|Definition:||Standards governing RTP process for faculty in the Department of Kinesiology.|
|Authority:||The collective bargaining agreement between The California State University and the California Faculty Association.|
|Scope:||Eligible Unit 3 Department of Kinesiology faculty at California State University San Marcos|
|Responsible Division:||Academic Affairs|
|Signature Page/PDF:||View Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Standards - Department of Kinesiology|
I. DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY RTP STANDARDS
1. This document sets forth general standards and criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion of full-time faculty in the Department of Kinesiology.
2. The provisions of this document are to be implemented in conformity with University RTP Policies and Procedures; the CSU Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Articles 13, 14, 15; and the University Policy on Ethical Conduct.
B. Definitions of Terms and Abbreviations
1. The Department of Kinesiology (KINE) uses the same definitions, terms, and abbreviations as defined in the University RTP document. For clarity, the use of "is" is informative, "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive, "should" is conditional, and "will" is intentional.
2. A “standard” is a reference point or formalized expectation against which progress can be measured for retention, tenure, and promotion.
3. Faculty have a right to clearly articulated performance expectations. Departmental and College RTP Standards provide consistency in guiding tenure-track faculty in the preparation of their working personnel action files (WPAFs).
4. Department and College RTP Standards educate others outside of the discipline, including deans, university committees, and the provost, with respect to the practice and standards of a particular department/discipline/field.
5. Departments and Colleges must respect the intellectual freedom of their faculty by avoiding standards that are too restrictive. Department and College standards should be as brief as possible with emphasis on the unique nature of the department.
6. All Department and College RTP Standards shall conform to the CBA and University and College RTP documents. The KINE RTP Standards document shall contain the elements of College RTP standards described below and shall not repeat the CBA, College RTP documents, or include college-specific advice.
7. All Department or College RTP Standards must be approved by a simple majority of all tenure-track faculty within a department or college and then be approved by college/school/library and the Academic Senate before any use in RTP decisions.
II. ELEMENTS OF THE KINESIOLOGY RTP DOCUMENT
A. Introduction and Guiding Principles
1. All standards and criteria reflect the University and College Mission and Vision Statements and advance the goals embodied in those statements.
2. The performance areas that shall be evaluated include scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service. While there will be diversity in the contributions of faculty members to the University, the College affirms the university requirement of sustained high quality performance and encourages flexibility in the relative emphasis placed on each performance area. Candidates must submit a curriculum vita (CV) and narrative statements describing the summary of teaching, research/creative activity, and service for the review period. The faculty member must meet the minimum standards in each of the three areas.
3. Items assessed in one area of performance shall not be duplicated in any other area of performance evaluation. Items shall be cross-referenced in the CV, narrative statements, and WPAF to demonstrate connections across all three documents. Candidates who integrate their teaching, research/creative activities, and/or service may explain how their work meets given standards/criteria for each area.
4. Retention, tenure, and promotion decisions are made on the basis of the evaluation of individual performance. Ultimate responsibility for understanding, meeting, and effectively communicating how they have met the standards rests with the candidate. In addition to this document, the candidate should refer to and follow the University RTP Policies and Procedures. Candidates should also note available opportunities that provide guidance on the WPAF and describe the responsibilities of the candidate in the review process (e.g., Provost’s RTP meetings; Faculty Center Professional Development, and advice and counsel by tenured faculty). Candidates are encouraged to avail themselves of such opportunities.
5. Candidates for retention will show effectiveness in each area of performance and demonstrate progress toward meeting the tenure requirements in the areas of scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service.
6. Candidates for the rank of associate professor require an established record of effectiveness in scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service to the College and University.
7. Candidates for the rank of professor require, in addition to continued effectiveness, an established record of initiative and leadership in scholarly teaching, scholarly research/creative activities, and scholarly service to the College, University, community, and profession. Promotion to the rank of professor will be based on the record of the individual since promotion to the rank of associate professor.
8. The granting of tenure at any rank recognizes accomplishments and services performed by the candidate during the individual’s career. The record must show sustained and continuous effectiveness in the areas of scholarly teaching, research/creative activities, and service. The granting of tenure is an expression of confidence that the faculty member has both the commitment to and the potential for continued development and accomplishment throughout their career. Tenure will be granted only to individuals whose record meets the standards required to earn promotion to the rank at which the tenure will be granted.
9. If service credit was granted at the time of employment at CSUSM, the candidate’s teaching, research, and service activities completed at the university for which service credit was awarded at the time of hire will also be evaluated for the purpose of granting Tenure and/or Promotion. Only items not considered in a prior tenure/promotion review at CSUSM may be included.
III. GENERAL STANDARDS
For retention, tenure, promotion, and early tenure/promotion see the applicable sections of the College and University RTP documents.
IV. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOLARLY TEACHING
A. Department Priorities and Values in Teaching and Learning
1. In the Department of Kinesiology, “effective Teaching” is defined as activity that promotes student learning, reflection, and professional growth in support of the College Mission and is demonstrated by information in the teaching portfolio section of the WPAF. Effective teaching is multifaceted and may include instructional activity that takes place at off-site locations.
2. The most important teaching activities may include, but are not limited to:
· Classroom modality, face-to-face, blended, online, on-campus, off-site, distance
· Supervision of pre-service teachers in the PK-12 environment
· Supervision of masters theses or projects and doctoral dissertations and research
· Supervision of student research and research assistants at all levels (undergraduate/graduate)
· Supervision of student independent study
· Training and/or supervision of lecturers/colleagues
· Laboratory teaching
· Clinical teaching/practice
· Seminar courses
· Undergraduate and graduate courses
· Supervision of field work and independent research
· Supervision of teaching and graduate assistants
3. Faculty members who demonstrate effective scholarly teaching will set clear student learning outcomes for their students, employ a range of instructional strategies, and teach in ways that effectively engage all students in the learning process.
4. Evaluations of scholarly teaching will focus on determining a profile of the candidate's teaching effectiveness. To determine such a profile, scholarly teaching will be examined through assessment of candidates’ reflective statement on teaching, student evaluations, and selected items that the candidates believe best represent their teaching, as described in the University RTP document and further illustrated below in section B.
B. The Following Evidence of Scholarly Teaching is required.
1. Scholarly Teaching Reflective Statement
A reflective narrative including any selected items from section IV. A .2. (p. 4 above) and all scholarly teaching evidence discussed in the file should reflect continued success and/or improvement in teaching. In this statement, candidates shall provide a clear and concise reflective self-assessment of their teaching philosophy, experience, and performance. The reflective statement may include the candidates’ philosophy of teaching and learning, pedagogical connections between the techniques they employ when teaching and their philosophy of teaching and learning, impact of any notable teaching accomplishments or awards, improvements made as a result of lessons learned from their teaching and/or student evaluations, impact of course innovation or development, their approach to supervision of students teaching in the PK-12 environment (if applicable) , supervision of laboratory-based instruction (if applicable), and supervision of field-based instruction (if applicable). As part of the reflective statement, candidates shall provide a brief summary of student evaluation ratings exemplifying scholarly teaching supported by a brief discussion of these evaluations. Course evaluations and narrative should reflect evidence of improvement or sustained performance in teaching.
2. Teaching and/or Supervision Assignments
Evidence: If not already included elsewhere, candidates will list all courses and/or all student teaching supervision assignments for the period under review in their reflective narrative, as illustrated below.
|Semester & Year||Course Number||Course Title||Section||Units||Number of Students Enrolled||Comments (optional)||Evaluation Ratings (include range of low-high and avg across all categories)|
3. Student Evaluations from Teaching and/or Supervision Assignments
Evidence: Provide complete sets (as specidied by CBA) of university-prepared student evaluation reports from courses taught since last promotion.
4. Representative Syllabi from Courses Taught
Evidence: Provide a representative sample of syllabi from core courses taught since last promotion that illustrate course objectives, student learning outcomes, and sample assignments (may include examples of student work with names completely obscured).
C. The Following Evidence of Scholarly Teaching is optional.
1. Use of Exemplary Teaching Practices
Evidence: Provide evidence that illustrates the use of exemplary teaching practices. Candidates might provide evidence that demonstrates the effective use of such things as technology, teaching strategies for diverse learners, student projects, student learning outcomes, or facilitating student research presentations beyond the classroom.
2. Curriculum, Program, and/or Course Development and/or Revision
Evidence: Provide evidence that illustrates any new developments or improvements in curriculum, programs, and/or courses. Evidence might include a brief description of improvements, curriculum forms, syllabi changes, links to online materials, etc.
3. Other Selected Items that Best Represent Candidate’s Teaching
Evidence: Additional evidence of scholarly teaching activities not listed above, including but are not limited to:
D. Assessment of Scholarly Teaching
1. General Standards
Candidates will be assessed on the quality of the evidence provided on the set of indicators they select, rather than on the quantity of indicators selected. In all cases, candidates will be assessed on the quality and the totality of the evidence provided. When judged as a group, no one indicator may be used to determine the overall rating of teaching effectiveness.
2. Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
At the Assistant Professor level, scholarly teaching that meets standards is expected to demonstrate classroom effectiveness for the types of courses taught. Evidence of classroom effectiveness may include, but is not limited to student evaluations, syllabi that clearly articulate course objectives and requirements, effective instructional practices, engaging assignments directed at meeting the course objectives, documentation that illustrates clear connections throughout an entire teaching event, and assessments that effectively measure and align with student learning outcomes.
3. Tenure and/or Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
As more experienced faculty, Associate Professors being considered for promotion to Professor are held to a higher standard. Accordingly, to be rated meets standards, a candidate at the Associate Professor level is expected to demonstrate leadership and initiative in teaching and curriculum related activities. This is in addition to documentation of continued teaching effectiveness (Section IV).
Candidates for retention shall include the required items for courses taught and additional optional materials in their teaching portfolio to show evidence of efforts and effectiveness in teaching. Because this is an evaluation intended to provide guidance, candidates will be assessed on their current teaching performance as well as on efforts that have been made to address prior performance feedback.
V. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOLARLY RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
A. Department Priorities and Values in Research and Creative Activity
It is essential to the University's mission that each faculty member demonstrates continued commitment, dedication, and growth as a scholar. Research/creative activity results in an original contribution to knowledge or understanding in the field and includes the dissemination of that knowledge beyond the classroom. Research/creative activity may be basic, applied, integrative, and/or related to teaching.
B. Faculty Description of Contributions when Multiple Authors are Present
When multiple authors are present on scholarly research and creative activities, candidates shall specify their specific role on item (e.g., role: first author; second author; mentoring author; etc.).
C. Evidence of Scholarly Research and Creative Activities
Evaluations of scholarly research/creative activities will focus on understanding the contribution, benefit, and impact of the candidate’s work on the field. To determine this, the candidate’s research productivity in relation to their stated short and long-term goals and overall trajectory will be evaluated according to the categories below.
1. Scholarly Research/Creative Activities Reflective Statement
Candidates shall provide a clear reflective assessment of scholarly research/creative activities including short-term and long-term goals for research/creative activities, connections between research/creative activities and the courses taught, and the impact of research/creative activities.
a. Category A Evidence must include external peer review:
1) Primary author on papers published or accepted for publication in peer reviewed/refereed
journals recognized as reputable and of high quality
2) Primary author on peer or editor reviewed published book chapters of original material and original monographs
3) Primary author on peer or editor reviewed books
4) Editor or associate editor of book
5) Significant program development including applied scholarship, curriculum writing, or accreditation work, which requires outside agency approval and/or peer review.
6) PI or co-PI on funded peer reviewed national-level external grants for scholarly research/creative activity work, in progress or completed.
b. Category B Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
1) Papers published in refereed proceedings
2) Refereed presentations at professional meetings
3) Invited presentations at professional meetings
4) Editor reviewed articles published in journals
5) Co-investigator/consultant/collaborator on funded peer reviewed national-level external grant for scholarly research/creative activity work, in progress or completed
5) Published case studies
6) Applied scholarly research/creative activity that is published, presented at a conference or meeting, or applied in an educational setting
7) Special recognition and awards for research/creative activities
8) Funded regional or internal grants for scholarly research/creative activity work (e.g., local organizations, University Professional Development, etc.)
9) Unfunded national-level peer reviewed external grants for scholarly research/creative activity work
10) Submitted papers (reviewed and in revision only)
11) Sponsored or contract research (whether results published or unpublished)
D. Assessment of Scholarly Research/Creative Activities
1. General Standards
Candidates will be assessed on the quality of the evidence provided, the evidence of sustained scholarship, and the totality of their work. A variety of types of work must be provided, including peer reviewed publications. When judged as a group, no one indicator of scholarly research/creative activities may be used to determine the overall rating of quality of scholarly research/creative activities. In all cases, the scholarly reputation of the publication and/or meeting will be considered when evaluating the contribution.
2. Requirement for Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor:
a. At least 3 items from Category A.
b. At least 3 items from Category B.
For early consideration for tenure and promotion, candidates must satisfy requirements for both (a) and (b) above.
3. Requirement for Tenure and/or Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor:
a. At least three items from Category A.
b. At least three items from Category B
Candidates for retention shall include documentation from the period under review that demonstrates satisfactory progress toward meeting the tenure requirements in the area of scholarship. This documentation may include more items in Category B than Category A.
VI. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOLARY SERVICE
A. Department Priorities and Values regarding Service Contributions
Consistent with our Mission Statement, the Department of Kinesiology places a high value on scholarly service as an essential component of faculty work. KINE views activities that enhance the institution and advance the profession at the local, state, national and international levels as integral components of faculty service. In KINE, scholarly service is defined as activities that contribute to the life of the university, college, department, school districts and/or activities that contribute to professional agencies and organizations. Service activities are expected to advance the department, college and university mission statements. In addition, particular consideration should be given to the service necessary to develop courses/programs/majors on a growing campus.
1. Scholarly Service Reflective Statement
Candidates are to provide a clear and concise reflective self-assessment of their scholarly service activities and the impact of this work. Candidates may include statements regarding any short-term and long-term goals for scholarly service activities, connection to the University, College, and/or Department’s Mission, reasons for their involvement, and the impact of their service activities
2. Internal Scholarly Service Activities
a. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the Department/College may include, but is not limited to:
1) Leadership/membership in department/college governance and/or groups that carry on the business of the department/college (e.g., committees [elected or appointed], ad hoc committees, task forces, etc.)
2) Leadership/membership in department/college accreditation efforts
3) Development of new courses or programs for the department/college
4) Graduate/Self-Support Program coordination and/or service
5) Mentoring of students, tenure-line faculty, lecturers
6) Collaboration with colleagues within the college and across colleges
7) Serve as a member of thesis committees/oversee undergraduate research
8) Advising students
b. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the CSU System and/or University may include, but is not limited to:
1) Innovative leadership initiatives at the university or CSU system level
2) Leadership/membership in groups that carry on the business of the university (e.g., committees [elected or appointed], ad hoc committees, task forces, etc.)
3) University professional activities, (e.g, service toward university accreditation, etc.)
4) Act as an advisor for a student organization
5) Commencement marshal
6) Mentoring of students, tenure-line faculty, lecturers outside of the College
3. External Scholarly Service Activities
a. Evidence of Service to the Profession may include, but is not limited to:
1) Peer reviewer for journal, conference proposals, and/or external grant agencies
2) External reviewer for tenure/promotion for colleagues
2) Membership on Editorial Board for peer reviewed/ refereed journal or publication/textbook
3) Leadership in professional organizations as an officer, on a committee or task force, etc.
4) Consultation and expert services
5) Providing continuing education for community
b. Evidence of Scholarly Service to the PreK-12 and/or Greater Community may include, but is not limited to:
1) Assist schools, districts, or community organizations/ agencies in occasional tasks, (e.g., advisory boards, committees, etc.)
2) Consulting (paid or unpaid) with schools, (e.g, presenting professional development sessions, conducting research for the school or district, etc.) or other public or private entities
4. Service Awards and Special Recognition
B. Assessment of Scholarly Service
1. General Standards
Candidates will be assessed on the quality of evidence provided, the evidence of sustained service, and the totality of their work.
2. Tenure and/or Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
Candidates for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor must provide evidence of effective sustained internal and external service contributions.
3. Tenure and/or Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
Candidates for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor must provide evidence of leadership in one or more service activities in addition to demonstrating sustained active participation in both internal and external service activities.
Candidates for retention must provide appropriate and effective evidence of internal service. While not required, external service contribution will be considered in the evaluation.