MECHANICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING Department ENGINEERING College Policy Statement Concerning: Annual Evaluations including Professorial Performance Award Criteria and Standards Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015 Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015 Chronic Low Achievement Standards Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015 7/1 ( Department Head's i nature / z-D Date Dean's Signature \3 Provost's Signature Date For Office of Academic Services Use Only Date Posted to Web: DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION DOCUMENT (Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015) PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENT (Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015) REVIEW DATE FOR ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION DOCUMENT*(which includes: Section 1. The CRITERIA, and STANDARDS, and PROCEDURES for FACULTY ANNUAL EVALUATIONS; Section 2. The CRITERIA and STANDARDS for MINIMUM-ACCEPTABLE LEVEL of PRODUCTIVITY and CHRONIC LOW ACHIEVEMENT; and Section 3. The GUIDELINES for the PROFESSORIAL PERFORMANCE AWARD): 12/2018 REVIEW DATE FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENT* (which includes the PROMOTION and TENURE PROCEDURES and the PROMOTION and TENURE GUIDELINES): 11/2015 William L. Dunn, Head of the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department Date signed: 09/17/2015 Darren Dawson, Dean of the College of Engineering Date signed: April C. Mason, Provost and Senior Vice President of Kansas State University Date signed: *Each academic department is required by University Handbook policy to develop department documents containing criteria, standards, and guidelines for promotion, tenure, reappointment, annual evaluation and merit salary allocation. These documents must be approved by a majority vote of the faculty members in the department, by the Department Head or chair, by the dean concerned, and by the provost. In accordance with University Handbook policy, provision must be made to review these documents at least once every five years or more frequently if it is determined to be necessary. Dates of revision (or the vote to continue without revision) must appear on the first page of the document. Annual Faculty Evaluation Document 1. 2. 3. Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Faculty Annual Evaluations Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement Guidelines for the Professorial Performance Award Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department College of Engineering Kansas State University Approval date: 09/17/2015 Section 1. Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Faculty Annual Evaluations Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering College of Engineering Kansas State University Guidelines for Quantifying the Contributions made by the Faculty for the Betterment of the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Background The mission of the department is to excel in education and scholarship for the betterment of our students, the state of Kansas, the engineering profession, and society as a whole. The department will achieve this mission by recognizing activities that strengthen our current foundation, and then encouraging new activities and efforts that raise the level of that foundation. An appropriate combination of teaching, scholarship, and service are generally expected of tenured and tenure-track faculty members. Each faculty member is unique and contributes individual abilities to the department. The evaluation approach taken by the department seeks to respect this uniqueness by establishing a set of guidelines and standards that are relatively flexible, yet offers enough rigor to allow a framework for guiding and evaluating each faculty member. The philosophy behind quantifying the contributions made by department faculty members has three important parts. • The "accomplishment plan." Each faculty member will submit his/her accomplishment plan (Appendix A) to the head during the latter part of each year which will be based on the department's mission and objectives. These plans will permit each faculty member to work towards individual goals that are aligned with the department's mission and objectives. It is recognized that the information requested in Appendix A may change from the previous year. If the % time (faculty load distribution) indicated for scholarly activity and extramural support, teaching, and service remain the same as that of the previous year, an interview to discuss the accomplishment plan with the head is not needed. However, if the % time among the categories does change, then the head shall meet with the faculty member to discuss and possibly adjust the faculty member's load distribution to better meet the department's mission and objectives. The head has the ultimate responsibility of determining if the cumulative effect of all the plans meets the department's mission and objectives. If not, then the head shall meet with individual faculty members as needed to suggest changes to their plans. • Relative importance. The head maintains the responsibility of determining the relative benefit of the individual plans. The relative importance will be based on how well the plan addresses the department's mission and objectives. • Summary of Accomplishments for the Preceding Year. Completion of Appendix B accompanied by a detailed accounting of accomplishments is needed. The supporting material includes all the information needed to show the quantity, quality, 1 and significance of work from the past year. Supporting scholarship information should include such items as published works, submitted proposals, funded proposals, supervised graduate students, etc. Supporting teaching information should include courses taught, laboratory sections taught, semester, enrollment, and TEVAL student evaluations for each course. The effort expended in developing a new course, modifying an existing course, undergraduate student advising or other important effort should also be included in the teaching summary. Supporting service information should include sufficient detail to identify leadership and contributions that were made. Evaluation Criteria and Standards In accordance with section C41.1 of University Handbook, the department must have a system for annual evaluation of faculty. The system of evaluation must include a statement of the department's evaluation criteria and standards. The responsibility for developing and revising an annual evaluation system for faculty rests primarily with the department's faculty in consultation with the department head, the dean, and the provost. It is the responsibility of each faculty member to clearly document his or her efforts and achievements in teaching, research/scholarship, service and other activities related to furthering the department's, college's and university's missions. Guidelines for specific information to be included in each section are given below. Information Considered in Evaluating Teaching A faculty member should provide information about his or her workload in teaching for the year of evaluation and show evidence of his or her teaching effectiveness along with efforts to become a better teacher. Some common items that are used to demonstrate effective teaching may include: • All courses taught for the year of evaluation including enrollment for each course and student TEVAL evaluations. • Development of teaching labs and lab sessions. • Teaching awards sponsored by the department, college, or university as well as other awards sponsored by student groups, external agencies and professional societies. • Contributions to new course development and revisions of courses. • Introduction of innovative teaching materials or instructional techniques. • Special contributions to effective teaching for diverse student populations. • Special teaching activities outside the university. • Participation in learning enhancement programs. • Instructional research. • Papers or other publications on teaching. • Grants related to the education of students. • Contributions to the development of new programs/curricula or improvement of current programs/curricula • Leadership in developing or improving programs or curricula. • Various efforts made to improve teaching effectiveness such as: 2 • o Interviews and/or surveys, including senior exit interviews, to obtain information about teaching effectiveness. o Consultation with other faculty on teaching and instruction. o Use of innovative approaches to teaching. o Input from faculty members at peer institutions regarding effectiveness of online courses taught by KSU faculty members to students at the peer institution. Other creative teaching activities. Information Considered in Evaluating Scholarship/Research Evidence of scholarly and creative work includes but is not limited to: • Refereed papers published in, accepted by, and submitted to technical journals. • Papers presented in, accepted by, and submitted to technical conferences. • Technical reports accepted and submitted. • Technical book chapters, books and monographs. • Non-refereed technical articles published or distributed widely. • Invited lectures, presentations or seminars in universities, industry, professional organizations, or government laboratories. • Ph.D. students advised. • M.S. students advised. • Supervisory committees of graduate students other than your own. • Honor students/undergraduate projects advised. • Graduate students supported on an hourly basis. • Undergraduate students supervised/supported on an hourly basis. • Patents filed; patents awarded. • Research proposals submitted. • Research grants and contracts awarded. • Other sources of funding. • Summer spent in universities, industry or national laboratories. • Sabbatical spent in universities, industry or national laboratories. • Citations received for the year of evaluation. • Honors or awards for research. • Other creative research activities. Information Considered in Evaluating Service Evidence of service to the institution, the profession, and the general public may include: 1. Internal/Institutional • Serving on committees, task forces, or councils for the department, college, and university. • Serving in the Faculty Senate. • Advising professional or honorary student organizations. • Advising undergraduate students. • Hosting prospective student visits. • Helping with university Open House while not serving as the Open House advisor. • Helping with ABET activities while not serving on the ABET related committee. 3 • • • • • • Performing special functions assigned by the department head. Making arrangements for seminars and hosting seminar speakers. Contributing to the recruitment of new faculty while not serving on the search committee. Fundraising. Extra departmental duties such as organizing/coordinating group teaching or research related activities. Other creative service activities. 2. External/Professional/Public • Holding offices, or committee positions, and/or membership in professional/honorary societies. • Serving on editorial board of professional journals. • Organizing/chairing conference sessions or serving on organizing committees. • Editing technical monographs and proceedings of conferences. • Serving as reviewer for journals, publishers of professional literature and funding agencies. • Presenting workshops. • Interacting with prospective funding agencies, alumni, and industrial representatives to foster cordial relations. • Raising the technical awareness of the lay-public through direct interaction or through print and electronic media. • Other creative public service activities. Although each activity listed above adds value to the department's mission and objectives, no faculty member is expected to participate in all activities. It is appropriate that each faculty member engages in activities that support the mission of the department. Numerical Scores In the Faculty Evaluation Form (see Appendix C), a 1 to 5 numerical scale will be used to represent a faculty member's performance in each responsibility area. The follow table clarifies the meaning of the numerical scores: 5 4 to <5 3 to <4 2 to <3 1 to <2 Far exceeded expectations Exceeded expectations Met expectations Fallen below expectations but has met minimum-acceptable levels of productivity Fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity Reasonable contributions of a faculty member to each of her or his assigned areas of responsibility are considered to be in the "Met expectations" category for the purpose of annual evaluation, while substantial contributions are considered to be in the "Exceeded expectations" category. Some combination of publication of journal articles and/or conference Proceedings, supervision of graduate students, research expenditures during the evaluation year, and proposal submission would constitute reasonable contributions under 4 scholarship for a tenured faculty member. Substantial contributions would require several publications, multiple graduate students, and some other scholarship activity such as patents filed, books or book chapters in progress, proposals funded, or undergraduate students supported. For the last category "Fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity," the section of Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement applies. Chronic Low Achievement only applies to tenured members of the faculty. In finalizing the numeric scores for all faculty members, the department head shall look for consistency across the faculty. About Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity In accordance with Section C31.6 of the University Handbook, the standards for the "Met expectations" category in the preceding section are not the same as those concerning minimum-acceptable levels of productivity. The criteria and standards for the minimumacceptable levels of productivity are given in the Section, Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement. Salary Adjustments (Merit Raises) Procedures for salary adjustments are given in the K-State University Handbook Section C46.2. The merit salary increase for each faculty member will be proportional to the average of his or her current and previous two years (if available) overall performance scores if the average score is greater than 2.0. If the average overall performance score is less than or equal to 2.0, no merit salary increase will be given. In accordance with Section C46.2 of the University Handbook, the average percentage increases in the highest category are expected to be about twice those in the lowest category; this ratio is expected to fluctuate both with the degree to which members of the department differ in effectiveness and with the degree to which funds are available. Distribution of Statistical Evaluation Data Sheets After evaluation scores are finalized, statistical data sheets on evaluation of faculty members, with faculty names removed, should be distributed to faculty members in the department. The data includes statistical evaluation scores for each responsibility area and overall performance, and raw data on research dollars, publications, students advised, courses taught, etc. This promotes transparency and allows a faculty member to know how the peers are doing. 5 Procedure Procedures for annual evaluation are outlined in the following table: Task Responsibility Due Date 1. Review and modify as necessary department's Evaluation mission and objectives. These objectives will be Committee based on the college's mission and objectives, and shall be presented to the faculty for approval. Five year cycle, due Sept. 1 The following actions shall happen each year: 2. Establish the immediate objectives for the following year from the department's mission and objectives. These objectives shall be discussed by the faculty and ultimately approved by a majority vote. Department head Aug. 15 3. Develop individual accomplishment plans for the following calendar year and submit these plans to the head. The plan should follow the format provided in Appendix A of this document. Faculty Aug. 30 Faculty Jan. 15 Should a faculty member fail to or refuse to participate in the process of developing the accomplishment plan, then the department head is free to allocate the faculty member's time according to department needs. 4. Submit a summary of accomplishments from the previous calendar year in the form of Appendix B in this document and a supporting document which provides details for the accomplishments. 5. Meet with each faculty member and review the Department head Jan. 31 and faculty accomplishments from the previous calendar members year, the accomplishment plan for the current calendar year, and discuss any modifications to the accomplishment plan. Discussions related to the accomplishment plan should point out potential outcomes and any deficiencies. The head shall give an evaluation of how well the plan meets the department's performance objectives and the expectations of each faculty 6 member. During the meeting, the faculty member must sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to review and to discuss the evaluation. In accordance with the University Handbook (C45.3), within seven working days after the evaluation, the faculty member has the opportunity to submit written statement of unresolved differences regarding his or her annual evaluation to the department head and to the Dean of Engineering. 6. After evaluation scores are finalized, the department head will provide each faculty member a copy of his or her finalized evaluation and statistical evaluation data sheets about all faculty members in the department. 7 Department head Feb. — Mar. Section 2. Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department College of Engineering Kansas State University INTRODUCTION Issues concerning minimum-acceptable level of productivity and chronic low achievement for tenured faculty members within the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering (MNE) are presented in this section. This section is a supplement to the procedures outlined in the Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Faculty Annual Evaluations. The purpose, as required by the Kansas State University (K-State) University Handbook, Section C31.5 Chronic Low Achievement, is to clarify issues related to an evaluation of a tenured faculty member who chronically fails to satisfy the minimum-acceptable level of productivity. GENERAL STATEMENT Decisions on minimum-acceptable performance must be fair and contain the individual judgments of the faculty and administrators involved in the decision. Each tenured faculty member is expected to perform his/her professorial duties in a professional manner and at or above a minimum-acceptable level. Chronic failure of a tenured faculty member to perform his or her professional duties at or above a minimum-acceptable level (i.e., Chronic Low Achievement) shall constitute evidence of "professional incompetence" and warrant consideration for "dismissal for cause" under existing university policies. Chronic Low Achievement is about revocation of tenure in individual cases. Tenure is essential for the protection of the independence of the teaching and research faculty in institutions of higher learning in the United States. Decisions about revocation of tenure should not be exclusively controlled or determined by and should not be unduly influenced by single individuals without input from faculty. "Dismissal for cause" in cases of professional incompetence can only be based on departmental guidelines about minimum-acceptable levels of performance that apply generally to all members of the department. In accordance with Section C31.6 of the University Handbook, it is not the purpose of Chronic Low Achievement to promote, endorse, encourage, or to have any stand whatsoever on the definition of "productivity," its relation to publication, or the proper relationship between measurable definitions of productivity and an intellectual University environment that is favorable to substantive scholarship, long-range projects, or critical and creative thinking. 8 DEFINTION AND STANDARDS OF LOW ACHIEVEMENT Low achievement of a faculty member in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department occurs when a faculty member receives an annual evaluation overall performance score of less than 2.0 based on the Performance Rating Scale of 1 to 5 listed in the Faculty Appraisal Form (see Appendix C). All faculty members must perform all duties outlined in the K-State University Handbook and be in compliance with all university policies. The "minimum-acceptable level of productivity" standards established in this document will apply to all tenured faculty members of the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. Productivity in each area of responsibility will be evaluated based on the assigned activities and the percentage of the faculty member's appointment allocated to that activity. Gross and chronic failure by a faculty member to perform assigned responsibilities at these levels of productivity can be construed as professional incompetence and failure to meet minimum acceptable levels of productivity. Each faculty member is expected to perform, as a minimum, the following activities, as assigned: TEACHING a. Be conscientious about meeting classes on time; the content, organization, and presentation of lectures; and the appropriate evaluation of student performance. b. Strive to be consistent in content and depth of material covered in required courses such that the students earning a 'C' or better grade are appropriately prepared for higher level courses. c. Work to keep course material current. Ensure that an appropriate balance of analysis, design, and computer applications is included in the course material. An annual evaluation score of less than 2 for teaching can only be assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the above expectations in an egregious manner. Examples of such failure might include • missing more than two weeks of the scheduled class meetings without a valid reason (such as having health problems or being on business trips) during a semester, or • receiving consistent TEVAL scores of less than 1.9, or • failure to evaluate students' performance uniformly and fairly. SCHOLARSHIP a. Engage in scholarly and other creative activities appropriate to the profession. b. Serve as graduate student advisor and/ or committee member. c. Engage in extramural funding opportunities. An annual evaluation score of less than 2 for scholarship will be assigned only if, for example, a faculty member fails to: • write any proposals and to submit any items for publication during a year, or • serve as a member of any graduate student committees. 9 SERVICE a. Serve on departmental and other university committees. b. Attend departmental and college faculty meetings. c. Perform student advising conscientiously and treat all students fairly and as mature individuals. d. Participate in external professional activities. e. Attend appropriate functions. An annual evaluation score of less than 2 for service will be assigned only if, for example, a faculty member fails to: • missing more than five faculty meetings without a valid reason (such as having health problems or being on business trips) during a semester, or • failure to actively participate on committees to which the faculty member has been assigned, or • failure to participate in any scheduled enrollment advising sessions without making appropriate alternative arrangements with advisees. PROCEDURES Chronic Low Achievement is a serious matter and should only be initiated in extreme cases for a tenured member. Furthermore, Chronic Low Achievement must be a persistent and consistent failure in duties. The process of determining that a faculty member fails to meet the minimum standards of productivity must be initiated by the department head. The faculty member is classified as a chronic low achiever only upon a vote by eligible faculty members. Eligible faculty members are tenured members with ranks at or above that of the tenured faculty member of concern. Prior to the point at which "dismissal for cause" is considered, other less drastic actions should have been taken. In most cases, the faculty member's deficient performance ("below expectations" or worse) in one or more areas of responsibility will have been noted in prior annual evaluations. At that point, the first responsibility of the head of the department is to determine explicitly whether the duties assigned to the faculty member have been equitable in the context of the distribution of duties within the department and to correct any inequities affecting the faculty member under review. Second, the department head should have offered the types of assistance indicated in section C30.3 of the University Handbook. Referral for still other forms of assistance (e.g., medical or psychological) may be warranted. Third, if the deficient performance continues in spite of these efforts and recommendations, the department head and the faculty member may agree to a reallocation of the faculty member's time so that he/she no longer has duties in the area(s) of deficient performance. Of course, such reallocation can occur only if there are one or more areas of better performance in the faculty member's profile and if the reallocation is possible in the larger context of the department's mission, needs, and resources. During the annual evaluation of the faculty, the department head will determine whether a tenured faculty member fails or appears to fail to meet the "minimum-acceptable level of productivity" as defined in this document. When a tenured faculty member's overall 10 performance falls below the minimum-acceptable level, the department head shall indicate so in writing to the faculty member of concern. The department head will also indicate, in writing, a suggested course of action to improve the performance of the faculty member of concern. A Review Committee of eligible faculty will be convened (unless the faculty member requests otherwise) to review the performance of the faculty member of concern. If there are at least three eligible faculty members, the review committee will consist of three members: one selected by the department heat, one selected by the faculty member of concern, and one selected by the eligible faculty members. If there are fewer than three eligible faculty members, all will serve as the review committee. All eligible faculty members will vote on the case. The findings of the committee and the result of the vote will be presented to the department head in writing. In subsequent annual evaluations, the faculty member of concern will report on activities aimed at improving performance and any evidence of improvement. If the department head decides the performance improvement is insufficient, the Review Committee will further review the case and report its findings to eligible faculty. If a vote by eligible faculty members indicates the faculty member of concern still falls below minimum standards for the year following the department head's suggested course of action, his or her name will be forwarded to the appropriate dean. If the faculty member has two successive evaluations or a total of three evaluations in any five-year period in which minimum standards are not met, then "dismissal for cause" will be considered at the discretion of the appropriate dean. 11 Section 3. Guidelines for the Professorial Performance Award Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department College of Engineering Kansas State University Award Criteria Professors in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department at Kansas State University are expected to accept responsibility for and give leadership in all aspects of the educational community including teaching, research and service. To be eligible for the Professorial Performance Award, the candidate must have a full-time appointment and have attained the rank of Professor at least six years earlier and have not received a PPA in the prior six years. In the past six years, the candidate must have demonstrated all the qualities required for promotion to Professor in the MNE department, namely: 1. Show evidence of excellence in undergraduate teaching. Such evidence must include student feedback, senior exit interviews, and course reports. It may also include success in securing resources to support course, laboratory, and curriculum development/enhancement. 2. Show evidence of scholarly work and the ability to support the graduate/research program in an area sustainable by the candidate. Such evidence must include publication of the candidate's research in peer-reviewed journals, securing support for the candidate's work, and successful supervision of graduate students. It may also include development and teaching of graduate courses, securing resources for graduate student support, laboratory development, equipment procurement, as well as other documentation of scholarly excellence. 3. Show evidence of service to the university community and of contributions to the Engineering and Teaching professions. Such evidence must include effective student advising and documented contributions in departmental and college committee and service assignments. It may also include participation in university governance, leadership, and participation in technical and professional society activities. But, it does not include consulting. In addition, during the previous six years, the candidate must: 1. Show evidence of leadership in the operation and development of the undergraduate and graduate programs. 2. Show evidence of national recognition of scholarly work and professional service. It is recognized that these examples of desirable activities may vary greatly from candidate to candidate and that the merit of each activity must be evaluated separately for each candidate. 12 Timeline and Procedure In accordance with Sections C49.1-C49.14 of the University Handbook (UH), this section of the document constitutes the review mechanism and procedure for the Professorial Performance Award of the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department. This review mechanism and procedure document will be reviewed at least every five years. Any Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering (MNE) tenured full professor is eligible for the Professional Performance Award (PPA) provided at least six years have elapsed since the faculty member's initial appointment at the rank of Professor or since receiving the last PPA. Those full professors holding at least a 50% appointment in MNE, are eligible to review the qualifications of the PPA candidates and will report their findings and recommendations to the MNE Department Head. The procedure and time line for those faculty wishing to apply for the PPA are: Fall Semester End (nominally December 15): The candidate informs department head in writing of his/her wish to be considered for the PPA and consults with the department head. Start of Spring Semester (nominally January 15): After another consultation with the department head, if the candidate decides to continue the PPA application process, then the candidate forwards the documents and records concerning teaching, scholarship, and service occurring over the previous six years with the PPA Summary Table (please refer to appendix D) to the department head. External letters of reference and evaluation are not required. Last week in January (nominally January 31): The forwarded material is made available to the eligible faculty for the purposes of review. At least 14 days following the previous step (nominally February 15): The eligible faculty will meet to consider the merits of each PPA applicant and the materials submitted by that applicant. No candidate may participate in the review of his or her own application for the PPA. The eligible faculty will choose a chairperson from its membership. It is the responsibility of the chairperson to conduct the meeting, to assure the fairness of the proceedings, and to prepare and submit in a timely fashion all documents regarding the review to the department head. The purpose of the meeting is for the eligible faculty to identify those candidates which they deem worthy of the PPA and to forward to the department head within one week following the meeting a list containing the recommended candidates together with written evaluations attesting to why each individual is or 13 is not deemed worthy of the PPA. A transcript of the written comments pertaining to a particular candidate is given to that candidate by the department head. After considering the results of the review, the candidate may either choose to continue the application process or to withdraw from further consideration during that year by so notifying the department head in writing. If the candidate chooses to continue the application process, the department head prepares a written recommendation. A copy of the department head's written recommendation is given to the candidate. Approximately two weeks following the meeting of the eligible faculty (nominally March 1): Each candidate will have the opportunity to discuss with the department head the written evaluation from the eligible faculty and the department head's written recommendation. Each candidate will sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to discuss and review the evaluation and recommendations. Within seven working days after the review and discussion of the recommendations and eligible faculty evaluation, each candidate has the opportunity to submit to the MNE department head and to the Dean of Engineering written statements of unresolved differences regarding his or her evaluation by the eligible faculty and the recommendations. End of the second week in March (nominally March 15): At a minimum, the MNE Department Head must submit the following items to the Dean of Engineering: a) The candidate's supporting materials that served as the basis of evaluating eligibility for the award. b) The recommendation prepared by the department head. c) A copy of the department's evaluation document used to determine qualification for the award, d) Documentation establishing that there was an opportunity for the candidate to examine the written evaluation and recommendations, e) Any written statements of unresolved differences concerning the evaluation and recommendations. If the department head wishes to apply for the PPA, the Chair of the MNE Promotion and Tenure Committee will fulfill the function of the department head in all of the above procedures for that individual. 14 Appendix A Accomplishment Plan for the Following Year Scholarly activity' and Extramural support2 Teaching (list specific courses you plan to teach during the spring, summer, and fall semesters) Service 2 Number of Journal publications Number of conference proceedings Books Invited lectures Graduate student supervision Other Industry funding (cash contracts) Government funding (cash contracts) In-kind equipment donation Other Course name and number New/Modified? Time $ $ $ $ Semester % Time Department/College/ University External to the University % Time Provide article names on a separate sheet • List funding sources on a separate sheet Note: The accomplishment plan is designed to be a stand-alone document. It will be used by the department head and individual faculty members to determine an appropriate work load, and to estimate the ranking relative to other departmental faculty. Completing the accomplishments listed on this plan does not guarantee a specific end-of-year ranking, nor does it guarantee a specific salary raise. 15 Appendix B Summary of Accomplishments for the Preceding Year Scholarly activity' and Extramural support2 % Time: Score: Teaching 4 Number of Journal articles published' Number of Journal articles accepted for publication' Number of Journal articles submitted/under review' Number of Conference Proceedings published' Number of Conference articles accepted for publication' Number of Conference articles submitted/under review' Number of Conference Abstracts accepted for publication' Number of Conference Abstracts submitted/under review' Number of technical reports submitted/accepted' Book or book chapters published' Book or book chapters under preparation' Invited lectures Graduate student supervision (Major Prof.) Graduate student supervision (Co-Major Prof.) Graduate student committee member (other than your own) Number of honor students/undergrad. projects advised Number of graduate students hourly supported Number of undergrad students supervised/hourly supported Patents filed Patents issued Summer spent in universities, industry or national labs Sabbatical spent in universities, industry or national labs Citations received for the year of evaluation. Honors or awards for research Other creative scholarly activities Proposals submitted (unfunded) 2 Proposals submitted (pending) 2 Industry funding 3 Government funding (including UTC scholarships) 3 Total Research Funding for past calendar year 3 Total research expenditures during the evaluation year (if available - otherwise it will be requested from SPA) 3 In-kind equipment donation 3 Scholarship /Fellowship funding for students 3 Other (funding) 3 Course name and number Enrollment New/ Modified? % Time: Score: 16 Semester $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TEVAL5 Development of teaching labs/lab sessions Teaching awards Contributions to new course development/revisions I ntroduction of innovative teaching Contributions to effective teaching for diverse student populations Special teaching activities outside the university Participation in learning enhancement programs Instructional research Papers/other publications on teaching Grants related to the education of students Contributions to curriculum development/improvement Leadership in curriculum development/improvement Various efforts to improve teaching effectiveness Other creative teaching activities Service (Indicate if you were a chair/organizer) % Time: Score: Internal/Institutional Committee/Taskforce/Council Dept., College or Univ. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty senate Number of student organizations advised Number of undergraduate advisees Number of prospective students hosted Helping with university open house while not serving as the Open House advisor Helping with ABET activities while not serving in the ABET related committee Performing special functions for the department Arranging seminars and hosting speakers Contributing to recruitment of new faculty while not serving in the search committee Fundraising Organizing/coordinating group activities Other creative service activities Chair or member [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes External/Professional/Public Member, committee or chair Professional/honorary society 1. 2. 3. Number of journal editorial boards served _ Number of conference sessions organized and/or chaired 17 Number of monographs/proceedings edited Number of journal papers reviewed Number of books/book chapters reviewed Number of research proposals reviewed Number of workshop presented Interacting with agencies/alumni/industrial representatives Interacting with lay-public Other creative public service activities 1 2 3 4 5 [ ] yes [ ] yes [ ] yes Provide full article citation on a separate sheet in summary List title and funding sources on a separate sheet in summary Total funding amount in US dollars designated for the MNE department. List proposals in your supporting summary documentation List specific courses taught during the spring, summer, and fall semesters — indicate if a course was new or substantially modified and show student enrollment Report TEVAL score "Overall effectiveness as a teacher" Note: This page is meant to summarize the accomplishments during the previous calendar year. Supporting materials should be included on separate sheets with the summary as the cover sheet. The Department head will provide an evaluation summary that includes performance relative to the rest of the department faculty. 18 Appendix C FACULTY EVALUATION FORM January 1 to December 31 Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department College of Engineering Kansas State University FACULTY MEMBER: RANK: The list below describes the various categories of faculty activity. Faculty assessment in the three areas of responsibility (Teaching, Scholarship, and Service) involves: compiling the scholarly and extramural accomplishments; evaluating teaching quality using TEVAL's and possibly other information such as senior exit surveys, DH senior exit interviews, DH classroom visits, and possibly others; examining service impact on the department, college, university, and the profession. Assume that a faculty member's total work load is represented by 1.0 point. In column 1, distribution of work load among the three areas is presented to describe faculty member's responsibilities during the evaluation period. For those activities assigned 0.1 or higher in column 1, performance scores are given in column 2 using the following 1 to 5 rating scale. PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE 5 Far exceeded expectations 4 to <5 Exceeded expectations 3 to <4 Met expectations 2 to <3 Fallen below expectations but has met minimum-acceptable levels of productivity 1 to <2 Fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity. For this case, the section of Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement below applies. 19 RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE I. Teaching (Classroom teaching, course development, advising, laboratory supervision and maintenance, other creative teaching activities) II. Scholarship (Scholarly research, publications, research grants or contracts, proposals, technical papers, graduate student supervision, books, invited lectures, other creative scholarly activities) III. Service (department, college, and university committees, professional service, public service, other creative service activities) IV. Overall Date: Department Head: REMARKS: Date: Reviewed by Faculty Member: 20 Appendix D MNE Department Professorial Performance Award Accomplishment Summary Table Name: Ph.D. Degree Institution and Time: Date Hired at KSU: Date Promoted to Full Professor: Date of Last Professorial Performance Award: For items listed in the "Total Since Hired" column, please provide an itemized list, for which a sufficiently detailed CV is an acceptable substitution. For items listed in the "Past 6 Years" column, please provide appropriate documentary evidence. Total Since Hired Books Book Chapters Journal Papers Refereed Conference Papers Non-Refereed Conference Papers Technical Reports Invited Lectures/Seminar Talks Patents Filed Patents Issued Proposals Submitted (Unfunded) Proposals Funded Scholarship Funding ($) Awards and Honors New Courses Developed Others Undergrad (.599) Split Level (600) Courses Taught Graduate (?700) Ph.D. Maj. Prof. MS Chair M Students UG Res. Support Honor Students Professional Service Contributions University 21 Past 6 Years PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENTS 1. Promotion and Tenure Procedures 2. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department College of Engineering Kansas State University Approved date: 17 September 2015 Promotion and Tenure Procedures 1. Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department Approved: 13 February 2003 Last Revised: 18 November 2010 22 I Eligible MNE Faculty for Promotion and Tenure Decisions In this document the term "eligible faculty" identifies those MNE faculty who are responsible for participating in the promotion and tenure decisions. The conditions for eligible faculty members are: • Tenured faculty members equal to or higher than the proposed promotion rank. • Faculty members with a 50% or greater departmental appointment. Eligible faculty are expected to actively participate in the entire evaluation process of the candidate. This includes evaluation of the candidate's promotion and tenure materials and participation in the formal deliberations about the candidate's qualifications. Each individual faculty member must decide whether he/she "actively participated" in the evaluation process. If an individual faculty member decides he/she has not actively participated, then he/she is expected to refrain from voting. II The Promotion and Tenure Committee The members of the Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee are appointed annually by the Department Head. The Chair of the P&T Committee, a full professor, is elected for a three-year term by the MNE faculty. The Chair also serves on the College P&T Committee. The responsibilities of this committee include: • Review, modify, and/or develop departmental policies regarding tenure and promotion; • Facilitate the annual review of faculty on probationary appointments and make a recommendation to eligible faculty concerning re-appointment/tenure/promotion; • Conduct a formal mid-probationary review of all non-tenured tenure-track faculty; • Advise non-tenured tenure-track faculty about their progress toward earning tenure and, if ready, see that all necessary forms are completed effectively and forwarded in a timely manner; and • Review all tenured associate professors who seek the committee's assessment about their progress toward earning promotion. If promotion is desired, ensure that all necessary forms are completed effectively, forwarded in a timely manner, and make a recommendation to the eligible faculty. General issues related to faculty evaluations are discussed in the University Handbook, Sections C30-C39. 23 III Probationary Review (See University Handbook, C50-C66) 1. Each faculty member holding probationary appointment must undergo an annual evaluation to determine if the faculty member shall be reappointed for the following year. As a part of the evaluation, each faculty member on probationary appointment is given feedback regarding his/her performance when judged according to the MNE Department's criteria and standards for tenure. 2. During first year of academic service: The department head evaluates the probationary faculty member. If the faculty member is not to be reappointed, then the department head must first meet with the eligible faculty to present and discuss the reasons for this decision. The faculty member is notified in writing on or before March 1 if his or her appointment is to be terminated at the end of that academic year. 3. Each faculty member on probationary appointment, after the first year of service, must submit to the department P&T Committee material that documents the professional accomplishments since his or her initial appointment. This material must include, but is not limited to: a. Completed University Promotion Forms. b. Evidence of effective teaching including evaluations of teaching. c. Evidence of scholarly work which must include technical articles published or pending publication, summaries of research projects started and underway, copies of research proposals submitted, a list of supervised graduate students, and summaries of any other scholarly activities. d. Evidence of service to Kansas State University, the profession, and appropriate professional societies. e. Copies of all written records forwarded to the probationary faculty member by the P&T Committee from previous reappointment evaluations. 4. The P&T Committee members shall individually attend at least one class taught by a probationary faculty member during each academic year. The P&T Committee shall meet towards the end of the academic year to develop written comments that are then provided to that faculty member. 5. During the second year of academic service: The date for submission of probationary faculty member's evaluation materials follow: a. September, end of second week: Faculty member submits the evaluation materials (described in 111.3.) to the P&T Committee. The P&T Committee shall review the evaluation materials as a committee, provide a written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the candidate seeking reappointment. The Department Head shall participate in this meeting. Upon review of the evaluation materials by the P&T Committee, the faculty member may change and/or modify the materials in response to suggestions provided by the P&T Committee. b. October, end of second week: The faculty member's materials are made available for review by the eligible departmental faculty. 24 c. November, end of first week: After the evaluation materials have been available to the eligible faculty for at least 14 days, the department head and the eligible faculty will meet to discuss the probationary faculty member's suitability for reappointment and advancement toward tenure (see C53.1). The P&T committee will make its recommendation to the eligible faculty at this time. At this meeting, any eligible faculty member may request that the probationary faculty member (within 5 calendar days) meet with all the eligible faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the evaluation materials submitted by the probationary faculty member. After all discussions are complete, a ballot of the eligible faculty concerning the reappointment of the probationary faculty member will be submitted to the department head. Each vote must have a written explanation supporting the cast vote. d. November, end of second week: Department head submits the final recommendation, explanations, and complete evaluation materials to the Dean (see C53.3). Included in the submitted materials to the Dean are the unedited written comments of each of the eligible faculty members and the numerical results of the ballot. The department head will present to the probationary faculty member the written recommendation and the associated explanations. Also, the department head will discuss with the probationary faculty member his or her advancement toward tenure. These recommendations and explanations are kept in the probationary faculty member's confidential file. 6. After two or more years of academic service: the date for submission of probationary faculty member's evaluation materials follow: a. January, end of second week: Faculty member submits the evaluation materials (described in III. 3.) to the P&T Committee. These materials must include the cumulative record of written recommendations and associated explanations given to the probationary faculty member from previous reappointment meetings and any other written comments from relevant individuals outside the department. The P&T Committee shall review the evaluation materials as a committee, provide a written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the candidate seeking reappointment. The Department Head shall participate in this meeting. Upon review of the evaluation materials by the P&T Committee, the faculty member may change and/or modify the submitted evaluation materials. b. February, end of second week: The faculty member's materials are made available for review by the eligible departmental faculty. c. March, end of first week: After the evaluation documents have been available to the eligible faculty for at least 14 days, the department head and the eligible faculty shall meet to discuss the probationary faculty member's suitability for reappointment and advancement toward tenure (see C53.1). The P&T committee shall make its recommendation to the eligible faculty at this time. If the P&T Committee recommendation is not unanimous, then a minority 25 statement will also be made. At this meeting, any eligible faculty member may request that the probationary faculty member (within 5 calendar days) meet with the eligible faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the evaluation materials submitted by the probationary faculty member. After all discussions are complete, a ballot of the eligible faculty concerning the reappointment of the probationary faculty member shall be submitted to the department head. Each vote must have a written explanation supporting the cast vote. d. March, end of second week: Department head submits the final recommendation, explanations, and complete evaluation materials to the Dean (see C53.3). Included in the submitted materials to the Dean are the unedited written comments of each of the eligible faculty members and the numerical results of the ballot. The department head shall present to the probationary faculty member the written recommendation and the associated explanations. Also, the department head shall discuss with the probationary faculty member his or her advancement toward tenure. These recommendations and explanations are kept in the probationary faculty member's confidential file. IV Mid-Probationary Review (See University Handbook, C92-C93) Midway through the probationary period, a review of a probationary faculty member is conducted. The mid-probationary review occurs during the faculty member's third year in the department. The purpose of this review is to provide substantial feedback to the probationary faculty member from both the faculty and administrators about how well the faculty member's accomplishments satisfy the department's criteria for obtaining tenure. A favorable mid-probationary review does not guarantee tenure shall be given in the future, nor does a negative review guarantee that tenure shall not be given. Each faculty member on probationary appointment must submit to the P&T Committee material that documents the professional accomplishments since his or her initial appointment. This material is specified in Section III. 3. As part of the mid-probationary review, the P&T Committee shall provide to the candidate an assessment of the candidate's progress towards tenure and expectations of continued progress. Procedures and time line for the mid-probationary review are those described in Section III. 6. V Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor (See University Handbook, C70-C116) I. By the first day of the fall semester, each untenured faculty member intending to seek tenure during the academic year (and, if an assistant professor, also promotion to associate professor) must write a letter to the Chair of the P&T Committee (with a copy to the Department Head) indicating the intention to seek tenure. This letter must include completed University Promotion Forms responding to the Department's 26 Promotion and/or Tenure Guidelines, as well as all supporting materials (copies of publications, teaching evaluations, etc.) (see C111). 2. The P&T Committee shall review the letter, forms, and any supporting material as a committee, provide a written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the candidate seeking tenure and/or promotion. The Department Head shall participate in this meeting. Suggestions for improving the candidate's application and for addressing any concerns the committee perceives shall be discussed with the candidate. The final decision to go forward rests with the candidate. 3. Faculty members going forward for promotion and/or tenure shall submit to the P&T Committee, by September 1, a list of four potential reviewers outside the University. At least two of these reviewers, plus at least two others selected by the Department Head, shall be contacted for written evaluations (see C112.2). Faculty members going forward for promotion and tenure shall prepare the final documentation supporting their application, in consultation with the P&T Committee and the Department Head, by October 1. 4. Eligible MNE faculty members individually review each candidate's file, which shall be available at least fourteen days prior to the meeting at which eligible faculty discuss the candidate's petition (see C112.3). Any eligible faculty, prior to the vote, may request to meet with the candidate to clarify any materials submitted by the candidate (see C 112.4). A meeting of eligible faculty shall be called. At this meeting, the P&T Committee shall report to the eligible faculty its deliberations. If the P&T Committee recommendation is not unanimous, then a minority report is also made. The eligible faculty, less the Department Head, then submit their votes and written comments to the Department Head. The vote and unedited faculty comments are forwarded with the candidate's reviewed material to the Dean (see C112.5). 5. The Department Head shall report to the eligible faculty the faculty vote tally and his or her recommendation to the Dean. If the Department Head's recommendation is contrary to the faculty vote, the Head shall meet with the eligible faculty to explain the reasons for not accepting the faculty vote. VI Promotion to Full Professor (See University Handbook, C120C156) 1. By the first day of the fall semester, each tenured associate professor intending to seek promotion during the academic year must write a letter to the chair of the P&T committee (with a copy to the Department Head) indicating the intention to seek promotion. This letter must include completed University Promotion Forms responding to the Department's Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, as well as all supporting materials (copies of publications, teaching evaluations, etc.) (see C 151). 2. The P&T Committee shall review the letter, forms, and any supporting material as a committee, provide a written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the 27 candidate seeking promotion. The Department Head shall participate in this meeting. Suggestions for improving the candidate's application and for addressing any concerns the committee perceives shall be discussed with the candidate. The final decision to go forward rests with the candidate. 3. Faculty going forward for promotion shall submit to the P&T Committee, by September 1, a list of four potential reviewers outside the University. At least two of these reviewers, plus at least two others selected by the Department Head, shall be contacted for written evaluations (see C 152.2). Faculty members going forward for promotion shall prepare the final documentation supporting their application, in consultation with the P&T Committee and the Department Head, by October 1. 4. Eligible MNE faculty members individually review each candidate's file, which shall be available at least fourteen days prior to the meeting at which eligible faculty discuss the candidate's petition (see C152.3). Any eligible faculty, prior to the vote, may request to meet with the candidate to clarify any materials submitted by the candidate (see C152.4). A meeting of eligible faculty shall be called. At this meeting, the P&T Committee shall report to the eligible faculty its deliberations. The eligible faculty, less the Department Head, then submit their vote and written comments to the Department Head. The vote and unedited faculty comments are forwarded with the candidate's reviewed material to the Dean (see C152.5). 5. The Department Head shall report to the eligible faculty the faculty vote tally and his or her recommendation to the Dean. If the Department Head's recommendation is contrary to the faculty vote, the Head shall meet with the eligible faculty to explain the reasons for not accepting the faculty vote. II. Post Tenure Review The purpose of post-tenure review at Kansas State University is to enhance the continued professional development of tenured faculty. The process is intended to encourage intellectual vitality and professional proficiency for all members of the faculty throughout their careers, so they may more effectively fulfill the mission of the university. It is also designed to enhance public trust in the University by ensuring that the faculty community undertakes regular and rigorous efforts to hold all of its members accountable for high professional standards. Kansas State University recognizes that the granting of tenure for university faculty is a vital protection of free inquiry and open intellectual debate. It is expressly recognized that nothing in this policy alters or amends the University's policies regarding removal of tenured faculty members for cause (which are stipulated in the University Handbook). This policy and any actions taken under it are separate from and have no bearing on the chronic low achievement or annual evaluation policies and processes. 28 The department policy on post tenure review follows the overarching purpose, principles, objectives, and procedures in the university policy on post tenure review (see University Handbook, Appendix W), which was approved by Faculty Senate on February 11, 2014." Procedural Issues 1. The post-tenure review will be conducted for all tenured faculty either every six years, or in the sixth year following promotion or awarding of a major university performance award. 2. When a tenured faculty member has received six or more annual evaluations by 31 December of any given year, the faculty member will see that copies of the six previous annual evaluations are made available to the Department Head by 31 January of the following year. Copies of these previous annual evaluations may be taken from those on file for the faculty member. Additional more detailed documentation associated with these six previous annual evaluations may also be provided by the faculty member for clarification purposes. 3. The Department Head will review the materials and may request input from appropriate other tenured faculty members having rank equal to or greater than that of the submitting faculty member. 4. If all six annual evaluations meet or exceed expectations, the Department Head will make a determination that the submitting faculty member has demonstrated appropriate contribution to the University. Otherwise, the Department Head will request the submission of a Professional Development Plan, which will specify activities for the coming year that the submitting faculty member will undertake to demonstrate appropriate contribution to the University. The Department Head may specify the following: Notable Strengths: Areas for Improvement: Faculty Member Department Head 29 III. Meetings of the Promotion and Tenure Committee Meetings of the P&T Committee, when individual qualifications are considered, shall be closed and any written responses shall be confidential. 30 2. Promotion And Tenure Guidelines Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department Approved: 17 September 2015 Last Revised: 18 November 2010 Faculty members in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department at Kansas State University are expected to accept responsibility for and give leadership in all aspects of the educational community including teaching, research and service. I. Considerations for mid-probationary review The material should demonstrate the probationary faculty member can become a department leader and be successful in all aspects of professorial duties. The probationary faculty member should show clear progress towards tenure. Reappointment should be based on clear progress towards tenure. Suitable criteria include effective classroom teaching, progress towards establishing an externally funded scholarly agenda, and effective collaboration with colleagues. The candidate must demonstrate a professional demeanor (see D.3) and a commitment to good citizenship in the department. II. Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor To qualify for tenure and/or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor a candidate must: 1. Show multiple sources of evidence of excellence in undergraduate teaching. Such evidence must include student feedback and senior exit interviews. It may also include success in securing resources to support course, laboratory, and curriculum development/enhancement. 2. Show evidence of scholarly work and the ability to support the graduate/research program in an area sustainable by the candidate. Such evidence must include publication of the candidate's research in peer reviewed journals or peer-reviewed conference proceedings, securing support for the candidate's work, and successful supervision of graduate students. It may also include development and teaching of graduate courses, and securing resources for laboratory development and equipment procurement and other documentation of research excellence 3. Show evidence of service to the university community and contribution to the Engineering and Teaching professions. Such evidence must include effective student advising and documented contribution in departmental and college committee and service assignments. It may also include participation in university governance, leadership and participation in technical and professional society activities, but does not include consulting. 31 4. Demonstrate a professional demeanor (see D.3) and a commitment to good citizenship in the department. III. Promotion to Full Professor To qualify for promotion to the rank of Professor a candidate must show substantial and sustained growth in professional leadership and stature. In addition to sustained excellence in the measures required for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, a candidate for promotion to Professor must: 1. Show evidence of leadership in the operation and development of the undergraduate and graduate programs, and 2. Show evidence of national recognition of scholarly work and professional service. The documented evidence shall be reviewed by peers from other institutions. Peer reviewers shall be chosen by the candidate and the Promotion and Tenure Committee. 3. Demonstrate a professional demeanor (see D.3) and a commitment to good citizenship in the department. Examples of such evidence might include a substantial body of published work in peer reviewed journals, sustained support for research program, successful supervision of doctoral students, presentation of research at prestigious conferences, significant citations of published work, authorship of texts, monographs, and other special publications, significant application of research results for the advancement of technology, leadership in professional and technical society activities, organization of sessions at professional meetings, committee leadership and editorial board service for professional societies, proposal and technical paper review services, service on governmental panels, attainment of prestigious honors and awards and other recognition of prominent professional leadership. It is recognized that these examples of desirable activities may vary greatly from case to case and that the merit of each activity must be evaluated for each case. 32