Department of Business Administration

Promotion & Tenure Criteria: TEACHING EXCELLENCE

Evidence, and Assessment

As of April 29. 2014

Contractual Requirements

The 2012-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article 14, Section 3, pages 14-5 and 14-6), application for promotion must include the following pieces of information (which may be used to help demonstrate outstanding service):

  • A cover letter
  • A detailed and current curricula vita
  • A letter of support from the chairperson of the candidate’s department
  • Three (3) letters of reference or support from professional and/or academic colleagues
  • For candidates seeking the rank of associate professor, a copy of the promotion and tenure plan (including reviews)
  • A narrative describing the candidate’s outstanding achievements in scholarship supported by appropriate documentation. Please note that it is important to discuss the significance, rigor, and value of scholarship within the narrative.

Department of Business Administration's Promotion & Tenure Principles

  • Any provision of these promotion and tenure criteria, evidence and assessment will be null and void if not in compliance with the 2012 - 2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement and subsequent memoranda of understandings.
  • Evidence used to support the candidate’s application for promotion should generally be limited to pieces of information regarding the candidate’s scholarly activity within the review period (the review period is defined as the period since hire or previous promotion, whichever is more recent), and that evidence should include information gathered throughout the full scope of the review period.
  • Evidence that encompasses more than one category (i.e., teaching, scholarship/service/ service) may be deconstructed into evidence listed in more than one area.
  • Evidence may be included from activities of the Shawnee Education Association.
  • Section 7 Article 2 [Academic Responsibility and Professional Ethics] are not to be taken into account in promotion and tenure decisions. Concerns about compliance that cannot be resolved informally are to be addressed through Article 10 [Complaint Resolution an disciplinary process].
  • The workload to achieve promotion and tenure should be achievable within an average 40 hour work week during fall and winter semester, excluding compensated assignments (e.g., overload), consulting, and employment with other organizations.
  • The Department of Business Administration thanks our sister department, Teacher Education, for the use of their matrices as a starting point for ours.

Teaching excellence may be demonstrated through the sources of evidence in the tables below. Similar sources of information not listed here may also be used if appropriate. Candidate for promotion are not expected to include each of the listed pieces of evidence.
To demonstrate excellence in teaching promotion candidates must meet criteria 1-5
Criteria / Source(s) of Evidence / Assessment
  1. Currency in Field: Teaching reflects currency of subject matter
/ 1) Dean’s, chairperson’s, and/or departmental colleague’s observations of teaching, colloquia or other public presentations
2) Syllabi of courses taught
3) Student opinions about course content and presentation style as determined by teaching evaluations.
4) Candidate reports of teaching philosophy, techniques, attempts at innovation and growth, etc.
5) Peer review of course content, assessment devices, curricular materials, pedagogical techniques, etc.
6) Scholarly writings or presentations on business and the teaching of business, including controversial topics.
7) Participation in university, community, and/or professional activities concerning teaching and education
8) Development of improved instructional materials.
9) Consulting, or part-time (no more than 20 hours per week on average) within one’s discipline.
10) Completion of continuing professional education courses.
11. Completion, or satisfactory progress towards completion, of a doctoral degree or a second masters,
12. Attainment of or optional certification within one’s discipline (e.g., Certified Management Accountant) or related to (e.g., Sloan Certification). / Met
Not Met
  1. Effective Communication: Information is communicated to students in an effective manner
/ 1) Dean’s, chairperson’s, and/or departmental colleague’s observations of colloquia or other public presentations
2) Syllabi of courses taught, including compliance with Ohio Board of Regents TAG course requirements.
3) Student opinions about course content and presentation style as determined by teaching evaluations.
4) Mentoring of students in undergraduate research.
5) University or outside recognition for teaching activities (e.g.: college teaching award, distinguished teaching award, etc.)
6) Recognition for program/teaching activities by internal or external bodies (e.g. accrediting organizations). / Met
Not Met
  1. Evaluation: Evaluation of students is conducted in a fair and unbiased fashion.
/ 1) Dean’s, chairperson’s, and/or departmental colleague’s observations of colloquia or other public presentations
2) Syllabi of courses taught
3) Student opinions about course content and presentation style as determined by teaching evaluations.
3) Peer review of course content, assessment devices, curricular materials, pedagogical techniques, etc.
4) Sample assessment tools / Met
Not Met
  1. Appropriate Course Offerings: The candidate teaches courses needed by the department consistent with the candidate’s advertised position and established scheduling procedures.
/ 1) Syllabi of courses taught
2) Interacting with or serving as liaison with other institutions of higher education or K-12 institutions (not otherwise utilized in promotion materials) in the promotion of field of study or collaboration between institutions / Met
Not Met
  1. Academic Rigor: The candidate teaches at a level of academic rigor appropriate to the level of the course.
/ 1) Dean’s, chairperson’s, and/or departmental colleague’s observations of colloquia or other public presentations
2) Syllabi of courses taught
3) Student opinions about course content and presentation style as determined by teaching evaluations.
4) Peer review of course content, assessment devices, curricular materials, pedagogical techniques, etc.
5) University or outside recognition for teaching activities (e.g.: college teaching award, distinguished teaching award, etc.)
6) Recognition for program/teaching activities (not otherwise utilized in promotion materials) by internal or external bodies (e.g.: accrediting organizations, Princeton Review, etc.)
7) Sample assignments.
8) Structuring courses to be compliant with specialized accreditation requirements (e.g., IACBE). / Met
Not Met

Appendix -- Evidence of teaching excellence that will generally not be acceptable

1. Letter of support from current students.

Page 1 of 4