AA 17 Standards of Academe (School of Education)

PHILOSOPHY

1.1 Overview

The School of Education (SOE) subscribes to the philosophy that teaching should be the primary area of emphasis for faculty members, with scholarship and service as important but secondary priorities to teaching. Faculty will be recruited, evaluated, awarded tenure, and promoted predicated on this perspective.

The academic evaluation and reward system in SOE has two purposes: (a) to provide the means by which faculty, through annual reviews, progress through the academic ranks; and (b) to certify high achievement.

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 SOE. Section 2.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within SOE to evaluate teaching.

Scholarship: For annual reviews, SOE 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 Ernest Boyer’s scholarship of teaching. Section 3.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within SOE to document accomplishment in scholarship.

Service: SOE defines service as a faculty member’s professional responsibilities to Nevada State College and its external community, including, but not limited to, professional organizations, Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), school district, and community/governmental. Section 4.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within SOE 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; course evaluations; and a narrative or table of no more than 10 pages summarizing accomplishments throughout the year in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The page limit does NOT include any of the following:

  • CV;
  • Syllabi;
  • Course evaluations;
  • Items or evidence specifically requested by the dean after receiving the annual review file.

1.5 Flexibility in Annual Review Ratings

SOE sets the rating guidelines for assessing teaching, scholarship, 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 SOE ratings guidelines to their teaching, scholarship, or service contributions.

1.6 Standards of Academe and Tenure Guidelines

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 on best practices in pedagogy. The Tenure Guidelines, however, need to remain consistent throughout a faculty member’s progress toward tenure. Therefore, in 2016, the SOE separated the two documents. The Standards of Academe now apply specifically to annual reviews and the Tenure Guidelines apply specifically to tenure. Appointed faculty 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. Faculty committees will also evaluate and update the Tenure Guidelines as appropriate.  Faculty will be evaluated for tenure and promotion under the guidelines (SOE standards of academe, SOE promotion and tenure policy, and NSC promotion and tenure policy) 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. If the Standards of Academe change within the first three years of the faculty member’s date of hire, the faculty member can choose to follow the new Standards of the Standards in place upon hire. Faculty cannot change or select new Standards after their third year of employment.

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.

Material evaluated for annual reviews will include: updated CV; syllabi; course evaluations; and a narrative of no more than 10 pages summarizing accomplishments throughout the year in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Faculty should address, at a minimum, the items under 2.2 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness, when discussing teaching in their narrative. Faculty members may be expected to provide additional evidence of teaching effectiveness as requested by their Dean 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

Faculty can access private, individual folders on the X drive created by SOE administration that contain:

  • Syllabus for each course taught;
  • Official course evaluations for each course taught with annual means per course; including intersession and summer semesters;
  • Final grade distributions for each course taught;
  • Teaching observation(s) from the Dean or designated individual;
  • a current CV.

A teaching effectiveness statement (to be included in the faculty member’s 10 page narrative for annual reviews) is the minimum required line of evidence of teaching effectiveness. Faculty need NOT provide the items available on the x drive in their annual reviews but are strongly encouraged to incorporate information from their syllabi, course evaluations, final grade distribution, and teaching observation(s) into their teaching effectiveness narrative. Faculty must include in their narrative a list of new goals and a list of old goals from the previous year with a reflection on how the old goals were met.

Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include, but is not limited to, the following best practices not listed in priority order:

  1. demonstrating content expertise;
  2. possessing tools and processes to assess students’ understanding of the subject;
  3. creating an atmosphere that is conducive for learning;
  4. allowing students’ needs, voice, and diversity to inform the pedagogy;
  5. understanding how students differ in their approaches to learning, and creating instructional opportunities with high expectations that are adapted to diverse learners;
  6. using a variety of instructional strategies, technology tools, and pedagogical methods to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills;
  7. understanding individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation;
  8. being a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his or her choices and actions on others and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally;
  9. attending ongoing professional development designed to improve teaching;
  10. fostering relationships with colleagues across campus and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well-being;
  11. utilizing strategies to scaffold learning;
  12. integrating active learning strategies in the classroom;
  13. using highly-engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted toward the respective course and student learning outcomes;
  14. designing and revising courses based on evidence from published literature on teaching effectiveness;
  15. earning external certification in teaching practices;
  16. integrating written work and use of evidence-based strategies that improve student writing skills;
  17. being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students;
  18. adapting and improving teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean;
  19. providing effective feedback in a reasonable timeframe such that students are aware of their progress throughout the course;
  20. assessing the effectiveness of teaching endeavors;
  21. assessing student learning;
  22. supervising an independent study or experiential learning activities that include assessment of student learning;
  23. teaching and supervising student research;
  24. incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.

The faculty member may request that the Dean exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates from consideration, or the Dean may use independent discretion to exclude them.

2.3 Artifacts to Support Teaching Effectiveness

Additional evidence and activities of teaching effectiveness may be provided by the faculty member. This may be included as appendices, and is not limited to the following items not listed in priority order:

  1. Exams, assignments, projects, or other assessments developed by the instructor to measure student performance;
  2. Lectures, handouts, and other materials used to aid instruction;
  3. Peer observations of teaching conducted by the faculty member;
  4. Video or audio recordings of teaching;
  5. Descriptions of innovative teaching methods used including the incorporation of new technologies and approaches to learning;
  6. Mid-semester evaluations and descriptions of how they were used to adjust or improve a course;
  7. Descriptions of how diversity issues were incorporated into course content;
  8. Examples of feedback provided on papers, projects, exams, or other assignments;
  9. Select or design effective assessment strategies;
  10. Evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of an assignment, activity, or instructional technique used in a course;
  11. Video or audio recordings of student performance;
  12. Teaching awards (regional, national, local, college wide);
  13. Other discipline-specific evidence of teaching effectiveness;
  14. Acceptance of an external teaching-related grant;
  15. Additional evidence as requested by the faculty member’s department chair;
  16. Documented study of curricular and pedagogical issues, and incorporation of this information into instructional practices;
  17. Recipient of fellowship.

2.4 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 course 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 do not guarantee that an instructor will attain the corresponding rating as they are merely one measure among many used for evaluation.

Excellent: Course evaluations should have positive written comments and numerical ratings typically above 4.0 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). Additionally, faculty provide strong evidence of satisfying the best practices under 2.2 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness.

Commendable: Course evaluations with positive written comments and numerical ratings at or above 3.7 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). Additionally, faculty provide some evidence of satisfying the best practices under 2.2 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness.

Satisfactory: Course evaluations include written comments that are generally satisfactory and numerical ratings at or above 3.0 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). Additionally, faculty provide limited evidence of satisfying the best practices under 2.2 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness.

Unsatisfactory: Course evaluations include written comments that are generally satisfactory and numerical ratings at or below 3.0 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). Additionally, faculty provide no evidence of satisfying the best practices under 2.2 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness.

3. SCHOLARSHIP

3.1 Overview

Boyer’s (1990) definition of the scholarship of teaching as an activity that “both educates and entices future scholars” is the foundation for determination of tenure and post-tenure progress in scholarship in the School of Education at Nevada State College.

Tenure-track faculty members are expected to progress in scholarship as outlined in the following document. Evidence of productive scholarship can be supported by published records as well as other original work of a professional nature. External validation (peer reviewed, juried, and editor-reviewed) of one’s work resulting in a published product is requisite for promotion and tenure at NSC.

Scholarly activities should be systematic and show a contribution in areas such as pedagogy, models and methods of teaching, curriculum research, grants, etc. Evidence of scholarship in-progress serves as an indicator of the candidate’s intent to demonstrate scholarly productivity. Statements of scholarship in-progress, supported by evidence, are required.

Quality is an essential factor in judging scholarship. Quality refers to the effect that scholarship makes on advances in knowledge, the professional community, and the enrichment of teaching and learning. This concept of quality places high emphasis on original thinking, process, and effect as opposed to the sheer quantity of products. To this end, faculty will provide a narrative description to the Dean of the School of Education, on an annual basis, of their scholarly activities. It is strongly recommended that tenure-track faculty will have a minimum of one work submitted for review by the third year review.

3.2 Evidence of Scholarship

Lines of evidence and related criteria for evaluation 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 discipline.

Chapters in Books. Book chapters will be evaluated in terms of the inherent quality of the piece and its dissemination across the candidate’s area/s of expertise.

Books. Scholarly books that broaden a disciplinary knowledge base with original research or that produce novel applications of existing knowledge represent one category of evidence.

  • Textbooks that compile and organize existing knowledge are also viable scholarly products
  • Edited books which have been validated through peer or professional publication processes are additional lines of evidence.

Creative and Scholarly Production. Nevada State College respects the creative work of scholars and supports their efforts. For those in fields where artistic production is not typical, works that are creative will be evaluated in the context of the candidate’s discipline

Undergraduate Research. Faculty members are encouraged to mentor student research and research projects (e.g. action research, problem-based learning, project-based learning). Mentorship and supervision of student research will be evaluated in terms of the length of project, dissemination of research, and/or peer-reviewed professional publications or conference presentations. Projects that are sustained over a longer period of time or more intensive in nature will be accorded more significance. 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. Original material generated by the faculty member and used as course content may also be considered under this category of scholarly production. As with books and book chapters, the scope of dissemination will be considered.

Conference Papers and Poster Presentations. Paper and poster presentations will be evaluated using various factors, including but not limited to:  (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.

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 serve 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 works, 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 scholarly activity. 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 Written or Digital 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, podcast, webinar, recorded interview, etc.) that advance the general public knowledge. Such activities have less significance than original peer-reviewed contributions such as journal articles. Two shorter written works 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, the following items not listed in priority order:

  1. 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;
  2. Developing or assisting in the development of regional, national, or international conferences, symposia, or the like for the dissemination of research findings;
  3. 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, the following items not listed in priority order:

  1. Development of a model or practice that is widely adopted;
  2. Extensive publications in primary scholarly outlets;
  3. Record of high accomplishment in creative endeavors of relevance to the field;
  4. Frequent citations in literature;
  5. Obtaining funding through competitive proposal writing;
  6. 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. In keeping with SOE’s emphasis on optimal scholarship, the level of rigor and excellence is listed below in descending order from superior to noteworthy. As SOE values quality over quantity, evaluators should adapt these categories where necessary, especially when dictated by the standards or requirements of a particular field or discipline.

Level A – Includes the following items or equivalent not listed in priority order:

  1. Published a peer-reviewed journal article;
  2. Substantial role in guiding an undergraduate research project that may or may not be accepted for peer-reviewed publication;
  3. Acceptance of a national-level external research grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers);
  4. Completion of two or more chapters or equivalent of an accepted editor- or peer-reviewed book that is scholarly and based on original research and thought;
  5. Completion and publication of a book that is scholarly and based on original research and thought;
  6. Completion and publication of an edited or co-edited book that is relevant to the candidate’s discipline;
  7. Exhibition, publication, or release of a substantial creative work in a peer-reviewed venue;
  8. Serving as editor of a journal or book;
  9. Serving as chair of Master’s’ thesis and/or Doctoral dissertation committee;
  10. Presentation as keynote or invited speaker at a conference, symposia, colloquium, or other significant academic event.

Level B – Includes the following items or equivalent not listed in priority order:

  1. Submission of a manuscript to a refereed publication for initial peer-review;
  2. Resubmission of an article to a peer-reviewed journal that required substantial revisions;
  3. Completion and publication of one book chapter (editor- or peer-reviewed);
  4. Presentation of a scholarly paper or a research presentation at a professional conference;
  5. Substantial role in mentoring a student or students toward the successful presentation of a scholarly paper or poster at a professional conference;
  6. Mentoring a student to publish work in an undergraduate research journal or creative outlet;
  7. Acceptance of a scholarly peer-reviewed or editor-reviewed book chapter;
  8. Refereeing a book for an academic press;
  9. Receipt of an NSC, local or regional external grant or seed money (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers);
  10. Peer-reviewed exhibition or release of a single, discipline-specific, stand-alone piece of creative work;
  11. Completion of a scholarly technical/professional report or monograph;
  12. Publication of a laboratory workbook or other original material generated by the faculty member and used as course content;
  13. Acceptance of book prospectus;
  14. Presentation of a poster at professional conference;
  15. Management of an external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers).

Level C – Includes the following items or equivalent not listed in priority order:

  1. Develops, conducts, and/or supervises research with students;
  2. Acceptance of an invited publication;
  3. Evidence of preparation of scholarly work with a clear timeline for completion (e.g., pilot testing; data collection, literature review);
  4. Submission of scholarly work for presentation at a conference;
  5. Completion of other scholarly products (e.g., software or conference proceedings);
  6. Refereeing an article for a peer-reviewed journal;
  7. Serving as a reviewer for regional, national, or international conferences;
  8. Serving as invited reviewer of textbook;
  9. Publication of a research note or book review;
  10. Publication of a peer-recognized field-specific encyclopedia article;
  11. 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 evaluator’s’ discretion;
  12. Two 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.

3.7 Scholarship Ratings for Annual Review

SOE 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 faculty members have undertaken forms of scholarship or scholarly leadership not listed here.

Note: Tenure-seeking faculty should plan out their scholarship agendas so they have time to complete the required expectations listed in the Tenure Guidelines.

  • 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 A item or equivalent, OR
      • Two (2) Level B and two (2) Level C items or equivalent.
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by either:
      • Two (2) Level B items or equivalent, OR
      • One (1) Level B item and two (2) Level C items or equivalent.
  • 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) Level C items or equivalent, OR
      • One (1) Level B item or equivalent.
  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance

4. SERVICE

4.1 Overview

As a developing institution, NSC values the service contributions of its faculty. It is one of the many ways that faculty work together to fulfill our mission. Service may encompasses four areas: (a) institutional (NSC) (b) school of education (c) service to the community (d) service to the profession. Faculty must include in their annual review narrative how they address service in the aforementioned four areas.

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.

  • Serving as Faculty Senate chair;
  • Serving as a search committee chair;
  • Serving as curriculum committee chair;
  • Serving as the Promotion and Tenure Committee chair;
  • Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization or professional group;
  • Acceptance or submission of a national-level external research grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers);
  • 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;
  • Serving as a curriculum committee member;
  • Serving as NFA president;
  • Leading a campus-wide presentation;
  • Serving on a college-level committee with infrequent meetings;
  • Actively recruiting at college fair events;
  • Presenting at a faculty development workshop;
  • Serving as a Faculty Senate representative;
  • Implementing and executing sustained programs that help accomplish SOE goals (e.g. new teacher mentorship program, etc.);
  • Substantially developing new programs;
  • Providing individual mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty;
  • Substantially developing or assisting in program assessment to include rubrics and key performances aligned with program standards;
  • Substantially developing curricular mapping across programs;
  • Providing substantial fieldwork supervision as part of a course;
  • Student advising. Advising may include but is not limited to: career development advising; academic advising; academic success and student development advising;
  • Revising curricula or programs (e.g., redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions);
  • Serving on SOE committee that meets frequently;
  • Serving as chair of SOE committee;
  • Actively participating in sustained SOE initiative or task force;
  • Actively participating at SOE events (e.g. fairs, meet-and-greets, Praxis initiative meetings, student teacher presentations, etc.);
  • Serving in leadership role on local, state, and/or federal organizations;
  • Receiving award for regional, state, national, and/or international service;
  • Participating actively and substantially as a leader on a state and/or federal task force;
  • Development of educational software, or materials which are used regionally or nationally;
  • Receiving grant funding for a grant written on behalf of a community organization.
  • Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills;
  • Writing or collaborating on a grant for a community organization;
  • Serving as member of community organization or committee;
  • Participating in local, state, and/or federal task forces;
  • Receiving award for local service;
  • Consistently involved with one school;
  • Established relationship with one or more school;
  • Providing professional development workshops for schools;
  • Conducting research for school or school district;
  • Establishing partnerships with external organizations;
  • Serving as chair of Master’s’ thesis and/or Doctoral dissertation committee;
  • Serving as editor of a journal or book;
  • Serving as invited reviewer of textbook;
  • Volunteering with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills;
  • Serving a significant role in planning/organizing a conference;
  • Serving a leadership role in regional, national, and/or international professional organization;
  • Serving a significant role on a national committee;
  • Serving as invited speaker at the regional, national, and/or international levels;
  • Membership on editorial board of peer reviewed/refereed journal or publication
  • Serving as an officer or committee chair in a local, state, regional, or national professional or learned society;
  • Contributing in a significant way to an academic organization;
  • Organizing special projects and/or events.
  • Peer reviewer for journal or conference proposals
  • Serving on committees in professional organization;
  • Participating in professional growth opportunities;
  • Serving as an active faculty mentor or mentee.

4.3 Rating Service in the Annual Review Process

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 they may be asked to provide additional evidence of service contributions as requested by their department chair during the review process.

Excellent: Faculty provide strong evidence of satisfying the service items listed under 4.2 Evidence of Service.

Commendable: Faculty provide some evidence of satisfying the service items listed under 4.2 Evidence of Service.

Satisfactory: Faculty provide limited evidence of satisfying the service items listed under 4.2 Evidence of Service.

Unsatisfactory: Faculty provide no evidence of satisfying the service items listed under 4.2 Evidence of Service.

AA 16 Standards of Academe and Tenure Guidelines (Library Services)

Library Standards of Academe

1. PHILOSOPHY

Overview

The goal of the establishment of Standards of Academe for librarians at Nevada State College is to provide clear expectations and guidelines for the equitable evaluation of all library faculty and successful achievement of tenure.

Librarianship

Library faculty are to be evaluated on the same performance areas as teaching faculty with the distinction of “librarianship” as the primary function for evaluation and assessment. Librarianship will be defined as the primary evaluation criteria for library faculty in lieu of teaching. Librarianship as an evaluation category is defined as the faculty member’s role and responsibilities within the library.

Annual Review

At each annual review, the faculty member and evaluator will develop annual goals for the calendar year. The annual goals will include specific goals for the faculty member to achieve in each of the three categories of librarianship, scholarship, and service.

At each annual review, the faculty member must provide a copy of the annual goals agreed upon at the previous year’s review and indicate which items from the plan were completed.

2. LIBRARIANSHIP

2.1 Overview

Faculty shall provide a narrative description of activities in their area of librarianship. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s professional effectiveness and should include evidence of projects and activities that benefited the library or college.

2.2 Rating Librarianship in the Annual Review Process

When rating librarianship, the evaluator will consider what was accomplished and how it was accomplished. In the Standards of Academe, what faculty accomplish is measured by evaluating progress toward meeting the goals set forth in the annual performance review and by completion of the responsibilities listed in the faculty member’s position description. How library faculty accomplish their work is evaluated using the Library Values. The Values prioritize library faculty, staff, and students working together as a team to creatively meet the needs of the campus community.

2.3 Library Values

Coachability. As exemplified by:

  • Uses feedback from others to make noticeable and noteworthy changes in his/her skills and productivity;
  • Anticipates learning needs and has a plan in place to meet those needs;
  • Known for valuing learning; finds time and space for helping others learn;
  • Shows team members how mistakes can be valuable learning opportunities;
  • Has a professional development plan to address ongoing short- and long-term learning needs;
  • Anticipates major functional changes that affect their job and takes steps to prepare for them;
  • Participates in leadership roles in professional organizations and conferences.

Collegiality. As exemplified by:

  • Actively supports and implements team decisions and ideas and gives full credit to the team for successful outcomes;
  • Makes special efforts to ensure that all team members are respectful of one another and work productively together;
  • Actively supports and implements team decisions;
  • Mediates and helps the team resolve team conflicts;
  • Volunteers enthusiastically to work on intra- and interdepartmental teams;
  • Influences others who are not under his/her direct authority or control to accomplish results;
  • Adjusts interpersonal approaches to attend to the needs of diverse groups of people;
  • Negotiates with others to reach a win-win outcome.

Communication. As exemplified by:

  • Encourages and values input; shows an interest in others’ needs and concerns even when under pressure;
  • Anticipates communication needs and shares information effectively with all levels of the organization;
  • Promotes and uses a candid and open speaking style;
  • Notes and reports are often forwarded and cited;
  • People often enjoy listening to this person talk and are influenced by him/her;
  • Uses exactly the right medium (e-mail, voice mail, in person) at just the right length depending on message and audience;
  • Resolves conflicts and opens lines of communication.

Campus Focus. As exemplified by:

  • Noted for displaying customer service behaviors that exceed the expectations of the campus community;
  • Visits or calls campus stakeholders to find out what they are doing and what they need; stays abreast of developments that may be relevant to them;
  • Frequently exceeds agreed-upon service levels and time frames;
  • Learns from mistakes so that they are not repeated in future interactions;
  • Works with other team members to find better qualitative and quantitative ways to track stakeholder satisfaction;
  • Seeks out campus stakeholder problems and complaints and removes barriers that get in the way of meeting and exceeding stakeholder needs.

Efficiency. As exemplified by:

  • Known for exceptional attendance record;
  • Produces extraordinary results in a reasonable timeframe;
  • Conscientious about spending and accounting for department funds and finds ways to save and recover money;
  • Continuously strives to improve key work processes;
  • Identifies benchmarks with others to find process improvement opportunities;
  • Helps others to develop measures for quality improvements in their own work areas.

Initiative. As exemplified by:

  • Significantly exceeds expectations by doing more than is required and by initiating and implementing new projects;
  • Recognizes and seizes opportunities even if outside of normal job duties;
  • Pursues solutions to problems with a sense of urgency; beats deadlines;
  • Ideas are adopted by the Library or the College;
  • Seeks new challenges and secondary responsibilities;
  • Formally recognized for going “above and beyond the call of duty” (thank you notes, awards);
  • Takes charge and finds solutions when things go wrong;
  • Always does what he/she says will be done; is noted for trustworthiness and dependability.

Leadership (as applicable). As exemplified by:

  • Motivates others in the organization to achieve mission;
  • Champions the performance evaluation process and uses it successfully to increase productivity and develop employees;
  • Helps team develop more collaborative and productive ways of problem solving and decision making;
  • Encourages employee growth and achievement by emphasizing learning from mistakes and failures and building on successes;
  • Teaches staff better ways of communicating with customers, peers, and each other;
  • Assesses talent well; people want to work with him/her.

2.4 Annual Review Ratings

 Unsatisfactory

  • Did not meet expectations to some extent.
  • Did not accomplish many individual objectives or did not demonstrate some Library Values for the rating of librarianship.
  • Made limited contributions to the Library/College.
  • Must improve to perform effectively in current position.

Satisfactory

  • Met expectations.
  • Accomplished individual objectives and demonstrated Library Values in a consistent manner.
  • Made substantial contributions to the Library/College.
  • Appropriately challenged in current position.

Commendable

  • Exceeded expectations.
  • Accomplished individual objectives and demonstrated Library Values in a remarkable manner.
  • Made noteworthy contributions to the Library/College beyond what was planned.
  • Ready for more independence in current position.

Excellent

  • Exceeded expectations to a great extent.
  • Accomplished individual objectives and demonstrated Library Values in an exemplary manner.
  • Made distinguished contributions to the Library/College well beyond what was planned.
  • May be ready for a more challenging position or additional responsibility in current position.

3. SCHOLARSHIP

3.1 Overview

Evidence of productive scholarship can be supported by published records as well as other original work of a professional nature. However, scholarship does not operate on a yearly cycle, but is instead marked by projects that can take multiple years. Consequently, the tenure and promotion expectations for scholarship are more independent of the annual review ratings and focus on the cumulative accomplishments of the faculty member in terms of originality, quality, and quantity. External validation (peer-review) of one’s work resulting in a published product is required for promotion and tenure at NSC.

In annual reviews, evidence of scholarship in-progress (e.g., data collection, manuscripts under review, etc.) serves as an indicator of the faculty’s intent to complete the scholarship and/or creative activity. Statements of scholarship in-progress, supported by evidence, are required. Departmental evaluators are responsible for judging the quality of the faculty member’s scholarship. Quality can refer to the effect scholarship makes on advances in knowledge, the professional community, and especially, the enrichment of library practice. This concept of quality places more importance on the process and effect than on the quantity of products.

Tenure-track and tenured faculty shall provide a narrative description of their scholarly activities including how those activities have affected their practice of librarianship. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s scholarship.

3.2 Rating Scholarship in the Annual Review Process

To promote equality in ratings of scholarship performance, a unit of measure called Scholarly Effort (SE) will be utilized. One SE is equivalent to any significant scholarly contribution, such as an article in a recognized publication or a presentation with significant content.

  • Level 1: Fails to meet expectations (Unsatisfactory)
    • Performance at a level less than that specified in Level 2.
  • Level 2: Meets expectations (Satisfactory)
    • Tangible evidence of one SE in process (e.g., a completed IRB application, submitted presentation proposal, significant progress on a publication draft, etc.), plus a timetable for completion.
  • Level 3: Exceeds expectations (Commendable)
    • One completed SE and tangible evidence of one additional SE in process (e.g., a research plan, submitted presentation proposal, significant progress on a publication draft), plus a timetable for completion.
  • Level 4: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner (Excellent)
    • 2 SEs.

4. SERVICE

4.1 Overview

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of service activities. 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. Faculty members are encouraged to submit relevant evidence (e.g., documents created, revisions or edits made) that reflect particular service contributions and may be asked to provide additional evidence of service contributions as requested by their supervisor during the review process.

4.2 Rating Service

  • Level 1: Fails to meet expectations (Unsatisfactory)
    • Performance at a level less than that specified in Level 2
  • Level 2: Meets expectations (Satisfactory)
    • At least one activity from, but not limited to, the following: evidence of responsibility on or contribution to committee activity in a professional organization, the College, or the Library.
  • Level 3: Exceeds expectations (Commendable)
    • May include, but is not limited to additional activities as follows: evidence of significant responsibility on or contribution to committees in a professional organization, the College, or the Library
  • Level 4: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner (Excellent)
    • May include, but is not limited to evidence of exceptional leadership on committee(s) or in a professional organization, the College, or the Library

 

Library Tenure Guidelines

Overview

The annual review criteria hold tenure-track faculty to very high standards of performance in librarianship, scholarship, and service. It is not the intent of the Marydean Martin Library to expect or require consistent “excellent” ratings on annual reviews in order to receive an overall “excellent” rating in any of the three areas when applying for tenure. Therefore, annual review ratings must be contextualized to represent expectations for unsatisfactory, satisfactory, commendable, and excellent ratings in the tenure and promotion application process. These ratings will be based on the cumulative performance of faculty members during the time leading up to the tenure and promotion review.

Librarianship and service operate on yearly cycles, so annual review ratings are used extensively in determining tenure and promotion ratings in these areas. However, scholarship does not operate on a yearly cycle, but is instead marked by projects that can take multiple years. Consequently, the tenure and promotion expectations for scholarship must be more independent of the annual review ratings and focus on the cumulative accomplishments of the faculty member in terms of both quality and quantity.

Third-Year Review

The purpose of the third-year review is to give faculty direction regarding their progress toward tenure by evaluating their cumulative performance after three years in rank. All untenured faculty on the tenure track will receive a letter from the Provost documenting their progress toward tenure at the end of their third year.

Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

As stated in the NSC Promotion and Tenure Policy, “all full time tenure-track faculty must apply for tenure no later than the beginning of their sixth academic year.” The Promotion and Tenure Policy details the guidelines for the application process, including the materials a candidate should submit and procedures for how those materials are reviewed. The process is a complex one, where several evaluators will consider numerous factors. However, as a general guideline, library faculty must meet these standards to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor:

  • Librarianship: A faculty member must receive an overall rating of Excellent.
  • Scholarship: A faculty member must receive an overall rating of Satisfactory.
  • Service: A faculty member must receive an overall rating of Satisfactory.

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURE: LIBRARIANSHIP

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of excellence in librarianship. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s excellence in librarianship. This narrative is critical to provide justification or evidence of appeals to annual reviews that do not meet the requirements set forth in these standards. The evaluator has some latitude to make exceptions to the requirements in the case of unusual circumstances as presented in the narrative.

  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance
  • Satisfactory = Meets expectations
    • Criteria: No annual review ratings of Unsatisfactory in the last three years prior to the tenure application
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: No annual review ratings of Unsatisfactory in the last three years and at least two annual review ratings of Commendable or higher in the last three years prior to the tenure application
  • Excellent = Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
    • Criteria: No annual review ratings of Unsatisfactory or Satisfactory in the last three years and at least one annual review rating of Excellent in the last three years prior to the tenure application

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURE: SCHOLARSHIP

External validation (peer-review) of one’s work in a published product is required for promotion and tenure at NSC. For publications with multiple authors, faculty members should be able to justify their contribution. Tenure-seeking faculty members should plan out their scholarship agendas during their probationary period so they have time to complete the required expectations listed below. A consistent rating of satisfactory on a faculty member’s annual review is not equivalent to a rating of satisfactory on the tenure review.

The Library has set the following benchmarks for rating scholarship in the tenure review process. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in those cases where faculty members have undertaken exemplary forms of scholarship not listed here.

  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: Fewer than 2 completed SEs (published or accepted publications, completed presentations, etc., including one peer-reviewed publication)
  • Satisfactory = Meets expectations
    • Criteria: 2 completed SEs (published or accepted publications, completed presentations, etc., including one peer-reviewed publication)
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: 4 completed SEs (published or accepted publications, completed presentations, etc., including one peer-reviewed publication)
  • Excellent = Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
    • Criteria: 6 completed SEs (published or accepted publications, completed presentations, etc., including one peer-reviewed publication)

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR TENURE: SERVICE

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor shall provide a brief narrative of their service in the tenure application. This narrative contextualizes the list of accomplishments. The evaluators have some latitude to make exceptions to the requirements in the case of extreme circumstances as presented in the narrative.

  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance
  • Satisfactory = Meets expectations
    • Criteria: No annual review ratings of Unsatisfactory in the last three years prior to the tenure application
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: Three annual review ratings of Commendable or above in the last three years prior to the tenure application
  • Excellent = Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
    • Criteria: No annual review ratings of Unsatisfactory or Satisfactory in the last three years and at least one annual review rating of Excellent in the last three years prior to the tenure application

AA 15 Standards of Academe: Lecturers (School of Liberal Arts & Sciences)

1. PHILOSOPHY

1.1 Overview

LAS subscribes to the philosophy that teaching should be the primary area of emphasis for lecturers, with service as an important but lower priority. Faculty will be recruited and evaluated based 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 Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) has three purposes in relation to lecturers: (a) to provide clear guidance that aids faculty members in improving and adapting their teaching; (b) to determine eligibility for merit pay (when available); and (c) to certify high achievement.

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 primarily 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. Section 2.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within LAS to evaluate teaching.

Service: LAS 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), LAS places most emphasis on service at the institutional level. Section 3.0 provides a detailed description of the lines of evidence used within LAS to document accomplishment in service.

Scholarship: LAS defines scholarship as the process of exploring a relevant question or problem, synthesizing existing knowledge, developing new ideas, and sharing the results through discipline appropriate outlets. LAS values scholarly efforts that represent the spectrum of orientation from basic to applied, including the scholarship of teaching. However, unlike tenure-track faculty, lecturer positions do not include a scholarship requirement. Accordingly, scholarship is not formally evaluated in annual evaluations, though any scholarly accomplishments will be noted by the department chair in the annual evaluation form; nor is scholarship used in merit pay calculations for lecturers.

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 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 their progress toward completion of each item.

1.4 Annual Review Portfolios

Faculty will submit a portfolio of annual review materials each year; this portfolio will include an updated CV; syllabi; a narrative or table of no more than 10 pages summarizing accomplishments throughout the year; and no more than 15 pages of evidence chosen by the faculty member to illustrate those accomplishments. The page limit on evidence does not include any of the following:

  • CV;
  • Syllabi;
  • Student evaluations;
  • Student papers turned in to show an example of the instructor’s feedback on an assignment;
  • Items or evidence specifically requested by the department chair after receiving the annual review file.

1.5 Flexibility in Annual Review Ratings

LAS sets the rating guidelines for assessing teaching 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 LAS ratings guidelines to their teaching or 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 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 requirement, 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.

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 syllabi (including the standard elements discussed below), official student course evaluations (available to department chairs on the shared X drive), 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 their department chair 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, mentoring students toward making a conference presentation, or taking a leadership role in teaching workshops, should be submitted in the service category.

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 NSC template;
  • Official student evaluations for each course taught;
  • Final grade distributions for each course taught;
  • Teaching observation(s) from the department chair;
  • Teaching narrative of one to two pages.

Evaluators have copies of final grade distributions, student evaluations, and teaching observations on file. Faculty do not need to provide these items.

The faculty member may request that the department chair exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates from consideration, though this accommodation is not guaranteed. The department chair may also use independent discretion to exclude them. If any evaluations are excluded, this should be noted in the annual review narrative.

2.3 Additional Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

Additional evidence of teaching effectiveness 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;
  • Mid-semester evaluations and descriptions of how they were used to adjust or improve a course;
  • Descriptions of how diversity issues were incorporated into course content;
  • Examples of feedback provided on papers, projects, exams, or other assignments;
  • Evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of an assignment, activity, or instructional technique used in a course;
  • Video or audio recordings of student performance;
  • 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 department chair.

2.4 Activities Related to Teaching

As 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;
  • Fieldwork supervision as part of 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 and disciplines, 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 receive the corresponding rating, as student evaluations are merely one measure among many used to determine the appropriate rating.

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

  • Failure 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;
  • 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 department chair 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:

  • A well-developed syllabus with adequate expectations and rigor that includes a course description, course objectives, evaluation criteria/methods, a course schedule, and office hours;
  • Availability to students outside of classroom hours;
  • 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, in no more than 1 page, mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores);
  • Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor;
  • Evidence of substantive feedback given to students regarding performance on major assignments or exams;
  • Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner (faculty members may submit a rationale of no more than 1 page explaining cases in which grade distributions are skewed, which will be considered by the department chair);
  • Compliance with institutional teaching-related policies and deadlines (e.g., FERPA, grade submission deadlines, provision of accommodations for students as requested by the DRC).

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

  • Meets Satisfactory performance standards;
  • Evaluations with positive written comments and numerical ratings typically above 4.25 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being highest (where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain, in no more than 1 page, mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores);
  • Quality contributions in some of the following major areas of teaching effort or equivalent:
    • 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 department chair;
    • Grading assignments and providing effective feedback in a reasonable timeframe such that students are aware of their progress throughout the course
    • Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors;
    • 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 comments and numerical ratings typically above 4.5 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being highest (where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain, in no more than 1 page, mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores);
  • High-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of teaching effort or equivalent:
    • 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 external certification in teaching practices;
    • Effective integration of written work and use of evidence-based 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 pedagogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) that is practically applied and successful most of the time.

3. SERVICE

3.1 Overview

As a developing institution, NSC values the service contributions of its 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, and (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. Lecturers are expected to engage in service, though the amount required is lower than that expected of tenure-track faculty members.

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 department chair during the review process.

3.2 Evidence of Service

Lines of evidence for demonstrating accomplishments 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.

3.3 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 a campus presentation;
  • Serving on the Travel and Incentive Grant Committee or another committee with infrequent meetings;
  • Actively recruiting at college fair events;
  • Acting as a faculty advisor to a student organization;
  • Presenting at a faculty development workshop;
  • Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.

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;
  • Serving as a Curriculum Committee member;
  • 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;
  • Serving as Curriculum Committee chair.

3.4 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 the evaluator determines that 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.

Level C activities are typically reserved for internal service. However, a faculty member may argue 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.

3.5 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 assigned 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 LAS or to the faculty member’s discipline or department.

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, a lecturer must earn 2-3 points.

To achieve a Commendable rating, a lecturer must earn 4-5 points.

To achieve an Excellent rating, the faculty member must earn 6 points or more, and at least one Level B or C item is generally required.

  • Unsatisfactory = Fails to meet expectations
    • Criteria: 0-1 points
    • Example:
      • One Level A activities = 1 point
  • Satisfactory  = Meets expectations
    • Criteria: 2-3 points
    • Examples:
      • Three Level A activities = 3 points
      • One Level B activity and 1 Level A activity= 3 points
  • Commendable = Exceeds expectations
    • Criteria: 4-5 points
    • Examples:
      • One Level C activity= 4 points
      • Three Level A activities and one Level B activity= 5 points.
  • Excellent = Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
    • Criteria: 6 points or more, generally including one Level B or C item
    • Examples:
      • One Level B activity and four Level A activities = 6 points
      • One Level B activity and one Level C activity= 6 points

To receive a rating of Excellent, a Level B or C item is generally required. However, the evaluator may be flexible when considering this requirement in cases where a lecturer made high-quality contributions to six or more Level A items and did not have legitimate opportunities to complete Level B or C items.

APPROVALS

Standards were approved by 100% of eligible faculty. Faculty vote concluded June 18, 2015. Eligible voters: all full-time lecturers on non-temporary contracts with appointments in LAS.

Approved by Dr. Andy Kuniyuki, LAS Dean, June 19, 2015.
Approved by Dr. Erika Beck, Provost, June 22, 2015.