update the Tenure Guidelines as appropriate, but faculty will be evaluated for tenure under the guidelines in place when their contract as a tenure-track faculty member at NSC began. This protects faculty from having the Tenure Guidelines change as they are progressing toward tenure.

The SON sets the rating guidelines for assessing teaching, scholarship (tenured and tenure-track only), and service on annual reviews. Discipline-specific standards and constraints should be considered when evaluating the quality and quantity of faculty contributions, and evaluators may adjust the ratings requirements accordingly. It is the responsibility of faculty members to justify flexibility in applying SON ratings guidelines to their teaching and service contributions.

1.6 Merit Pay Calculations for Lecturers

Full-time lecturers are eligible to be considered for merit awards in years when the state legislature appropriates funds for a merit pool. The NSC Merit Pool Pay Policy delineates evaluation criteria for merit pay. Lecturers will be judged by the same criteria as tenure-track faculty in the areas of teaching and service. However, since lecturers occupy teaching positions that do not have a scholarship component, their teaching rating will be counted twice in calculating their total points for merit pay, once for their teaching rating and once as a substitute for a scholarship rating. The Evaluation calculation will thus be: Final Evaluation Points = Rating in Teaching + Rating in Teaching + Rating in Service.

1.7 The SON and NSC’s Core Values of iTeach

Nevada State College is dedicated to providing quality educational, social, cultural, economic, and civic advancement for the citizens of Nevada. This is reflected through the College’s core values of iTeach:

Innovation: We are a community of educators bound by our passion for teaching and serving our students in an environment that fosters creative and effective approaches to learning.

Teaching Excellence: We believe, without exception, that our most important endeavor is providing students with an exemplary education.

Economic Development: We are committed to enhancing Nevada’s economy by serving as an engine for growth and diversification and by providing students with opportunities for economic success.

Assessment: We practice an approach to education that instills in ourselves and our students the value of reflection, continual improvement, and accountability.

Customer Service: We settle for nothing short of remarkable service and satisfaction for our students and other campus constituents.

Heritage: We embrace the unique qualities and characteristics that make us who we are as individuals and as a community.

2. TEACHING

2.1 Overview

According to the Nevada State College mission statement, “excellence in teaching leads to innovative, technology-rich learning opportunities that promote the acquisition of interdisciplinary knowledge and skills.” To support this mission, the lines of evidence for excellence in teaching provide some comparability in evaluation while recognizing the diverse ways in which faculty may demonstrate teaching excellence.

As part of their annual review materials, faculty members shall submit a teaching narrative that provides context for the review of the individual’s teaching effectiveness. The narrative will be a reflection on important teaching activities, accomplishments, and challenges experienced in the year under review.

Material evaluated for annual reviews will include a syllabus (including the standard elements discussed below), official student course evaluations, and evidence of student learning or accomplishment for each course taught. Faculty members should expect to provide additional evidence of teaching effectiveness as requested by the Dean or Dean’s designee during the review process.

Items submitted as evidence of teaching effectiveness should relate to the quality of the learning environment provided to students in courses at NSC. Other items that may be related to teaching, such as research or publications in the scholarship of teaching, mentoring students toward making a conference presentation, or taking a leadership role in teaching workshops, should be submitted in the scholarship or service categories, as defined in the service and scholarship sections of this document.

2.2 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

The following are the minimum required lines of evidence:

  • Syllabus for each course taught that incorporates the elements in the standard SON template (courses taught during review period only);
  • Official student evaluations for each course taught (student evaluations conducted during review period only);
  • Final grade distributions for each course taught;
  • Teaching observation(s) from the Dean or Dean’s designee;
  • Teaching narrative of one to two pages highlighting exemplars and other examples of teaching effectiveness.

Evaluators have copies of final grade distributions and student evaluations on file. Faculty need not provide these items.

The faculty member may request that the Dean or Dean’s designee exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates from consideration.

2.3 Additional Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

Additional evidence of teaching effectiveness (exemplars from review period only) may be provided by the faculty member. This evidence may include, but is not limited to:

  • Exams, assignments, projects, or other assessments developed by the instructor to measure student performance;
  • Lectures, handouts, and other materials used to aid instruction;
  • Peer observations of teaching conducted by the faculty member;
  • Video or audio recordings of teaching;
  • Descriptions of innovative teaching methods used;
  • Grade distributions for assignments or exams;
  • Descriptions of how diversity issues were incorporated into course content;
  • Examples of feedback provided on papers, projects, exams, or other assignments;
  • Data-driven (quantitative and/or qualitative) assessment of the effectiveness of an assignment, activity, or instructional technique used in a course;
  • Video or audio recordings of student performance;
  • Website or address of any other technological assignment completed by student;
  • Teaching awards;
  • Other discipline-specific evidence of teaching effectiveness;
  • Acceptance of an external teaching-related grant;
  • Additional evidence as requested by the faculty member’s Dean or Dean’s designee.

2.4 Activities Related to Teaching

As a part of their teaching responsibilities, faculty members often participate in related activities that enrich the quality of education at Nevada State College. A description of these activities should be provided in the annual review materials. These activities may include, but are not limited to:

  • New preparations or substantial revisions or improvements to a course;
  • Significant student mentoring that includes a teaching component and an assessment of student learning.

2.5 Rating Teaching in the Annual Review Process

When rating teaching, evaluators will consider the faculty member’s progress toward meeting the goals in the annual review plan. The quality of contributions will be rated more highly than the quantity. Due to the variability of the numerical ratings on student evaluations across courses, the numerical thresholds in this section should be interpreted as guidelines and not absolute standards. Receiving numerical ratings above or below the thresholds does not guarantee that an instructor will attain the corresponding rating, as they are merely one measure among many used for evaluation.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations
An Unsatisfactory rating indicates one or more of the following conditions:

  • Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance;
  • Failure to sufficiently improve in aspects of teaching identified in previous annual reviews as essential areas for improvement;
  • Substantiated formal student documented complaint;
  • Existence of major student complaints about one or more of the instructor’s courses. If such complaints occur, the faculty member may provide a justification or explanation of the student complaints. This explanation will be considered by the Dean or Dean’s designee when determining whether an Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate.

Satisfactory: Meets expectations
At the Satisfactory level, faculty members are expected to be competent teachers, as evidenced by the creation of a classroom climate that respects students and welcomes diversity, the absence of major problems or student complaints related to an instructor’s courses, and by quality contributions in all of the following areas:

  • Well-developed syllabi with adequate expectations and rigor that include a course description, course objectives, evaluation criteria/methods, and office hours; additionally, a well-developed a feasible topical calendar must be evidenced;
  • Availability to students outside of classroom hours, such as by established/posted office hours and other scheduled appointments;
  • Content that is relevant to the course as evidenced by adequately rigorous readings, texts, and updated course materials that demonstrate a systematic effort by the instructor to convey course material;
  • Student evaluations include written comments that are generally satisfactory and numerical ratings typically above 4.0 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest (where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores in a one-page written document);
  • Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor;
  • Demonstrated evidence of substantive feedback given to students regarding performance on major assignments, exams, and high-stakes learning projects/activities;
  • Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner (faculty members may submit a rationale explaining cases in which grade distributions are skewed, which will be considered by the Dean or Dean’s designee).

Commendable: Exceeds expectations
Faculty members are expected to meet the following criteria:

  • Meets Satisfactory performance standards;
  • Evaluations with positive written (qualitative) comments and numerical ratings (quantitative) typically at or above 4.25 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being highest (where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores);
  • Quality contributions in some of the following major areas of teaching effort or equivalent (emphasis for the teaching criterion used in the annual review is on quality/substance, not quantity):
    • Development and use of innovative course materials, teaching and active-learning techniques, or technologies;
    • Adapting and improving teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean or Dean’s designee;
    • Grading assignments and providing effective feedback in a reasonable timeframe (students receive feedback on previous assignment[s] prior to the subsequent assignment[s] due dates) such that students are aware of their progress throughout the course;
    • Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors;
    • Demonstrated effort of meeting goals set in the annual review plan for the year or new goals that developed during the year;
    • Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course;
    • Assessment of student learning;
    • Supervision of an independent study or experiential learning activities that include assessment of student learning;
    • Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.

Evaluators may also consider the following as evidence of teaching effectiveness:

  • Receipt of a teaching award;
  • Acceptance of external teaching-related grant.

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
Faculty members are expected to meet the following criteria:

  • Consistently meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards;
  • Evaluations should have positive written (qualitative) comments and numerical ratings (quantitative) typically at or above 4.5 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being highest (where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores);
  • High-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of teaching effort or equivalent (emphasis for the teaching criterion used in the annual review is on quality/substance, not quantity):
    • Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom;
    • Consistent use of highly-engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted toward the respective course and student learning outcomes;
    • Efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from published literature on teaching effectiveness;
    • Earning/maintaining external certification in teaching/professional practices recognized by the NLN, ANCC, and/or the AANP (nurse practitioners) national accrediting bodies, which positively impact teaching within the SON; other nationally-recognized accrediting bodies for certification(s) will be considered;
    • Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies that improve student writing skills;
    • Being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students;
    • Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) that is practically applied and successful most of the time.

3. SCHOLARSHIP

3.1 Overview

The scholarship component of the School of Nursing Standards of Academe is applicable to TENURED and TENURE-TRACK faculty only. Lecturers in the School of Nursing are encouraged to contribute to their professional through scholarship engagement; however, this criterion is not weighted into the overall annual review for Lecturers (refer to section 1.5).

Evidence of productive scholarship can be supported by published records and other original discipline-specific peer-reviewed and editor-reviewed work of a professional nature, including research on the scholarship of teaching, creative works (for those in the arts), and the mentoring of substantial student research projects. Categories of evidence of scholarship are presented in Section 3.2 below.

Regarding the scholarship criterion for the annual review process, quality refers to the extent to which scholarship contributes to advances in knowledge and/or the enrichment of teaching. This concept of quality places more importance on the process and effect than on the quantity of products.

Ranked faculty should provide a short narrative statement in their annual review to provide a context for their scholarly efforts. Collaboration on products is encouraged and supported by the faculty of the SON, although it is expected that a share of the products will reflect sole or primary authorship.

3.2 Evidence of Scholarship

Lines of evidence related to scholarship might include, but are not limited to:

Research and Professional Publications. The quality of the candidate’s research and professional publications or reports will be evaluated within the context of norms for the candidate’s area of expertise. Juried outlets are accorded more significance than publications that do not undergo peer review.

Chapters in Books. Book chapters will be evaluated in terms of the inherent quality of the piece and scope of impact or dissemination within the context of norms for the candidate’s discipline. Refereed chapters are accorded more significance than non-refereed chapters.

Books. Scholarly books that broaden a disciplinary knowledge base with original research or produce novel applications of existing knowledge to professional problems are accorded the most significance with in this subcategory. Textbooks that compile and organize existing knowledge are weighted less than an author’s unique work. Readings, edited books, and conference proceedings shall, in turn, be given less significance than standard textbooks.

Artistic Creations. The School of Nursing respects the work of scholars engaged in the aesthetics of nursing and supports such efforts. Works that are creative in nature (nursing aesthetics) will be evaluated within the context of norms for the nursing discipline.

Undergraduate Research. Ranked faculty members are encouraged to mentor student research and research projects. Mentorship and supervision of student research will be evaluated in terms of the length of project, dissemination of research, and peer-reviewed professional publications. Projects that are more time-intensive (over several semesters) will be accorded more significance than those where ranked faculty take a more peripheral role in mentoring students or research projects. Student work accepted for publication in a professional, peer-reviewed journal will be accorded the most significance within this subcategory.

Professional Reports, Technical Reports, Informational Reports, Monographs, and Lab Manuals. Professional publications will be evaluated in terms of their quality, with reference to the intended audience. As with books and book chapters, the scope of dissemination will be considered.

Conference Papers and Poster Presentations. The value attributed to paper and poster presentations is variable, and will be evaluated by the following six factors (listed here in no particular order of importance): (a) the quality of the paper or poster, (b) the quality of the conference, (c) the scope of the conference – international, national, regional, or local, (d) the scope of the dissemination of the paper, (e) whether the item was refereed, and (f) whether the paper or poster was invited. Generally speaking, formal presentations will be granted more weight than poster presentations. Evaluators may also grant more weight to papers or presentations that include significant student involvement.

Scholarship-Based Grants and Contracts. Funded grants and contracts provide evidence of the capacity to organize scholarly activity judged meritorious by external funding agencies. Therefore, external funding will be accorded more significance than internal (College) funding. Grant and contract proposals should be evaluated in terms of the funding agency and the scope of the funded research.

Scholarship Production in Progress. Evidence of scholarship in progress, particularly the continuation of funded endeavors, manuscripts under review, exhibitions under development, and formal working papers serves as an indicator of the candidate’s intent to complete projects. Completing a prospectus, literature review, or data collection, and writing individual parts or chapters of a project, are examples of production in progress. Statements of scholarship in progress should be supported by artifacts such as working drafts or notes.

Other Peer-Reviewed Creative Endeavors. Evidence provided for scholarship production in other forms (lectures, creative work, unique equipment, computer software/program design, video productions) will be evaluated in terms of (a) scope of dissemination, (b) character of receiving audience, and (c) prestige of validating authority, institution, or agency. External validation of quality is essential.

Refereeing Peer-Reviewed Books and Journal Articles. Reviewing the contributions of other scholars is an important service. This achievement will be evaluated based on the time and effort it takes to referee the publication, as well as the overall impact of the publication.

Shorter Works that Advance Public Knowledge. This may include short articles published in the bulletins of academic organizations and various forms of public media (newspapers, legitimate web magazines, etc.) that advance the general public knowledge. Such activities have less significance than original peer-reviewed contributions such as journal articles. Therefore, two works that fall into this subcategory count as one item for annual review. This category cannot be counted more than once in any review year, regardless of the total number of items published.

3.3 Academic Leadership in Scholarship

Lines of evidence related to the demonstration of academic leadership in scholarship might include, but are not limited to:

  • Identifying, developing, funding, designing, implementing, and completing research, development, dissemination, or evaluation projects of significant scope. Evaluations will consider the extent to which such projects enhance one’s recognition and involve other faculty, students, and staff.
  • Developing regional, national, or international conferences, symposia, or the like for the dissemination of research findings;
  • Active membership on editorial boards of scholarly journals.

3.4 National Recognition in Scholarship

Lines of evidence related to the demonstration of national recognition in scholarship may include, but are not limited to:

  • Development of a model or practice that is widely adopted;
  • Extensive publications in primary scholarly outlets;
  • Record of high accomplishment in creative endeavors of relevance to the field;
  • Frequent citations in literature;
  • Obtaining funding through competitive proposal writing;
  • Number and quality of invited addresses, symposia, colloquia, and presentations.

3.5 Rating Scholarship in the Annual Review Process

Each year, all faculty members shall present evidence of scholarly progress that outlines their scholarly contributions over the year in review. Evaluators will then assess each faculty member’s scholarly output by applying the categories in 3.6 to the ratings requirements in 3.7.

3.6 Categories for Rating Evidence of Scholarship in the Annual Review

The following categories provide general guidelines for assessing an individual’s work. Contributions not listed here, as well as those contributions listed in 3.3 and 3.4, should be considered. As the School of Nursing values quality over quantity, evaluators should adapt these categories where necessary.

Level A – Includes quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis for the scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality/substance, not quantity):

  • Develops, conducts, and/or supervises research with students;
  • Evidence of preparation of scholarly work with a clear timeline for completion (e.g., pilot testing; data collection, literature review);
  • Submission of a manuscript to a refereed publication for initial peer review (primary or non-primary authorship);
  • Submission of scholarly work for presentation at a conference;
  • Completion of other scholarly products (e.g., software or conference proceedings);
  • Refereeing an article for a peer-reviewed journal;
  • Presentation of a new poster at a professional conference;
  • Publication of a research note or book review;
  • Publication of a peer-recognized field-specific encyclopedia article;
  • Submission of an external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers). Note: Submission of external grant applications that require significant research and preparation may be considered as a level B item at evaluators’ discretion;
  • Management of an external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers). Note: The acceptance of a management role of a large external grant may be considered a level B item at evaluators’ discretion;
  • Two (2) short discipline-specific published works that advance public knowledge (non-refereed). Note: **Two works that fall into this category together count as one item for the purposes of annual review. This item cannot be counted more than once in any review year.**

Level B – Includes high-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis for the scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality/substance, not quantity):

  • Acceptance of a peer-reviewed journal article for publication (non-primary authorship);
  • Submission of a manuscript to a refereed publication for initial peer-review (sole or primary authorship);
  • Resubmission of an article to a peer-reviewed journal that required revisions. (A resubmission could be considered a Level A achievement based on the amount of work it requires. The ranked faculty member must provide evidence to show that the resubmission is equivalent to other Level B achievements.);
  • Presentation of a new scholarly paper or a research presentation at a professional conference;
  • Substantial role in mentoring a student or students toward the successful presentation of a scholarly paper or poster at a professional conference;
  • Mentoring a student to publish work in an undergraduate research journal or creative outlet;
  • Presentation as keynote or invited speaker at a conference, symposia, colloquium, or other significant academic event;
  • Publishing a book chapter (editor- or peer-reviewed);
  • Refereeing a book for an academic press;
  • Receipt of a local or regional external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether ranked faculty member is among principal researchers);
  • Completion of two or more chapters of an accepted book that is a synthesis of previously compiled knowledge;
  • Completion of final draft of an accepted book that is a synthesis of previously compiled knowledge;
  • Peer-reviewed exhibition or release of a single, discipline-specific, stand-alone piece of creative work (for those in the arts);
  • Completion of a scholarly technical/professional report or monograph;
  • Publication of a laboratory work book;
  • Publication of an accepted book chapter that required substantial revisions or further research as documented by evidence;
  • Acceptance of book prospectus;
  • Serving as Editor of a peer-reviewed journal.

Level C – Includes superior contributions in some of the following areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis for the scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality/substance, not quantity):

  • Acceptance of a peer-reviewed journal article for publication (sole or primary authorship);
  • Substantial role in guiding an undergraduate research project that is accepted for peer-reviewed publication;
  • Acceptance of a national-level external research grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers);
  • Acceptance of a scholarly peer-reviewed or editor-reviewed book chapter;
  • Completion of two or more chapters of an accepted editor- or peer-reviewed book that is scholarly and based on original research and thought;
  • Completion of final draft of an accepted book that is scholarly and based on original research and thought;
  • Exhibition, publication, or release of a substantial creative work in a peer-reviewed venue (related to nursing aesthetics);
  • Exhibition or publication of a major discipline-specific nationally- or regionally-recognized peer-reviewed creative/innovative work(s).

3.7 Scholarship Ratings for Annual Review

The School of Nursing set the following rating guidelines for assessing Scholarship on the annual review. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in the ratings where ranked faculty members have undertaken forms of scholarship or scholarly leadership not listed here and as accounted for in the narrative provided by the faculty (refer to section 3.1).

Note: A consistent rating of Satisfactory on annual reviews is not equivalent to a rating of Satisfactory on the tenure review. Tenure-seeking faculty should plan out their scholarship agendas so they have time to complete the required expectations listed in the Tenure Guidelines.

  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance
  • Satisfactory = Meets expectations
    • Criteria: Active program of quality research or creative activity which contributes to the discipline’s body of knowledge and includes either:
      • Two (2) items at Level A OR
      • One (1) Level B item or equivalent.
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by either:
      • Two (2) Level B items OR
      • One (1) Level B item and two (2) Level A items.
  • Excellent = Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
    • Criteria: Distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions which advance knowledge, as indicated by:
      • One (1) Level C item OR
      • Two (2) Level B and two (2) Level A items.

4. SERVICE

4.1 Overview

The School of Nursing values the service contributions of the faculty. It is one of the many ways that faculty work together to fulfill our mission. Service encompasses three areas: (a) institutional, (b) service to the profession, (c) service to the community. First and foremost, faculty are expected to demonstrate how they contribute significantly to meeting the needs of the institution, followed to a lesser degree by contributions to the profession and community or government agencies.

When evaluating faculty contributions in service, both the quantity and quality of service are important considerations. Quantity in the absence of quality is insufficient to earn high ratings in service. As part of their annual review materials, faculty members shall submit a brief narrative description of their service activities. Faculty members are encouraged to submit relevant evidence (e.g., documents created, revisions or edits made) that reflects particular service contributions and may be asked to provide additional evidence of service contributions as requested by their Dean or Dean’s designee during the review process.

4.2 Evidence of Service

Lines of evidence related to the demonstration of accomplishment in service are listed below, but these are examples only and do not exhaust the range of possibilities. Additionally, the case may be made for any service contribution in one level that, due to a particular time commitment or other requirements, might be considered as qualifying for another level.

4.2.1 Institutional Service

Level A – Substantive involvement in a single meaningful event (e.g., college fair) or participation in an endeavor that requires a relatively low time commitment.

Examples of Level A Service Items:

  • Leading and/or major contributions in organizing a campus-wide presentation;
  • Serving on a College-level Committee and/or a School of Nursing ad-hoc task force and/or subcommittee;
  • Actively recruiting at college fair events;
  • Presenting at a faculty development workshop;
  • Serving as a Faculty Senate representative;
  • Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are clearly evidenced.

Level B – Substantive involvement in a meaningful endeavor that requires a moderate time commitment and/or reflects the faculty member’s contribution to the accomplishment of an important institutional goal.

Examples of Level B Service Items:

  • Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice chair, secretary, or parliamentarian);
  • Chairing a Faculty Senate committee or actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee that holds regular meetings;
  • Serving as a search committee member (College and/or School of Nursing);
  • Serving as a Chairperson on a standing committee in the School of Nursing
  • Serving as NFA president;
  • Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs (e.g., redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions);
  • Providing individual mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.

Level C – Substantive involvement in or guidance of a meaningful endeavor that requires a significant time commitment, involves an important leadership role, and reflects the faculty member’s contribution to the accomplishment of an essential institutional goal.

Examples of Level C Service Items:

  • Serving as Faculty Senate chair;
  • Serving as a search committee chair (College and/or School of Nursing);
  • Serving as Curriculum Committee chair (College-level);
  • Serving as the Promotion and Tenure Committee chair (College-level);
  • Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization(s).

4.2.2 Community and Professional Service

Contributions to the profession or community that serve the mission of Nevada State College may be counted as service items if they contribute to the mission or promote the objectives of NSC. The examples below are not exhaustive.

Level A – Substantive involvement in a single meaningful event (e.g., participating as a speaker at a community event) or participation in an endeavor that requires a relatively low time commitment.

Examples of Level A Community and Professional Service Items:

  • Serving as an officer in a local, state, regional, or national professional or learned society;
  • Providing pro bono consultation to individuals or local, state, regional, national, or federal organizations;
  • Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization;
  • Writing a grant for a community organization;
  • Establishing partnerships with external organizations (e.g., creating student internship opportunities);
  • Volunteering with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.

Level B – Substantive involvement in a meaningful service endeavor in the community that requires a moderate time commitment.

Examples of Level B Community and Professional Service Items:

  • Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills;
  • Playing a significant role in planning a conference that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and/or skills.

Level C activities are typically reserved for internal, institutional service. However, a faculty member may provide evidence (refer to section 4.1) that a particular external service activity goes beyond Level B and deserves a higher rating. For example, a faculty member who plans an entire national conference in Las Vegas that directly benefits the College may contend that the effort justifies Level C status.

4.3 Rating Service in the Annual Review Process

The following are selected, non-comprehensive examples of how service to the institution and community/profession might be evaluated for annual reviews. Evaluators should converse with evaluees to determine the quality of service, considering the time and effort required and the substance of the contribution. The quantities indicated below are general guidelines, not fixed designations. The quantity required may vary based on the quality of the contribution. Failure to meet designated service obligations may diminish a faculty member’s annual review ratings, regardless of other service contributions.

While the emphasis is on institutional service, faculty members may propose including significant forms of academic leadership in service or service to the profession or community as part of the performance rating. Such service should be demonstrably related, directly or indirectly, to the mission of NSC or the SON.

To acknowledge various service contributions, the three service levels equate to this point scale:

1 Level A activity = 1 point
1 Level B activity = 2 points
1 Level C activity = 4 points

To achieve a Satisfactory rating in service, the faculty member must receive 4-5 points.

To achieve a Commendable rating, the faculty member must receive 6-7 points, and must include at least one B or C level activity.

To achieve an Excellent rating, the faculty member must receive 8 points or more, and must include at least one B or C level activity.

  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: 3 points or less
    • Examples: Two Level A activities = 2 points
  • Satisfactory = Meets expectations
    • Criteria: 4-5 points
    • Examples:
      • One Level C activity = 4 points
      • Four Level A activities = 4 points
      • Two Level B activities and 1 Level A activity = 5 points
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: 6-7 points, including one Level B or Level C
    • Examples:
      • One Level C activity and two Level A activities = 6 points
      • Five Level A activities and one Level B activity = 7 points
  • Excellent = Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
    • Criteria: 8 points or more, including one Level B or Level C
    • Examples:
      • Two Level C activities = 8 points
      • Three Level B activities and two Level A activities = 8 points

Importantly, a faculty member who completes six or more Level A activities would not meet the standards for Commendable, because it requires at least one Level B or C activity.

APPROVALS

Standards were approved by 17 eligible faculty. Faculty vote concluded on November 10, 2015. A quorum was established and vote passed. Eligible voters: all full-time faculty (lecturer, tenure-track, and tenured) on non-temporary contracts with appointments in SON.

Approved by Dr. Neal Rosenberg, Dean of Nursing, December 3, 2015.
Approved by Dr. Erika Beck, Provost, December 18, 2015.