POLICY STATEMENT

This policy delineates the expectations for annual reviews and for earning Tenure and/or promotion within the School of Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Business (LASB) at Nevada State University (NS) within the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE).

DEFINITIONS

Academic Rank: The position of academic faculty within NS’s promotion and Tenure structure. NS recognizes four ranks: Rank I for Lecturer, Rank II for Assistant Professor, Rank III for Associate Professor, and Rank IV for Professor.

Administrators with Academic Rank: Administrative faculty who hold a shadow appointment.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Initiatives, activities, or efforts that promote a culture of belonging in which all perspectives are valued; advocate for and amplify voices of marginalized and minoritized people to advance the success of historically excluded individuals and populations; and bridge communities to lay pathways for social justice, equal opportunity, excellence, and innovation in a diverse global society.

Lecturer: Title conferred on full-time, non-Tenure-track academic faculty whose roles focus on academic or clinical course instruction. The Academic Rank of Lecturer includes three levels: Lecturer (Level I), Senior Lecturer (Level II), and Distinguished Lecturer (Level III).

Other Professional Duties (OPD): Assigned job duties that are evaluated in lieu of Teaching for promotion and Tenure. Other Professional Duties may be a short-term or long-term assignment.

Peer Review: External review and evaluation of research and creative works conducted by peer experts in the field prior to publication or exhibition.

Probationary Period: Period of full-time employment in a Tenure-track position before applying for Tenure; may not exceed seven years except with approval of the president, as allowed in NSHE Code.

Publication or Equivalent: Peer Reviewed publication with NS as the affiliation of the faculty member, with a demonstration that the faculty member contributed significantly to the publication. 

Service: Consultation, administration, or other activities directed toward the NS community’s welfare. Activities including, but not limited to, advising students and/or mentoring colleagues; participation in professional organizations; working with NS faculty, staff, and students in the best interests of the academic community and the people it serves and to the extent that the job performance of the faculty member’s unit is not otherwise adversely affected; membership on and contributions to NS or NSHE committees and recognition and respect outside NS for participation in activities that use the faculty member’s knowledge and expertise, further the mission of NS, or provide an opportunity for professional growth through interaction with industry, business, government, and other institutions at the local, state, national, or global level (NSHE Code Section 7.4.2). 

Scholarship: Activities including, but not limited to, creation, application, synthesis, or transmission of knowledge; cross-disciplinary collaboration; acquiring and sustaining faculty expertise; and, in appropriate fields or disciplines, visual, performing, and literary arts that express original ideas, interpretations, imaginations, thoughts, or feelings (NSHE Code Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2). NS recognizes three categories of Scholarship: Growth and Development (qualifies as Scholarship for Lecturers), Scholarship of Discovery and Creation, and Scholarship of Dissemination. 

Scholarship of Discovery and Creation: Engagement in activities that lead to the development or production of research findings or, in relevant fields, artistic creations.

Scholarship of Dissemination: Communicating findings, knowledge, product/s, or artistic work related to Scholarship for the benefit of others.

Scholarship of Growth and Development: Maintaining currency of knowledge and advancements related to Teaching, mentoring, and other professional activities while developing additional skills.

Teaching: Activities associated with instruction of students, including, but not limited to, lecture course, laboratory, practicum, and laboratory instruction; course preparation; holding regular office hours; evaluation of students’ performance; direction of independent study, student research, and thesis projects; and consultations with students enrolled in classes.

Tenure: A status granted to an eligible academic faculty member after a Probationary Period that provides protection from summary dismissal.

Timeline: Required timing and procedures for faculty to submit materials for the promotion and/or Tenure may be found within NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy Timeline.

Unit Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee: LASB does not have a School level P&T Committee. Rather, each academic Department is treated as a Unit for the purposes of P&T evaluations. Unit Committees are comprised of three tenured faculty members drawn from the Unit’s ranks. For applications for promotion to the rank of Professor, faculty at the rank of Professor are preferred, but Tenured faculty at the rank of Associate Professor may serve with approval of the Dean.

PROCEDURES

I. Overview and Philosophy

This document serves as policy and guidelines for promotion and Tenure at all faculty ranks. The major objective of Tenure is to provide a substantial degree of security to those persons who have exhibited excellent abilities, sufficient to convince the Nevada community that their expected Services and performances in the future justify the privileges afforded by Tenure (NSHE Code Chapter 7, Section 7.1.2). The purpose of promotion is to advance and compensate full-time faculty with a demonstrated record of excellence in Teaching/OPD and appropriate levels of Service and Scholarship. Advancement is reflected in promotion in Academic Rank or level, and compensation reflected in an increase in salary.

This document outlines the guidelines and expectations for the LASB Unit P&T Committees and the LASB Dean to review and submit their recommendations to the Provost and NS P&T Committee as to whether an applicant should receive promotion and/or Tenure. The President will make all final promotion decisions, and will forward all positive Tenure recommendations to the Nevada Board of Regents. The Board of Regents will vote on Tenure appointments.

II. Guidelines and Expectations for Tenure and Promotion to Rank III Associate Professor

The only areas evaluated for promotion and Tenure decisions shall be Teaching/OPD, Scholarship, and Service.

Evaluations for Tenure and promotion in LASB assess faculty’s developmental progression in Teaching/OPD, Scholarship, and Service. In Teaching, faculty are expected to demonstrate advances in pedagogy and contributions to the overall Teaching program. In OPD, faculty are expected to demonstrate a record of excellence in performing assigned duties in the position description, including demonstrated effectiveness, efficiency, and professional growth and improvement over the course of the Probationary Period. In Scholarship, faculty are expected to publish at least one Peer Reviewed journal article or Peer Reviewed, discipline-appropriate equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet. Because the Scholarship process varies by discipline and may involve progression over multiple years, Tenure expectations for Scholarship should focus on the faculty member’s cumulative accomplishments completed when applying for promotion during the Probationary Period at NS. In Service, faculty are expected to progress in their Service commitments and progressively assume additional responsibilities in one’s Department, LASB, and NS. Faculty are encouraged, but not required, to demonstrate evidence of sustained commitment to DEI at NS in Teaching, Scholarship, and/or Service. More detailed examples and expectations for Teaching/OPD, Scholarship, and Service are found in Appendix A and in NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy.

To receive Tenure and promotion, the NS Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee must assign a candidate’s portfolio a rating of “Excellent” in the area of Teaching/OPD and a minimum rating of “Satisfactory” in the areas of Scholarship and Service. Candidates should submit a portfolio, per the page limit outlined in the Promotion and Tenure application, that addresses these criteria for promotion and Tenure.

	Teaching/OPD	Scholarship	Service
Required Rating for Tenure and Promotion	Excellent	Satisfactory, Commendable, or Excellent	Satisfactory, Commendable, or Excellent

The Unit P&T Committee and the LASB Dean will each recommend ratings for each area, as well as their recommendation as to whether the applicant should receive promotion and Tenure, using the below guidelines and expectations specific to LASB for each area of evaluation.

Per the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy, academic faculty (with the exception of those housed in the Library) must teach a minimum of 50% of the Teaching load expected for their position during the full Probationary Period to be eligible for Tenure (Section III.F.). These credits may be taught in any combination of academic terms, including winter and summer sessions, during the Probationary Period. A-contract faculty must teach a minimum of 75 total credits and B-contract faculty must teach a minimum of 60 credits during the Probationary Period. Academic faculty with other Teaching loads specified in their contract must teach a minimum of 50% of the specified total credits expected for their Probationary Period.

Annual review criteria hold Tenure-track faculty to high-performance standards in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service. While ratings on annual reviews inform a faculty’s promotion and Tenure review process, ratings may vary between annual reviews and the promotion and Tenure review. Annual reviews are meant to inform faculty of their progress toward promotion and Tenure, but they are not an equivalent: annual reviews do not substitute for NS and NSHE requirements to earn promotion and/or Tenure as outlined below.

Therefore, annual review ratings are contextualized to represent expectations for “Unsatisfactory”, “Satisfactory”, “Commendable”, and “Excellent” ratings in the Tenure and promotion application process. The promotion and Tenure ratings will be based on faculty members’ cumulative performance during the time leading up to the Tenure and promotion review per the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy. An overall rating from the NS P&T Committee of “Unsatisfactory” in any area disqualifies a candidate from promotion and Tenure.

Authorized periods of leave, paid or unpaid, may be excluded from the required number of years of employment upon written request of the faculty member and approval of the Dean and Provost in accordance with published policy. Such requests should be submitted in writing, via email, to the Dean and Provost, and should include a justification for the request.

Per the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy, the period of probation may exceed seven years, allowing a faculty member to apply for Tenure later than the end of their fifth academic year, upon written request of the faculty member and approval of the President. Requests must be received no later than April 1st of the calendar year in which the faculty member is scheduled to apply for Tenure (e.g., a candidate scheduled to apply for Tenure in August 2025 must submit an extension request no later than April 1, 2025). The decision to grant the faculty member’s request is at the sole discretion of the President (NSHE Code Chapter 7, Section 7.3.1[d]).

II.A       Teaching/Other Professional Duties

Faculty must have a pattern of growth and excellence as an instructor. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: demonstrated Teaching effectiveness and use of evidence-based practices for instructional design and delivery; the ability to communicate effectively with students and create an inclusive learning environment for a diverse student body; and demonstrated skill in class management and performance of other duties related to Teaching and mentoring students. Faculty with OPD must have a record of excellence in performing assigned duties in the position description, including demonstrated effectiveness, efficiency, and professional growth and improvement over the course of the Probationary Period.

For supporting documentation of Teaching/OPD effectiveness faculty members applying for Tenure and promotion in LASB shall provide a brief narrative description, not to exceed 10 pages, of excellence in Teaching/OPD. This narrative will provide context for the review of the individual’s excellence in Teaching or OPD. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Excellent” is achieved in Teaching. Pedagogical rigor for each LASB course shall be prioritized over student perception and evaluation of Teaching effectiveness when a candidate makes a case for a rating of Excellent in Teaching.

II.B       Scholarship

To receive Tenure, the candidate must have a record of accomplishments in the Scholarship of Dissemination leading to Peer Reviewed contributions or equivalent that are appropriate to the candidate’s field, position, and requirements or expectations of program-specific accrediting bodies. It is the candidate’s responsibility to present evidence that the body of Scholarship completed during the Probationary Period is sufficient to merit granting of Tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.

Faculty members applying for Tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description not exceeding three pages regarding Scholarship. This narrative will provide context for the review of the individual’s rating in Scholarship. External validation (Peer Reviewed) of one’s work in a published or exhibited product is requisite for promotion and Tenure at NS. One published Peer Reviewed journal article or Peer Reviewed, discipline-appropriate equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet is required for a “Satisfactory” rating and Tenure. Faculty will be required to demonstrate the status or quality of the outlet for equivalent works. Publications, or the equivalent, will be considered for Tenure and promotion only if they are published with NS as the faculty member’s affiliation, unless other arrangements are made at the time of hire and included in the faculty member’s contract. Faculty must include descriptions of the publications that indicate that the outlet is a reputable Peer Reviewed journal.

Evidence of productive Scholarship may 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. Scholarly collaboration is encouraged and supported by the faculty of LASB, and each candidate’s contribution to a Peer Reviewed publication, per discipline best practices, will be considered for the purpose of promotion and Tenure.

Predatory or pay-for-publication outlets are not admissible. 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.

II.C.      Service

The applicant must have a record of meaningful, active Service to the faculty member’s students, program, Unit, the broader institution, and/or the community. Faculty members applying for Tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed three pages, describing performance in Service. This narrative will provide a context for reviewing the individual’s contributions to LASB, NS, to students, to the profession, and to the community. A consistent rating of “Satisfactory” on annual reviews is not equivalent to a rating of “Satisfactory” on the Tenure review. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Satisfactory” or higher is achieved in Service.

III.        Guidelines and Expectations for Promotion to Rank IV Professor

In evaluating a candidate’s qualifications for promotion to Professor, any accomplishments relevant to the criteria for promotion occurring during the period since successful application to Associate Professor may be considered. The applicant must present evidence of continued effective performance in Teaching/OPD, Scholarship, and Service that align with the criteria outlined for granting Tenure and promotion from the Associate Professor’s rank. An Associate Professor is expected to be in the position for five years before applying for promotion to Professor. Promotion to Professor is optional, and an applicant may apply multiple times.

The rank of Professor is awarded to those who demonstrate the following: cumulative and ongoing professional achievements; significant contributions to advancing the University’s mission; continued innovation and dedication in Teaching/OPD; leadership with sustained contributions in Service beneficial to the University and NS’ internal and/or external communities in significant ways; professional growth and improvement over time germane to the applicant’s position; and scholarly contributions. Faculty are encouraged, but not required, to demonstrate evidence of sustained commitment to DEI at NS in Teaching, Scholarship, and/or Service. More detailed examples and expectations for Teaching/OPD, Scholarship, and Service are found in Appendix B and in the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy.

To be eligible for promotion to Professor, the University P&T Committee must assign a candidate’s portfolio a rating of “Excellent” in the area of Teaching/OPD and a “Commendable” in either Scholarship or Service with rating of at least “Satisfactory” in the third area. An overall rating from the NS P&T Committee of “Unsatisfactory” in any area disqualifies a candidate from promotion.

III.A      Teaching/Other Professional Duties

The applicant for promotion to rank of Professor must provide evidence of consistent, sustained activities and contributions that benefit the University community. Faculty members applying for this promotion shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed 10 pages, describing performance in Teaching/OPD.

For Teaching, candidates should demonstrate continued innovation, professional growth, and improvement that builds on evidence-based practices and the candidate’s own evolving methods or practices. It is expected that the candidate will share successful efforts with other faculty and their professional community through leadership in campus initiatives related to their position and fulfillment of the University’s mission. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Excellent” is sustained in Teaching.

For OPD, applicants must show consistent, sustained, and meaningful undertaking and execution of professional duties, including serving in capacities that benefit the University, the profession, the community, and/or NSHE when relevant. Faculty members applying for this promotion shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed 10 pages, describing performance in OPD. Professional duties rendered to the University will be given the most emphasis during the evaluation process. With promotion to Professor, the rank comes with the expectation that the candidate will have fulfilled other obligations professionally, with leadership roles being a prominent part of those duties. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Excellent” is achieved in the category of Teaching/OPD over the post-Tenure period.

III.B      Scholarship

Candidates for promotion to rank of Professor must show scholarly contributions in the post-Tenure period. Faculty members applying for this promotion shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed three pages, describing performance in Scholarship. Candidates must include accomplishments in the Scholarship of Dissemination leading to Peer Reviewed contributions or equivalent that are appropriate to the candidate’s field, position, and requirements or expectations of program-specific accrediting bodies. The candidate’s responsibility is to make a case that the level of “Satisfactory,” or higher is achieved in Scholarship while being in the Associate Professor’s rank. One published Peer Reviewed journal article or Peer Reviewed, discipline-appropriate equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet is required for a “Satisfactory” rating. All scholarly work under consideration for application to Professor must be produced since the time of successful application to Associate Professor and while the applicant is affiliated with NS.

III.C.     Service

Applicants must show consistent, sustained, and meaningful Service, including serving in capacities that benefit the University, NS staff, NS students, the profession, NSHE, the broader institution, and/or the community. Faculty members applying for this promotion shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed three pages, describing performance in Service. Service to the University will carry the most significance during the evaluation process and should include leadership roles. With promotion to Professor, the rank comes with the expectation that the candidate will have fulfilled Service obligations professionally, with leadership roles being a prominent part of that Service. The candidate’s responsibility is to make a case that the level of “Satisfactory” or higher is achieved in Service over the post-Tenure period.

III. Guidelines and Expectations for Promotion of Rank I Non-Tenure-Track Lecturers

Full-time academic faculty in Lecturer (Rank I, Level I) and Senior Lecturer (Rank I, Level II) positions who satisfy the required years of employment are eligible to apply for promotion. Lecturers are not required to apply for promotion; however, those applying for promotion to Senior Lecturer or Distinguished Lecturer (Rank I, Level III) will submit their materials in accordance with the published timeline.

Lecturers must complete five full academic years of employment at NS, or a combination of four years of employment at NS with a year of credit awarded for full-time employment at another accredited institution as determined and approved by their supervisory Dean, to be eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer.

Faculty at the level of Senior Lecturer must complete nine full years of employment at NS (with a minimum of three full academic years at the level of Senior Lecturer) or a combination of eight years of employment at NS (with a minimum of three full academic years at the level of Senior Lecturer) in addition to a year of credit awarded for full-time employment at another accredited institution or as a full-time faculty member on a temporary contract at NS, as determined and approved by their supervisory Dean, to apply for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer. Temporary or emergency Lecturer contracts may be used to satisfy one full academic year of this requirement.

Authorized periods of leave, paid or unpaid, may be excluded from the required number of years of employment upon written request of the faculty member and approval of the Dean and Provost in accordance with published policy. Such requests should be submitted in writing, via email, to the Dean and Provost, and should include a justification for the request.

For a candidate to receive a promotion to Senior Lecturer, the NS P&T Committee must assign a candidate’s portfolio a rating of “Excellent” in Teaching /OPD and a minimum rating of “Satisfactory” in both Service and Scholarship of Growth and Development. Faculty are encouraged, but not required, to demonstrate evidence of sustained commitment to DEI at NS in Teaching, Scholarship, and/or Service. More detailed examples and expectations for Teaching/OPD, Scholarship of Growth and Development, and Service are found in Appendix C and in the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy.

For a candidate to receive a promotion to Distinguished Lecturer, the NS P&T Committee must assign the applicant’s portfolio an overall rating of “Excellent” in the area of Teaching/OPD as well as a rating of “Commendable” in either Scholarship of Growth and Development or Service. An overall rating from the NS P&T Committee of “Unsatisfactory” in any area disqualifies a candidate from promotion.

IV.A     Teaching/Other Professional Duties

Faculty members applying for promotion to Senior Lecturer shall provide a brief narrative description, not to exceed 10 pages, of excellence in Teaching. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s Teaching excellence, and it is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Excellent” is achieved. Those applying for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer must provide evidence of a pattern of sustained and substantial excellence in Teaching, with meaningful contributions in other areas of evaluation. Appropriate and consistent application of rigor for each course shall be prioritized over student perception of Teaching effectiveness when a candidate makes a case for a rating of “Excellent” in Teaching.

IV.B.    Scholarship of Growth and Development

The applicant must have a record of continuing activities in the Scholarship of Growth and Development. Faculty members applying for this shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed three pages, describing performance in this area. Evidence may include, but is not limited to the following: professional growth through skills training and acquisition, relevant professional certifications, participation at educational events such as webinars and workshops that develop professional competencies, training or mentoring in specialized teaching techniques, learning new technological skills for teaching, demonstrated engagement with emerging trends in teaching or one’s discipline, pursuing additional education germane to teaching or one’s discipline, and other activities expand knowledge base or improve instruction methods. The applicant may choose to pursue other kinds of scholarship such as the creation, application, synthesis, or transmission of knowledge, but this is not required. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Satisfactory,” or higher is achieved in the Scholarship of Growth and Development while in the rank of Lecturer. Those applying for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer must make a case that the level of “Satisfactory” or higher is sustained in Scholarship of Growth and Development while at the rank of Senior Lecturer.

IV.C.    Service

The applicant must have a record of meaningful, active Service to the faculty member’s students, program, unit, or broader institution. Faculty members applying to Senior Lecturer shall provide a brief narrative, not to exceed three pages, describing performance in Service. This narrative will provide a context for reviewing the individual’s contributions to LASB, NS, to students, to the profession, to the broader institution, and/or the community. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “Satisfactory” or higher is achieved in Service while at the rank of Lecturer. Those applying for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer must make a case that the level of “Satisfactory” or higher is sustained in Service while at the rank of Senior Lecturer. Annual review ratings are used to inform the promotion process, but the annual review and promotion rankings may vary.

V.         Guidelines and Expectations for Annual Reviews for Full-Time Faculty

LASB 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. Faculty are encouraged, but not required, to demonstrate evidence of sustained commitment to DEI at NS in Teaching, Scholarship, and/or Service.

The academic evaluation process and reward system in LASB have three purposes: to provide the means by which faculty, through annual reviews, progress through the academic ranks; to certify high achievement; and, to determine eligibility for merit pay when applicable. The annual review is meant to serve as a guide of progress toward promotion and/or Tenure, but not as a substitute for the criteria for promotion and Tenure.

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 obligations may diminish a faculty member’s annual review ratings, regardless of other contributions.

V.A.     Annual Review

Faculty will submit a self-evaluation each year responding to goals and listing accomplishments in consultation with the supervisor or evaluator. The annual review will include goals for the faculty member to achieve in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service to ensure they are on track toward Tenure and/or promotion. At each annual review, the faculty member must provide a copy of the annual review goals agreed upon at the previous year’s review and indicate which items they completed. As part of the annual review, the faculty member will indicate progress toward each goal during the year under consideration, with an emphasis on Teaching goals. Faculty members may not fully accomplish each goal, but should demonstrate effort toward achieving them while striving for development. Faculty may also indicate accomplishments beyond the goals, and new faculty who do not have an annual review plan from a previous year should also discuss accomplishments rather than goal fulfillment.

V.B.     Annual Review Portfolio

Faculty will submit an annual review self-evaluation form each year responding to goals and listing accomplishments. Faculty may also submit a portfolio, excluding instructions but including the self-evaluation form, of no more than 27 pages: the first 12 pages include six pages for the self-evaluation form plus two optional pages per narrative on Teaching/OPD, Scholarship, and Service; the subsequent 15 pages may include additional evidence or materials related to accomplishments. Faculty may be required by their supervisor to submit a narrative in addition to lists or tables, not applicable to the page limit. The page limit on evidence does not apply to the following: curriculum vitae, syllabi, student evaluations, student papers submitted to demonstrate instructor feedback, or items specifically requested by the evaluator after receiving the annual review file.

V.C.     Teaching/Other Professional Duties

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 in an inclusive environment. Teaching primarily reflects instruction-related activities that directly impact student learning. Because NS is a Teaching institution, offering engaging and meaningful instruction is a highly valued activity in LASB.

According to the NS’ 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 of no more than two pages 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.

Faculty with OPD, including activities supported through course release, should submit an additional narrative of no more than two pages that outline the duties and their impact, when possible.

V.D.     Ratings for Annual Reviews

V.D.I    Ratings for Teaching

LASB defines Teaching as a faculty member’s professional responsibilities to NS and to its students. Teaching is an essential element of an academic faculty member’s position, and an integral part of creating a healthy and thriving campus and local community through the field of higher education. Institutions such as NS value the Teaching contributions of its faculty. It is the primary avenue by which faculty fulfill our mission. First and foremost, faculty are expected to demonstrate excellence in Teaching.

Rating	Definition	Criteria
Excellent	Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner	Faculty consistently meet and exceed Commendable performance standards as well as consistently and effectively elevate students’ learning experiences through student-centered pedagogy, thoughtfully-designed activities and assignments, and inclusive classroom practices
Commendable	Exceeds expectations	Faculty meet and exceed Satisfactory performance standards and make effort to elevate students’ learning experiences through student-centered pedagogy, thoughtfully-designed activities and assignments, and inclusive classroom practices
Satisfactory	Meets expectations	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 written student complaints related to an instructor’s courses
Unsatisfactory	Fails to meet expectations	A rating of Unsatisfactory indicates that a faculty member has not effectively executed some essential Teaching responsibilities and/or their approach to Teaching and assessment results in significant student complaints

V.D.II.  Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

Material evaluated for annual reviews include required and suggested materials. These include supervisory course observations, student course evaluations, grade distribution charts, an evaluation of syllabi, teaching materials, or learning management system course builds, and any other evidence of student learning or accomplishment provided by the faculty member or requested by the evaluator. No single item should determine the rating, but rather all evidence should be taken together as a whole. The faculty member may also submit a request, accompanied by a justification, that the evaluator exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates from consideration, or the evaluator may use independent discretion to exclude them.

Items submitted as evidence of Teaching effectiveness should relate to the quality of the learning environment provided to students in courses at NS. Additionally, participation in professional development activities, especially when resulting in specific changes or improvements to course methods, may be included in the Teaching section for tenure-track Faculty and Lecturers; however, only Lecturers may include this as Scholarship. Other items that may be related to Teaching such as research or publications in the Scholarship of Teaching or mentoring students toward making a conference presentation as defined in this document, may be categorized as Scholarship. When there is a choice of placement, the candidate may make that decision.

V.D.III. Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

• Syllabus for each course taught during the review period that incorporates the elements in the standard LASB template.
• Official student evaluations, aggregated across each course taught during the review period, and the faculty member may request that the evaluator exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates.
• Record of office hours such as those included in syllabi, posted on an office door, or posted in a digital space.
• Final grade distributions, aggregated across each course taught during the review period, supplied by Institutional Research.
• Teaching observation/s from the Department Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Aforementioned teaching narrative, not to exceed two pages, highlighting Teaching exemplars and other examples of Teaching effectiveness.

V.D.IV. Additional Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

These activities may include, but are not limited to the following.

• 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.
• Peer observations of Teaching conducted by faculty peers.
• Video or audio recordings of Teaching.
• Descriptions of innovative Teaching methods used.
• Grade distributions for specific 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 digital address of any other technological assignment completed by students.
• Nomination and/or recipient of Teaching awards.
• Evidence of excellent student coursework such as published in undergraduate journals/magazine, accepted for conferences, including performance at literary and arts festivals.
• Student reflections/portfolios.
• Other discipline-specific evidence of Teaching effectiveness.
• Recipient of an external Teaching-related grant.
• Additional evidence as requested by the faculty member’s Department Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Evidence with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.D.V.  Activities Related to Teaching

As a part of their Teaching responsibilities, faculty members often participate in related activities that enrich the quality of instruction at NS. A description of these activities should be provided in the annual review materials. These activities may include, but are not limited to the following.

• New preparations or substantial revisions or improvements to a course that one is Teaching to be counted in the year the course is first offered by the faculty.
• Fieldwork supervision as part of a course.
• Supervision of course assistants or supplemental instructors.
• Develop and lead campus-wide Teaching opportunity, such as a speaker series or pedagogical workshop.
• Develop and lead in-class workshops for students.
• Structure mentorship for peer tutors/mentors in students support.
• Evidence with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.D.VI. Ratings Guidelines for Teaching

Excellent: faculty consistently meet and exceed “Commendable” performance standards as well as consistently and effectively elevate students’ learning experiences through student-centered pedagogy, thoughtfully-designed activities and assignments, and inclusive classroom practices. Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.

• Evaluations with consistently positive written (qualitative) comments and numerical ratings (quantitative). These will be evaluated holistically and faculty may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores within their Teaching narrative.
• Receiving a Teaching award.
• Consistently integrates active learning strategies in the classroom.
• Consistently designs and/or integrates highly-engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted toward the respective course and student learning outcomes.
• Designs innovative student assessments or activities that assess the highest levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
• Uses techniques or assignments that build, scaffold, or strengthen student learning over the term.
• Demonstrates efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from published literature on Teaching effectiveness.
• Earns external certification in Teaching practices.
• Uses evidence-based feedback techniques when evaluating student work such as live grading, “wise” feedback, or post-exam reflection.
• Is highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students.
• Demonstrates consistent and well-researched innovation in pedagogy such as technologies and teaching techniques that is practically applied and successful most of the time.
• Demonstrates use of inclusive policies such as late policies and assignment revision policies.
• Demonstrates responsiveness to students’ individual circumstances such as identifying students who need additional support or who show improvement.
• Effectively integrates written work and use of data-driven strategies that improve student writing skills.
• Evaluators may also consider the acceptance of an external Teaching grant as evidence of excellence in Teaching and professional development.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: faculty consistently meet and exceed “Satisfactory” performance standards as well as consistently and effectively elevate students’ learning experiences through student-centered pedagogy, thoughtfully-designed activities and assignments, and inclusive classroom practices.

• Meets goals set in the annual review plan.
• Evaluations with mostly positive written (qualitative) comments and numerical ratings (quantitative). These will be evaluated holistically and faculty may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably low scores within their Teaching narrative.
• Develops and uses innovative course materials, Teaching and active-learning techniques, or technologies.
• Adapts and improves Teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Provides individualized feedback on student work.
• Applies appropriate rigor for the course level.
• Designs multiple forms of assessments or activities that measure various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
• Incorporates or significantly addresses diversity issues in courses or course materials such as readings, texts, or other materials that are from culturally diverse authors or on culturally diverse topics.
• Incorporates practices that foster an inclusive classroom such as universal design principles, culturally diverse and responsive examples, among others.
• Designs well-organized and navigable institutionally designated learning management system course shells.
• Uses experiential learning activities that include assessment of student learning.
• Uses NS student support Services such as CARE referral and Scorpion Success Network when appropriate.
• Assesses effectiveness of Teaching endeavors.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

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 written 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 includes a course description, course objectives, evaluation criteria/methods, and office hours; additionally, a well-developed and feasible calendar of course topics must be evidenced.
• Availability to students outside of classroom hours, such as 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. Where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to unreasonably poor student evaluations within their Teaching narrative.
• Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor that assess course learning outcomes.
• Grading assignments in a timely fashion.
• Demonstrated evidence of consistent 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 within their Teaching narrative explaining cases in which grade distributions are skewed, which will be considered by the Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations.

A rating of “Unsatisfactory” indicates that a faculty member has not effectively executed some essential Teaching responsibilities and/or their approach to Teaching and assessment results in significant student complaints. An “Unsatisfactory” rating indicates evidence of more than one of the following conditions.

• Fails to produce evidence of a “Satisfactory” performance (see above).
• Fails 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 written 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 within their Teaching narrative. This explanation will be considered by the Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee when determining whether an “Unsatisfactory” rating is appropriate.
• Rating of ‘poor’ through evaluator feedback in course evaluations.
• Little to no student-centered pedagogy.
• Fails to satisfactorily carry out essential Teaching responsibilities such as instruction, assessment of student work, posting grades.

V.E.      Ratings for Scholarship (Tenure-Track Faculty Only)

LASB sets the following rating guidelines for assessing Scholarship for the annual review for Tenure-track faculty members. These benchmarks are a guide. Evaluators may 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 a narrative provided by the faculty not to exceed two pages. A consistent rating of “Satisfactory” on annual reviews is not equivalent to a rating of “Satisfactory” on the Tenure or promotion review. Tenure and/or promotion-seeking faculty plan their Scholarship agendas in order to complete the required expectations listed in the guidelines in section II of this document and referenced in the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy.

Rating	Definition	Criteria
Excellent	Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner	Tenure Track Faculty: Distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions which advance knowledge, as indicated by one A level item or two B level items and two C level items or equivalent.
Commendable	Exceeds expectations	Tenure Track Faculty: Evidence of quality Peer Reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by either two B level items or equivalent or one B level item and two C level items or equivalent.
Satisfactory	Meets expectations	Tenure Track Faculty: Active program of quality research or creative activity which contributes to the discipline’s body of knowledge and includes either two C level items or equivalent or one B level item or equivalent.
Unsatisfactory	Fails to meet expectations	Tenure Track Faculty: Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.

V.E.I.    Evidence of Scholarship

May include, but are not limited to the following.

V.E.II.   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. Juried outlets are accorded more significance than publications that do not undergo Peer Review.

• Chapters in Books. Quality will be evaluated 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 within this subcategory. A book of translation that has significant scholarly framing also falls within this subcategory. Textbooks that compile and organize existing knowledge are weighted less than an author’s unique work, but the scope of works should be considered. Readings, edited books, and conference proceedings shall, in turn, be given less significance than standard textbooks.
• Artistic Production. NS respects the work of artistic scholars and supports their efforts. For those in fields where artistic production is standard, works that are creative in nature (fine art, production of films, creative writing, poetry, and others) will be evaluated within the context of norms for the candidate’s discipline.
• Undergraduate Research. Faculty members are encouraged to mentor and support 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 faculty take a more peripheral role in mentoring students or research projects. Student work accepted for publication in a professional, Peer Reviewed publication 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): the quality of the paper or poster; the quality of the conference; the scope of the conference such as international, national, regional, or local; the scope of the dissemination of the paper; whether the item was refereed; and whether the paper or poster was invited. Generally, formal presentations will be granted more significance than poster presentations. Evaluators may also grant more significance 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 NS funding. Grant and contract proposals should be evaluated in terms of the competitiveness of the funding agency and the scope of the funded research such as total amount funded and scope of research agenda.
• 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. Additional examples include attendance at professional events that further the production of this work such as writers’ conferences and generative workshops that lead to the advancement of manuscripts. Statements of Scholarship in progress should be supported by artifacts such as working drafts or notes.
• Peer Reviewed Creative Endeavors. Evidence provided for Scholarship production in other forms such as lectures, creative work, unique equipment, computer software/program design, video productions will be evaluated in terms of scope of dissemination, character of receiving audience, and prestige of validating authority, institution or agency. External validation of quality is essential.
• Other Scholarly Endeavors. Evidence provided for scholarly production in other forms, which may include but are not limited to lectures, software or app design, intellectual property development, patent applications, consulting, and related activities, will be evaluated according to discipline-specific practice and the scope of the work. External validation of such works may be requested by the evaluator.
• 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 length and/or quantity of manuscripts/publications reviewed, 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 such as newspapers and legitimate web magazines that advance the general public knowledge. Such activities are distinct from original Peer Reviewed contributions such as journal articles insofar as they may advance public awareness and education. 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.

• Evidenced scholarship with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.E.III.  Academic Leadership in Scholarship

May include, but are not limited to the following.

• 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.

• Guest editing an issue of a journal or collection/anthology
• Internal and cross-institutional mentorship of colleagues in scholarly production

• Active membership on editorial boards of scholarly journals or creative publications including journals/magazine.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.E.IV. National Recognition in Scholarship

May include, but are not limited to the following.

• 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.
• Serving as sole editor or managing
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.E.V.  Rating Scholarship in the Annual Review Process

Each year, Tenure-track 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 following categories. These should align with the Tenure and/or promotion guidelines in section II of this document and referenced in the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy. Work outlined below in Levels A and B are important work in the process toward Tenure and/or promotion, but should not be counted as a replacement for the A level work required for Tenure and/or promotion.

V.E.VI. Categories for Rating Evidence of Scholarship in the Annual Review

Contributions to Scholarship not listed will be taken into consideration during the review, based on the scope and contribution to knowledge to the relevant field.

Level A

Includes superior 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 and substance, not quantity), and demonstrates Scholarship that is Peer Reviewed, juried, or undergoes an external review. Examples of Level A Scholarship Items include the following.

• Acceptance of a Peer Reviewed journal article for publication.
• Substantial role in guiding an undergraduate research project that is accepted for Peer-Reviewed publication.
• Acceptance of a national level external research grant where 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 or publication of a substantial creative, major discipline-specific work that is nationally or regionally recognized in a Peer Reviewed venue such as major exhibition or film or novel release for those in the arts.
• Serving as editor of a Peer Reviewed journal, ideally for post-Tenured faculty.
• Guest editing an issue of a journal.
• Publication of a paper in the proceedings of a major conference.
• Creation and publication of a significant software application that serves academic, public, or business needs in a novel and major way.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Level B

Includes high-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent and emphasis for the Scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality, substance versus quantity. Examples of Level B Scholarship Items include the following.

• Substantial internal and/or cross-institutional mentorship of colleagues in scholarly production, that leads to presentations, submissions, or publications.
• Submission of a manuscript to a refereed publication for initial peer-review.
• 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 faculty member must provide evidence to show that the resubmission is equivalent to other Level A achievements.
• Submission of an external grant where the level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers. Submission of external grant applications that require significant research and preparation may be considered as a level A item at evaluators’ discretion.
• 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, symposium, colloquium, or other significant academic event, or similar invited scholarship (e.g., editorials, blogs).
• Refereeing a book for an academic press.
• Receipt of a local or regional external grant where level of contribution may be indicated by whether 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.
• Successful resubmission of an accepted book chapter that required substantial revisions or further research as documented by evidence.
• Acceptance of book prospectus.
• Participation in a Scholarship-oriented writing-group that meets regularly for one or more terms.
• Acceptance in a Scholarship-oriented institute or professional development opportunity requiring multi-day commitment such as Summer Scholarship Institute and statistics camp.
• Creation of a substantial, public-facing data project.
• Submission of a pre-print working paper demonstrating substantive statistical analysis.
• Creation and publication of a software application that serves academic, public, or business needs in a novel way.
• Management in the role of Principal or Co-Principal Investigator of an external grant where level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers. A management role of a large external grant may be considered a level A item at evaluators’ discretion.
• Development of novel intellectual property.
• Evidence of applied research.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Level C

Includes quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent and emphasis for the Scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality, substance versus quantity. Examples of Level C Scholarship Items include the following.

• Evidence of preparation of scholarly work with a clear timeline for completion such as pilot testing, data collection, literature reviews but not completed during the year under review. Faculty may generally receive credit for a single year of preparation for a given work, with the exception of multiyear book length projects.
• Submission of an Institutional Review Board protocol or equivalent to engage in research.
• Completion of human-subjects training or equivalent.
• Participation in a Scholarship oriented professional development opportunity requiring one-time commitment such as training workshop.
• Submission of scholarly work for presentation at a conference.
• Completion of other scholarly products such as software development or conference proceedings commensurate in effort or scope with other items in this list.
• Refereeing an article for a Peer Reviewed journal.
• Presentation of a new poster at professional conference.
• Publication of a research note or book review.
• Publication of a peer-recognized field-specific encyclopedia article.
• Submission of an external grant where the level of contribution may be indicated by whether faculty member is among principal researchers. Submission of external grant applications that require significant research and preparation may be considered as a level B or A item at evaluators’ discretion.
• Participation as personnel on an external grant where the level of contribution may be considered a level B item at evaluators’ discretion.
• Internal and/or cross-institutional mentorship of colleagues in scholarly production.
• Scholarly support activities associated with the publication of a major work such as interviews following book publication.
• Creation of a minor public-facing data project or aiding in the creation of a major public-facing project.
• Minor statistical consulting for an interdisciplinary academic work or public project such as one that merits acknowledgement but not authorship.
• Management of an external grant where the level of contribution may be indicated by whether ranked faculty member is among principal researchers. The acceptance of a management role of a large external grant may be considered a level B item at evaluators’ discretion.
• Two short discipline-specific published works that advance public knowledge but are non- refereed. 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.
• Evidenced activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.F.      Ratings for Service

LASB defines Service as a faculty member’s professional responsibilities to NS and its external community. Service is a standard element of an academic faculty member’s position, and an integral part of creating a healthy and thriving campus and local community through the field of higher education. Institutions such as NS value 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: Service to the institution, Service to students, and external Service to the profession and community. Faculty can demonstrate Service to all three areas; however, LASB places most emphasis on Service at the institutional level. 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 students, to the profession, to the community, and to external agencies. Tenure-seeking faculty plan their Service agendas in order to complete the required expectations listed in the guidelines in section II of this document and referenced in the NS AA 5.1 Promotion & Tenure Policy.

• A level service = 4 points
• B level service = 2 points
• C level service = 1 point

Rating	Definition	Criteria	Examples
Excellent	Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner	8 points for all faculty	1.    One level A and two level B items = 8 points 2.    One level A, one level B, and two level C items =8 points 3.    Three level B and two level C items = 8 points
Commendable	Exceeds expectations	6-7 points for all faculty	1.    Two level B and three level C items = 7 points 2.    One level A and one level B items = 6 points 3.    Three level B items = 6 points
Satisfactory	Meets expectations	4-5 points for fall faculty	1.    Two level B items and one level C item = 5 points 2.    One level B and three level C items = 5 points 3.    One level A item = 4 points
Unsatisfactory	Fails to meet expectations	0-3 points for all faculty	1.    One level B item and one level C item = 3 points 2.    Three level C items = 3 points 3.    One level B item = 2 points

V.F.I.    Evidence of Service

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 not to exceed two pages. The examples below are not exhaustive, and faculty may describe the amount of investment per Service activities at a higher level, to then be determined at evaluators’ discretion. Service may include stipend compensated activities. Faculty may be asked to provide additional evidence of Service contributions as requested by their evaluator during the review.

These ratings should align with the Tenure and/or promotion guidelines. Some examples below overlap with Teaching and/or Scholarship so that Lecturers may decide year over year where to place evidence in their annual reviews. Work outlined below in Levels B and C are important work in the process toward Tenure and/or promotion, but should not be counted as a replacement for the required A level work required for Tenure and/or promotion. Importantly, a faculty member who completes seven or more Level C activities would not meet the standards for “Commendable,” because it requires at least one Level B or A activity.

V.F.II.   Institutional Service

Level A

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. The examples below are not exhaustive, and faculty may describe the amount of investment per institutional Service activities at a higher level, to then be determined at evaluators’ discretion. Faculty may be asked to provide additional evidence of Service contributions as requested by their evaluator during the review.

Examples of Level A Service Items include the following.

• Serving as Faculty Senate chair.
• Serving as Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA) Chair.
• Serving as Curriculum Committee chair at the University level.
• Serving as the Promotion and Tenure Committee chair at the University level.
• Serving as a search committee chair at Department, School, or University level.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

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 include the following.

• Assisting with significant departmental Service such as evaluating part-time instructors, coordinating multi-section courses, or other similar responsibilities.
• Holding office in Faculty Senate including 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 a LASB Strategic Planning Chair.
• Serving as Assessment Day Chair.
• Serving on the Dean’s faculty advisory council.
• Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs such as proposing a new course, carrying out an NSHE curriculum initiative, or redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions.
• Leading ongoing faculty workshops or development such as an FLC or a workshop series.
• Leading NSU or NSHE programming initiatives such as CORE revisions, Corequisite revisions, or similar activities.
• Providing substantive comments, feedback, or multiple revisions on one or more school or campus-wide policies.
• Providing significant administrative support for programs or Department organization and function.
• Designing and leading all-campus events to foster campus community, pedagogy, and/or support such as Tunnel of Awareness, Nepantla Día de los Muertos, or similar activities.
• Developing and Teaching training workshops for faculty.
• Developing and leading groups for faculty and staff scholarly support.
• Serving as a faculty mentor or providing significant mentorship to another faculty member
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Level C

Substantive involvement in a single meaningful event such as a University fair or participation in an endeavor that requires a relatively low time commitment. Examples of Level C Service Items include the following.

• Leading a campus presentation.
• Serving on the Travel and Incentive Grant Committee or another committee with infrequent meetings.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Representing a Department or organization at an all-campus event.
• Participating in all-campus events to foster campus community, pedagogy, and/or support.
• Participating in NSU or NSHE programming initiatives such as CORE revisions, Corequisite revisions, or similar activities.
• Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• Serving as a LASB Strategic Planning member.
• Serving as a faculty liaison to Academic Advising.
• Provides some comments or feedback on a school or campus-wide policy.
• Drafting and submitting strategic initiative budget requests on behalf of Department or Unit.
• Providing administrative support for Department organization and function such as maintaining social media, websites, and/or bulletin board, and coordinating meeting agendas and/or taking and disseminating minutes.
• Participating in candidate-recruitment activities such as attending job talks and attending meetings and/or meals with the candidate as a non-committee member.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.F.III.  Student Service

Service contributions to the University also include support for students as these contribute to the mission or promote the objectives of NS. Examples of Service to students include providing mentorship or support to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty. Faculty members may submit relevant evidence such as list of students served, thank you letters, sign in sheets, summary of calendar meetings; written feedback to students, and/or copies of letters of recommendation that reflects Service contributions with students. Where relevant, faculty should indicate work with students who are underrepresented minorities, first-generation students, and/or other historically bypassed individuals. The examples below are not exhaustive, and faculty may describe the amount of investment per student related Service activities at a higher level, to then be determined at evaluators’ discretion. Faculty may be asked to provide additional evidence of Service contributions as requested by their evaluator during the review.

Level A

Level A activities are typically reserved for institutional Service (see Section V.F.II). However, a faculty member may argue that a particular combination of student Service activities goes beyond Level B and deserves a rating of Level A.

Level B

Involvement with one or more students that requires a moderate time commitment. Faculty may describe the time commitment. Examples of Level B Service Items include the following.

• Acting as a faculty advisor to a student organization.
• Documented mentorship of students that significantly extends beyond an advisory role.
• Documented student meetings that provide substantive mentorship such as career or professional advising that goes significantly beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.
• Student meetings that provide substantive personal support that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.
• Other documented significantly substantive student-centered activities that go well beyond a faculty advisory role.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Level C

Involvement with students that require a relatively low time commitment. Faculty may describe the time commitment. Examples of Level C Service Items include the following.

• Documented student meetings that provide some mentorship such as career or professional advising beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.
• Documented student meetings that provide some personal support beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.
• Writing letters of recommendation.
• Participating in a panel or professional for students.
• Providing substantive feedback on student applications or materials such as cover letters, resumes, and graduate statements.
• Other documented student-centered activities that go beyond a faculty advisory role.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

V.F.IV. External Service

External Service is defined by contributions of time, intellectual labor, and social value contributed to the profession and/or to the community. The examples below are not exhaustive, and faculty may describe the amount of investment per external related Service activities at a higher level to be determined at evaluators’ discretion. Faculty may be asked to provide additional evidence of Service contributions as requested by their Department Chair during the annual review process.

Level A

Activities are typically reserved for internal, institutional Service (see Section V.F.II). However, a faculty member may provide evidence 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 University may contend that the effort justifies Level A status.

Level B

Substantive involvement in a meaningful Service endeavor in the community that requires a moderate time commitment. Examples of Level B External Service items include the following.

• 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, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position and/or skills.
• Serving as an officer in a local, state, regional, or national professional or learned society.
• Creating and disseminating substantial pedagogical materials for a cross-institutional audience.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Level C

Substantive involvement in a single meaningful event such as participating as a speaker at a community event or participation in an endeavor that requires a relatively low time commitment. Examples of Level C External Service items include the following.

• 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 such as creating student internship opportunities.
• Volunteering with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Appendix A: Guidelines and Criteria for Rank II Assistant Professor to Rank III Associate Professor

I. Teaching and Other Professional Duties

 Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Consistently meets and exceeds “Commendable” performance standards.
• Consistent excellence in Teaching evidenced by evaluators’ observations.
• Consistently positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
• Sustained and evidenced responsiveness to student feedback through course evaluations.
• Consistent evidence of application of appropriate rigor for meeting course outcomes.
• 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.
• Course development, course sequence development; new areas of instruction; and/or significant improvements and revisions to curricula.
• Earning/maintaining external certification in Teaching/professional practices.
• Teaching awards through the University or professional organizations.
• Effective integration of written work and use of data driven strategies for improving student writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
• Being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students.
• Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy such as technologies and Teaching techniques that are practically applied and successful most of the time.
• Consistent demonstration of Teaching methodology consistent with best practices in DEI.
• Consistent demonstration of course content consistent with best practices in DEI.
• Documented and measurable application in the classroom of professional development centered on DEI.
• Documented dissemination of effective Teaching methodology with colleagues through formal workshops or other professional venues.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Exceeds “Satisfactory” performance standards.
• Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
• Consistent “Commendable” ratings in Teaching evidenced by evaluators’ observations
• Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
• 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 Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Assessment of the effectiveness of Teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes.
• Incorporation in the classroom of professional development and/or pedagogy centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
• Adequate evaluator feedback through course observations.
• Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
• Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
• Utilization of content that is relevant to the course.
• Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor.
• Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.
• Application in the classroom of professional development centered on DEI.
• Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

• Fails to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.
• Rating of poor through evaluator feedback through course observations.
• Little to no student-centered pedagogy.
• Failure to carry out Teaching responsibilities satisfactorily.

 II. Scholarship

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner that is distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions which advance knowledge consistent with a nationally recognized research agenda with outcomes as indicated by the following items and examples.

• Exceeds “Commendable” performance standards.
• Three or more published Peer Reviewed journal articles and/or three editor-reviewed book chapters and/or three Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents. Predatory or pay-for-publication outlets are not admissible.
• Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific book or Peer Reviewed, discipline specific equivalent.
• Invited addresses, symposia, colloquia, or presentations.
• Obtaining funding through competitive grant writing.
• Sustained demonstration of research centered on DEI in the faculty’s field of study
• Documented application of research centered on DEI with measurable outcomes such as peer citations.
• Documented dissemination of research methodology centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations with evidence of quality Peer Reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by the following items and examples.

• Exceeds “Satisfactory” performance standards.
• Two or more published Peer Reviewed articles and/or two editor-reviewed book chapters and/or two Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents. Predatory or pay-for-publication outlets are not admissible.
• A single article in a journal consensually defined in the field of study as a preeminent publication also may be considered; it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that the journal meets this standard.
• Production of professional reports, technical reports, monographs, and lab manuals.
• Leadership in regional, national, or international conferences to disseminate research findings such as conference planning, review of abstracts, organization of a conference.
• Refereeing a book, book chapter, or other significant work for an academic press.
• Research methodology germane to one’s field centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations with evidence of quality Peer Reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by the following items and examples.

• One published Peer Reviewed article or editor-reviewed book chapter or Peer Reviewed discipline appropriate equivalent. Predatory or pay-for-publication outlets are not admissible. This requirement can be accompanied by, but not replaced by, additional forms of Scholarship listed.
• Completion of an editor-reviewed book chapter.
• Active program of quality research or creative activity as exemplified by sustained involvement in scholarly activities.
• Conference papers or poster presentations or Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents.
• Mentorship of undergraduate research students.
• Publication of shorter works that advance public knowledge.
• Active membership on editorial or review boards of scholarly journals.
• Publication of a research note or book review.
• Submission of a Scholarship-based grant.
• Documented research centered on DEI germane to one’s field.
• Research methodology centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of a “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

III. Service

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Exceeds “Commendable” performance standards.
• Serving as a search committee chair for another NS Department.
• Serving as a search committee chair for LASB.
• Serving as Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee chair at the University level.
• Holding office in Faculty Senate or NFA such as such as Vice-Chair, Secretary, or Parliamentarian, secretary, or parliamentarian or in a significant professional or community organization.
• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Documented leadership Service activity at the Department, School, University, professional level centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Documented dissemination of Service or professional expertise centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Exceeds “Satisfactory” performance standards.
• Primary role in leading and organizing a campus-wide presentation.
• Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
• Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
• Chairing a Faculty Senate committee or actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
• Serving on the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
• Serving as a search committee member NS searches external to one’s Department.
• Serving as a search committee member for LASB.
• Serving as a Chairperson on a standing committee in LASB.
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization/s.
• Leading a CTLE Faculty Learning Community.
• Contributing in a significant way such as public lecture or workshop facilitation for a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
• Writing a grant for a community organization.
• Serving as a Board Member for a community or professional organization.
• Establishing partnerships with external organizations such as creating student internship opportunities.
• Documented collaborative Service activity at the Department, School, University, professional level centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Serving on a University-level Committee.
• Serving on an LASB ad-hoc task force.
• Serving on an LASB sub-committee.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• Serving on an LASB or Department level standing committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are demonstrated through evidence.
• Volunteering with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
• Participating in a Department, School, University, professional, or community organization centered on social justice and/or DEI with documented time and contributions.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

Appendix B: Guidelines and Criteria for Rank III Associate Professor to Rank IV Professor

I. Teaching

 Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Consistently meets and exceeds “Commendable” performance standards.
• Consistent evidence of application of appropriate rigor for meeting course outcomes.
• Consistently positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
• Continued innovation that builds on the best pedagogical practices and the candidate’s own evolving methods.
• Mentorship and leadership to share successful practices with other faculty and the Teaching community.
• Teaching awards through the University or professional organizations.
• 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 personal reflection, student evaluations, and published literature on Teaching effectiveness.
• Earning/maintaining external certification in Teaching/professional practices.
• Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies for improving student writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
• Development of new methods to ensure the participation of all students through attention to classroom dynamics and best practices.
• Continued innovation in andragogy such as technologies and Teaching techniques to achieve positive student outcomes.
• Documented sustained application in the classroom of professional development centered on DEI.
• Documented and sustained dissemination of effective Teaching methodology with colleagues through formal workshops or other professional venues.
• Participation in University level assessment retreats, focusing on course and program student learning outcomes.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Exceeds “Satisfactory” performance standards.
• Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
• Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
• Development and use of innovative course materials, Teaching and active-learning techniques, or technologies.
• Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom.
• Adapting and improving Teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Participation in the structured assessment of the effectiveness of Teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes.
• Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
• Incorporation in the classroom of professional development and/or pedagogy centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations in a sustained manner through a demonstration of several items and examples below.

• Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
• Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
• Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
• Utilization of content that is relevant to the course.
• Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor.
• Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.
• Application in the classroom of professional development centered on DEI.
• Participating in a Department, School, University, professional, or community organization centered on social justice and/or DEI with documented time and contributions.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

 II. Scholarship

Excellent: Contributions should have an impact on the discipline at a national level and are distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions that advance knowledge, as indicated by the following items and examples.

• Exceeds “Commendable” performance standards.
• Published three or more Peer Reviewed articles and/or editor-reviewed book chapters and/or Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet. This does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets.
• Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific book.
• Development of a model or practice that is widely adopted.
• Invited address, symposia, colloquia or presentation.
• Obtaining funding through competitive grant writing, including management of an external grant.
• Editor of a Peer Reviewed journal.
• Mentorship of other faculty in research.
• Documented application of research centered on DEI with measurable outcomes such as peer citations.
• Documented dissemination of research methodology centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: Evidence of quality Peer Reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by the following items and examples.

• Exceeds “Satisfactory” performance standards.
• Published two Peer Reviewed articles and/or two editor-reviewed book chapters and/or Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents in a scholarly journal or outlet. This does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets. A single article in a journal consensually defined in the field of study as a preeminent publication also may be considered; it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that the journal meets this standard.
• One Peer Reviewed book chapter or scholarly equivalent.
• Production of professional reports, technical reports, monographs and lab manuals.
• Leadership in regional, national, or international conferences for dissemination of research findings such as conference planning, review of abstracts, organization of conference.
• Documented application of research centered on DEI.
• Documented research methodology centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations with an active program of quality research or creative activity, since achieving Tenure, as exemplified by sustained involvement in scholarly activities, such as the following items and examples.

• Published one Peer Reviewed article or Peer Reviewed, discipline-specific equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet. Predatory or pay-for-publication outlets are not admissible.
• Completion of an editor-reviewed book chapter.
• Exhibition or release of a substantial creative work in a Peer Reviewed venue related to discipline specific aesthetics such as poetry, art, and music.
• Conference papers or poster presentations or Peer Reviewed, discipline specific equivalents.
• Mentorship of undergraduate research, including guiding students in the publication of their work.
• Publication of shorter works that advance public knowledge.
• Active membership on editorial or review boards of scholarly journals.
• Publication of a research note or book review.
• Submission of a Scholarship based grant.
• Refereeing a book or other major work for an academic press.
• Documented research centered on DEI per the faculty member’s field.
• Research methodology with centered on DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of a “Satisfactory performance. See above.

III. Service

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner with items and examples below.

• Serving as a search committee chair for other NSU Department needs.
• Serving as a search committee chair for LASB.
• Serving as Curriculum Committee chair at the University level.
• Serving as Promotion & Tenure Committee chair at the University level.
• Holding office in Faculty Senate or NFA as Vice-Chair, Secretary, or Parliamentarian, or holding office in a significant professional or community organization.
• Serving on an NSHE committee or advisory board.
• Taking a leadership role in a University task force to advance the University mission.
• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills and increases the visibility or stature of the University.
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Documented leadership Service activity at the Department, School, University, professional level centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Documented dissemination of Service or professional expertise centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Documented writing and/or significant revision of policy to positively impact social justice and/or DEI at the unit or University level.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations with items and examples below.

• Primary role in leading and organizing a campus-wide presentation.
• Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
• Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
• Chairing a Faculty Senate committee or actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
• Serving on the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
• Serving as a search committee member NS searches external to one’s Department.
• Serving as a search committee member for LASB.
• Serving as a Chairperson on a standing committee in LASB.
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization/s.
• Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs such as redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions.
• Leading a CTLE Faculty Learning Community.
• Providing individual mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.
• Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
• Writing a grant for a community organization.
• Serving as a Board Member for a community or professional organization.
• Establishing partnerships with external organizations such as creating student internship opportunities.
• Documented collaborative Service activity at the Department, School, University, professional level centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Satisfactory: Meets expectations with items and examples below.

• Serving on a University-level Committee or an LASB ad-hoc task force.
• Serving on a LASB ad-hoc task force or an LASB sub-committee.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• Serving on an LASB committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are evidenced
• Volunteering with a private or public organization relating to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

IV. Other Professional Duties

 Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner with items and examples below.

• Documented pattern of building operational excellence including the development, implementation, evaluation, and/or revision of professional duties and/or areas of supervision to the University with favorable measurable outcomes for multiple stakeholders.
• Evidence of excellent management of staff through staff and supervisor evaluations.
• Documented improvement with measurable results or new initiatives with measurable results related to social justice and/or DEI related to the professional area of responsibility.
• Evidence of meeting deliverables required for OPD and improving processes, procedures, or implementing other innovative strategies or practices.

• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations with items and examples below.

• Evidence of creating and/or sustaining operational excellence with attention to DEI for unit or University stakeholders.
• Evidence of “Commendable” management of staff through staff and supervisor evaluations.
• Documented improvement or new initiatives related to social justice and/or DEI related to the professional area of responsibility.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations with items and examples below.

• Evidence of sustaining operational excellence.
• Evidence of excellent attention to DEI for unit or University stakeholders.
• Evidence of satisfactory management of staff through staff and supervisor evaluations, if applicable.
• Evidence of meeting deliverables in a timely fashion.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

Appendix C: Guidelines and Criteria for Lecturer to Senior Lecturer and for Senior Lecturer to Distinguished Lecturer

I. Teaching/Other Professional Duties

Some examples below overlap with Service and/or Scholarship so that Lecturers may decide year over year where to place evidence in their application for promotion.

 Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner with items and examples below.

• Exceeds Commendable performance standards.
• Consistent excellence in Teaching evidenced by evaluators’ observations.
• Sustained and evidenced responsiveness to student feedback through course evaluations.
• Consistent evidence of application of appropriate rigor for meeting course outcomes.
• 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.
• Course development, course sequence development; new areas of instruction; and/or significant improvements and revisions to curricula.
• Earning/maintaining external certification in Teaching/professional practices.
• Teaching awards through the University or professional organizations.
• Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies for improving student writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
• Being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students.
• Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy such as technologies and Teaching techniques that are practically applied and successful most of the time.
• Consistent demonstration of Teaching methodology consistent with best practices in DEI.
• Consistent demonstration of course content consistent with best practices in DEI.
• Documented and measurable application in the classroom of professional development centered on DEI.
• Documented dissemination of effective Teaching methodology with colleagues through formal workshops or other professional venues.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: Exceeds expectations with items and examples below.

• Exceeds “Satisfactory” performance standards.
• Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
• Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
• 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 Chair, Dean, or Dean’s designee.
• Assessment of the effectiveness of Teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes.
• Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations with items and examples below.

• Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
• Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
• Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
• Utilization of content that is relevant to the course.
• Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor.
• Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.
• Incorporating diversity issues in courses or course materials.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

 II. Scholarship of Growth and Development

Should a Lecturer produce scholarly or creative works, that work may be included here, and if needed, evaluated in alignment with the criteria in section V.E. Categories for Rating Evidence of Scholarship in the Annual Review. Some examples below overlap with Teaching and/or Service so that Lecturers may decide year over year where to place evidence in their application for promotion.

 Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner with items and examples below.

• Teaching awards through the University or professional organization.
• Participate on panels and presentations on pedagogy and/or one’s discipline at the School or University level or in the state or nationally.
• Present at a faculty development workshop internally or externally.
• Contribute as a team member to research projects and publications.
• Mentor or be mentored by faculty in the program or School.
• Attend professional development centered on diversity issues in the profession, in research, and/or in Teaching.
• Demonstrate engagement with emerging trends in teaching or one’s discipline.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations with items and examples below.

• Earn Teaching certificates offered by the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE).
• Earn/maintain external certification in Teaching/professional practices.
• Develop new curriculum and courses for the program.
• Apply new research or best practices in the context of Teaching and professional practice.
• Applying professional development centered on diversity issues in the profession, in research, and/or in Teaching.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Satisfactory: Meets expectations with items and examples below.

• Reflect on one’s Teaching and continual improvement of Teaching effectiveness.
• Foster integration and synthesis in Teaching to inspire knowledge development by students.
• Attend conferences related to own Teaching or scholarly activities.
• Pursue professional development centered on diversity issues in the profession, in research, and/or in Teaching.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of a “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

III. Service

Some examples below overlap with Teaching and/or Scholarship so that Lecturers may decide year over year where to place evidence in their application for promotion.

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner with items and examples below.

• Serving as a search committee chair for other NSC Department needs.
• Serving as a search committee chair for LASB
• Serving as Curriculum Committee chair at the University level.
• Holding office in Faculty Senate or NFA as Vice-Chair, Secretary, or Parliamentarian, or holding office in a major professional or community organization.
• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position and skills.
• Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.
• Documented dissemination of Service or professional expertise centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Commendable: Exceeds expectations with items and examples below.

• A primary leader in leading and organizing a campus-wide presentation.
• Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
• Chairing a Faculty Senate committee.
• Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
• Serving as a search committee member for other NSC Department needs.
• Serving as a search committee member for LASB.
• Serving as a Chairperson on a standing committee in LASB.
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization/s.
• Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs such as redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions.
• Providing individual mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty.
• Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
• Serving as a Board Member for a community or professional organization.
• Establishing partnerships with external organizations such as creating student internship opportunities.
• Documented leadership Service activity at the Department, School, University, professional level centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Documented dissemination of Service or professional expertise centered on social justice and/or DEI.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations with items and examples below.

• Serving on a University-level Committee.
• Serving on an LASB ad-hoc task force.
• Serving on an LASB sub-committee.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• Serving as an active advisor to LASB students.
• Serving on a Department or LASB standing committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are demonstrated through evidence.
• Volunteer activities with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
• Participating in a Department, School, University, professional, or community organization centered on social justice and/or DEI with documented time and contributions.
• Activities with similar time, scope, and intellectual commitment to the items above.

 Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations or to produce evidence of “Satisfactory” performance. See above.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

• NS Promotion and Tenure Application

RELATED INFORMATION

• Board of Regents NSHE Code, Chapter 5.
• Board of Regents NSHE Code, Chapter 7.
• NS Promotion and Tenure Policy AA5 (Legacy).
• NS Promotion and Tenure Policy AA5.1.
• Tenure expectations for each academic unit.
• Provost’s Yearly Memorandum on P&T Timeline.
• Raoul A. Arreola. (2007). Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Guide to Designing, Building, and Operating Large-Scale Faculty Evaluation Systems, 3^rd Edition. San Francisco: Anker Publishing (now Jossey-Bass).

HISTORY

• Replaces NS Policy AA 13 Standards of Academe: Promotion to Professor (School of Liberal Arts and Sciences) approved March 4, 2014.
• Replaces NS Policy AA 14 Standards of Academe: Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty and Tenure Guidelines (School of Liberal Arts and Sciences) approved January 1, 2015.
• Replaces NS Policy AA 15 Standards of Academe: Lecturers (School of Liberal Arts and Sciences approved June 22, 2019.
• Updated January 4, 2024, to align service levels with other units.

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Elizabeth Gunn, Dean of LASB, January 5, 2024.
Approved by Dr. Sarah Frey, Provost, January 17, 2024.