Download PDF Here
1 Overview and Philosophy
Annual review criteria hold faculty to high performance standards in teaching/other professional duties, scholarship (for tenure-track and tenured faculty), and service. While ratings on annual reviews inform a faculty’s promotion and tenure reviews, ratings may vary between annual reviews and the promotion and tenure review. Annual reviews are meant to inform faculty of their progress toward promotion and tenure, but they are not an equivalent; annual reviews do not substitute for NS and NSHE requirements to earn promotion and tenure.
Tenure is a privilege granted to recognize excellence and an expectation of sustained high-quality performance in the future. Promotions, in the form of advancement in academic rank or level, recognize and compensate full-time academic faculty with demonstrated records of excellence in the area of teaching and/or other professional duties and appropriate levels of performance in service and scholarship (for tenure-track and tenured faculty).
SON’s expectations for tenure and promotion provide guidance to academic faculty to assist them in preparing for tenure and/or promotion evaluations. They also guide evaluators (such as the NS Promotion & Tenure Committee) as they review application materials from Nursing faculty.
2 Guidelines and Expectations for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor (Rank III)
Annual review criteria hold tenure-track faculty to high-performance standards in teaching, scholarship, and service. It is not the School of Nursing’s intent to expect or require only Excellent ratings on annual reviews to receive an overall Excellent rating in any of the three areas when applying for tenure.
Therefore, annual review ratings are contextualized to represent expectations for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Commendable, and Excellent ratings in the tenure and promotion review process. These ratings will be based on faculty members’ cumulative performance during the time leading up to the tenure and promotion review.
Evaluators for tenure and promotion assess for developmental progression in teaching, scholarship, and service. In teaching, faculty are expected to demonstrate advances in pedagogy, contribute to the overall teaching program, and mentor other faculty. The development of scholarship can include projects that take multiple years. Consequently, expectations regarding quality and quantity of scholarship should focus on the faculty member’s cumulative accomplishments. In service, faculty grow in their roles and progressively assume additional responsibilities in the School of Nursing, Nevada State, and NSHE. They become chairs of committees and leaders at the University.
2.1 Teaching and/or Other Professional Duties (OPD)
Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion will provide a brief narrative description of excellence in teaching. This narrative will provide context for reviewing the individual’s excellence in teaching. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of Excellent is achieved in teaching. Appropriate and consistent application of rigor for each nursing course shall be considered over student perception of teaching effectiveness when a candidate makes a case for a rating of Excellent in teaching. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are integral to the practice of nursing. Inclusiveness is practiced in all aspects of educating nurses as assumptions are challenged, perspectives are broadened, and socialization across diverse settings and people occurs. This should be evident in all aspects of review for promotion and tenure decisions.
2.1.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.
2.1.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
Teaching
– Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
– Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
– Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
– Use of content that is relevant to the course.
– Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments are developed by the instructor.
– Final grade distributions are not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.
Other Professional Duties
– Attend conferences related to OPD.
– Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and experiential learning.
– Reserve rooms/space and complete other administrative tasks for exams or other activities.
– Use the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
– Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.
2.1.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
Teaching
– Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
– Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
– Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
– Development and use of innovative course materials, teaching and active-learning techniques, and/or technologies.
– Adapt and improve teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean (or designee).
– Assess the effectiveness of teaching and student learning outcomes mastery.
– Incorporate or significantly address diversity issues in courses or course materials.
Other Professional Duties
– Engage in professional development related to committee/meeting management, agenda development, and other elements of group management.
– Develop an appropriate timeline for projects and ensure projects are completed on time.
– Search for open-source texts.
– Apply concepts of innovative teaching/learning frameworks across courses.
– Coordinate the work of multiple faculty teaching the same course.
– Faculty specialty active practice during the academic year over the past 1-5 years. Specialty practice cannot exceed 20% of academic base pay (NSHE Handbook Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
2.1.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
Teaching
– Consistently meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards.
– Consistent evidence of application of appropriate rigor for meeting course outcomes.
– Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom.
– Consistent use of highly engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted to the respective course and student learning outcomes.
– Design and revise courses based on evidence from published literature on teaching effectiveness.
– Earn/maintain external certification in teaching/professional practices.
– Teaching awards through the University or professional organizations.
– Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies for improving student writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
– Highly attentive to classroom dynamics and work to ensure the participation of all students.
– Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) that is practically applied and successful most of the time.
Other Professional Duties
– Successfully manage/lead a campus initiative or program.
– Develop and/or apply an assessment procedure to activities in area of responsibility.
– Course/clinical placement management: “…maintaining and operating a course” or clinical placement.
– Instructional research: “…skills and techniques associated with…scholarly inquiry into all aspects of instruction, teaching, and education.”
– Provide faculty development and mentorship in order to improve quality of course delivery.
– Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.
2.2 Scholarship
External validation (peer review) of one’s work as a primary author in a published product is required for tenure and promotion of tenured faculty at NSU. Candidates must include accomplishments in the Scholarship of Discovery, Creation, Application, or Evaluation. One published peer-reviewed article or peer-reviewed, discipline-appropriate equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet is required for a Satisfactory rating and tenure. Faculty must include descriptions of their publications that indicate that the outlet is a reputable peer-reviewed journal; predatory publication outlets are not acceptable. A peer-reviewed article accepted and in press may be considered. Publications, or the equivalent, will be considered for tenure and promotion if they are published with NS as the faculty member’s affiliation, unless other arrangements are made at the time of hire. Tenure-seeking faculty members should plan their scholarship agendas during their probationary period to ensure they have time to complete the required items. A consistent rating of Satisfactory on annual reviews is not equivalent to a rating of Satisfactory on the tenure Review.
The School of Nursing has set benchmarks for rating scholarship in the tenure review process. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in cases where faculty members have undertaken exemplary forms of scholarship or scholarly leadership not listed here.
2.2.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance.
2.2.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
– One published peer-reviewed article. (Not in predatory or pay-for-publication outlets.) Can be accompanied by, but not replaced by, additional forms of scholarship.
– Active program of quality research or creative activity exemplified by sustained involvement in scholarly activities.
– Conference papers, poster presentations, or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents.
– Mentorship of undergraduate student research.
– Publication of shorter works that advance public knowledge.
– Active membership on editorial or review boards of scholarly journals.
– Publication of a research note or book review.
– Submission of a scholarly or research-based grant.
2.2.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations. Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by:
– Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
– Two published peer-reviewed articles (not in predatory or pay-for-publication outlets). A single article in a journal consensually defined as a pre-eminent publication in the field may be considered; it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that the journal meets this standard.
– Completion of an editor-reviewed book chapter.
– Production of professional reports, technical reports, monographs, and lab manuals.
– Leadership in regional, national, or international conferences to disseminate research findings (e.g., conference planning, review of abstracts, organization of a conference).
– Refereeing a book, book chapter, or other significant work for an academic press.
2.2.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner. Distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions which advance knowledge, as indicated by:
– Meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards.
– Three or more published peer-reviewed articles or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents (not in predatory or pay-for-publication outlets).
– Peer-reviewed, discipline-specific book or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalent.
– Invited addresses, symposia, colloquia, or presentations.
– Obtaining funding through competitive grant-writing.
2.3 Service
Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion will provide a brief narrative description of performance in service. This narrative will provide context for reviewing their contributions to the School of Nursing, University, professional, and community areas. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of Satisfactory or higher is achieved in service.
2.3.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.
2.3.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
– Serving on a University-level committee.
– Serving on a School of Nursing ad-hoc task force.
– Serving on a School of Nursing subcommittee.
– Actively recruiting at University fair events.
– Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
– Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
– Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are demonstrated through evidence.
– Volunteering with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
– Contributing information to SON advising site in Canvas.
– Initiating communication with advisees on a regular basis each semester.
– Responding to and supporting advisees who have academic or social concerns.
– Maintaining office hours for student advisees.
2.3.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
– Primary role in organizing and leading a campus-wide presentation.
– Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
– Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
– Serving on the Unit P&T Committee.
– Serving as a search committee member for other NSU units.
– Serving as a search committee member for SON.
– Serving as a chair on a standing committee in SON.
– Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs (e.g., redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions).
– Leading a CTLE Faculty Learning Community.
– Holding office in a significant professional or community organization.
– Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
– Writing a grant for a community organization.
– Serving as a board member for a community or professional organization.
– Establishing partnerships with external organizations (e.g., creating student internship opportunities).
– Providing individual or group mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty and provides significant support to promote student progression in SON.
– Providing advising-related programs for groups of students outside of the SON curriculum.
– Developing new resources on advising topics that benefit groups of students.
2.3.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
– Serving as a search committee chair.
– Serving on the University P&T Committee.
– Chairing a Faculty Senate committee.
– Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice-chair, secretary, or parliamentarian).
– Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
– Playing a significant role in planning a conference that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
– Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization, including Nevada State Student Nurses Association, with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
– Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.
3 Guidelines and Expectations for Promotion to Professor (Rank IV)
In evaluating a candidate’s qualifications for promotion to the rank of professor, the candidate must demonstrate academic accomplishments that occurred during the period after the award of tenure. The applicant must present evidence of continued effective performance in teaching/OPD, scholarship, and service that exceeds the criteria for granting tenure and promotion to the associate professor rank. To be eligible for promotion to professor, the University P&T Committee must assign a candidate’s portfolio a rating of Excellent in the area of teaching/OPD and a Commendable in either scholarship or service. An associate professor is expected to be in the position for 5 years before applying for promotion to professor. Applying for promotion to professor rank is optional.
The rank of professor is awarded to those who demonstrate the following:
– Cumulative and ongoing professional achievements.
– Significant contributions to advancing the University’s mission.
– Continued innovation and dedication in teaching or other professional duties.
– Leadership and sustained contributions in service that benefits the University and community in significant ways.
– Professional growth and improvement over time.
– Scholarly contributions.
3.1 Teaching and/or OPD
The applicant must provide evidence of consistent, sustained activities and contributions that benefit the University community. Candidates should demonstrate continued innovation, professional growth, and improvement that builds on evidence-based practices and the candidate’s own evolving methods or practices. It is expected that the candidate will share successful efforts with other faculty and their professional community through leadership in campus initiatives related to their position and fulfillment of the University’s mission. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of Excellent is sustained in teaching or other professional duties. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are integral to the practice of nursing. Inclusiveness is practiced in all aspects of educating nurses as assumptions are challenged, perspectives are broadened, and socialization across diverse settings and people occurs. This should be evident in all aspects of review for promotion.
3.1.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.
3.1.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
Teaching
– Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
– Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
– Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
– Use of content that is relevant to the course.
– Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments are developed by the instructor.
– Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.
Other Professional Duties
– Attend conferences related to OPD.
– Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and/or experiential learning.
– Reserve rooms/space and complete other administrative tasks for exams or other activities.
– Organize poster sessions and other exhibition events for a class.
– Use the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
– Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.
3.1.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
Teaching
– Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
– Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
– Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
– Development and use of innovative course materials, teaching and active-learning techniques, or technologies.
– Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom.
– Adapting and improving teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean (or designee).
– Participation in structured assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes mastery.
– Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
Other Professional Duties
– Engage in professional development related to committee/meeting management, agenda development, and other elements of group management.
– Develop an appropriate timeline for a project and ensure projects are completed on time.
– Search for open-source texts.
– Apply concepts of innovative teaching/learning frameworks across courses.
– Coordinate the work of multiple faculty teaching the same course.
– Meet with students as part of the student complaint process, assisting in resolution within the limits of SON standards and policies.
– Faculty specialty active practice during the academic year over the past 1-5 years. Specialty practice cannot exceed 20% of academic base pay (NSHE Handbook Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
3.1.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.
Teaching
– Consistently meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards.
– Consistent evidence of application of appropriate rigor for meeting course outcomes.
– Consistently positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
– Continued innovation that builds on the best pedagogical practices and the candidate’s own evolving methods.
– Mentorship and leadership to share successful practices with other faculty and the teaching community.
– Teaching awards through the University or professional organizations.
– Consistent use of highly engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted to the respective course and student learning outcomes.
– Efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from personal reflection, student evaluations, and published literature on teaching effectiveness.
– Earning/maintaining external certification in teaching/professional practices.
– Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies for improving student writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
– Development of new methods to ensure the participation of all students through attention to classroom dynamics and best practices.
– Continued innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) to achieve positive student outcomes.
– Participation in University-level assessment events, focusing on course and program student learning outcomes.
Other Professional Duties
– Successfully manage/lead a campus initiative or program.
– Develop and/or apply an assessment procedure to activities in your area of responsibility.
– Course/clinical placement management: “…maintaining and operating a course” or clinical placement.
– Instructional research: “…skills and techniques associated with…scholarly inquiry into all aspects of instruction, teaching, and education.”
– Provide faculty development and mentorship to improve quality of course delivery.
– Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.
3.2 Scholarship
Candidates must show appropriate scholarly contributions since applying for tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor. They must include (a) accomplishments in the Scholarship of Discovery and Creation leading to peer-reviewed (or equivalent externally reviewed) contributions and (b) achievements in the Scholarship of Dissemination that are appropriate to the candidate’s field, position, and requirements or expectations of program-specific accrediting bodies. The candidate’s responsibility is to make a case that the level of Satisfactory, Commendable, or higher is achieved in scholarship since the last date of application for promotion. All scholarly work should be produced since applying for tenure.
3.2.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance.
3.2.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations. Active program of quality research or creative activity, since applying for tenure, as exemplified by sustained involvement in scholarly activities such as:
– Published peer-reviewed articles or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet (not a predatory or pay-for-publication outlet).
– Completion of an editor-reviewed book chapter.
– Exhibition or release of a substantial creative work in a peer-reviewed venue related to nursing aesthetics (e.g., poetry, art, music).
– Conference papers, poster presentations, or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents.
– Mentorship of undergraduate research, including guiding students in publishing their work.
– Publication of shorter works that advance public knowledge.
– Active membership on editorial or review boards of scholarly journals.
– Publication of a research note or book review.
– Submission of a scholarly or research-based grant.
– Refereeing a book or other major work for an academic press.
3.2.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations. Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by:
– Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
– Published peer-reviewed articles or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet (not a predatory or pay-for-publication outlet.) A single article in a journal consensually defined as a preeminent publication in the field may be considered; it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that the journal meets this standard.
– Peer-reviewed book chapters or scholarly equivalents.
– Production of professional reports, technical reports, monographs, and lab manuals.
– Leadership in regional, national, or international conferences for dissemination of research findings (e.g., conference planning, review of abstracts, organization of conference).
3.2.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner. Contributions should have an impact on the discipline at a national level and are distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions that advance knowledge, as indicated by:
– Meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards.
– Published peer-reviewed articles or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalent in a scholarly journal or outlet (not a predatory or pay-for-publication outlet).
– Peer-reviewed, discipline-specific book.
– Development of a model or practice that is widely adopted.
– Invited address, symposia, colloquia, or presentation.
– Obtaining funding through competitive grant-writing, including managing an external grant.
– Editor of a peer-reviewed journal.
– Mentorship of other faculty in research.
3.3 Service
Applicants must show consistent, sustained, and meaningful service, including serving in capacities that benefit the University, the profession, the community, and NSHE. Service to the University will be given the most emphasis in evaluations. With promotion to the rank of professor comes the expectation that the candidate will have fulfilled service obligations professionally, with leadership roles being a prominent part of that service. The candidate’s responsibility is to make a case that the level Satisfactory, Commendable, or higher is achieved in service since applying for tenure.
3.3.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations, Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.
3.3.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
– Serving on a University-level committee or a SON ad-hoc task force.
– Serving on a SON subcommittee.
– Actively recruiting at University fair events.
– Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
– Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
– Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee, with regular attendance and substantive contributions evidenced through documentation.
– Volunteering with a private or public organization relating to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
– Contributing information to SON advising site in Canvas.
– Initiating communication with advisees on a regular basis each semester.
– Responding to and supporting advisees who have academic or social concerns.
– Maintaining office hours for student advisees.
3.3.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
– Primary role in organizing and leading a campus-wide presentation.
– Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
– Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
– Serving on the University P&T Committee.
– Serving as a search committee member for other NSU units.
– Serving as a search committee member for SON.
– Chairing a standing committee in the School of Nursing.
– Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs (e.g., redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions).
– Leading a CTLE Faculty Learning Community.
– Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
– Holding office in a significant professional or community organization.
– Writing a grant for a community organization.
– Serving as a board member for a community or professional organization.
– Establishing partnerships with external organizations (e.g., creating student internship opportunities).
– Providing individual or group mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty and provides significant support to promote student progression in SON.
– Providing advising-related programs for groups of students outside of the SON curriculum.
– Developing new resources on advising topics that benefit groups of students.
3.3.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.
– Chairing a search committee for other NSU units.
– Chairing a search committee for SON.
– Chairing a Faculty Senate committee.
– Chairing University P&T Committee.
– Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice-chair, secretary, or parliamentarian).
– Serving on an NSHE committee or advisory board.
– Taking a leadership role in a University task force to advance the University’s mission.
– Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills and increases the visibility or stature of the University.
– Playing a significant role in planning a conference that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
– Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization, including Nevada State Student Nurses Association, with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
– Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.
4 Guidelines and Expectations for Promotion of Lecturers (Rank I, Levels II and III)
4.1 Teaching and/or Other Professional Duties
Faculty members applying for promotion to senior lecturer (Rank I, Level II) or distinguished lecturer (Rank I, Level III) will provide a brief narrative description of excellence in teaching. This narrative will provide context for reviewing the individual’s teaching excellence. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of Excellent is achieved. Those applying for promotion to Level III, distinguished lecturer, must provide evidence of a pattern of sustained and substantial excellence in teaching, with meaningful contributions in service. Appropriate and consistent application of rigor for each nursing course will be considered over student perceptions of teaching effectiveness when a candidate makes a case for a rating of Excellent in teaching.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are integral to the practice of nursing. Inclusiveness is practiced in all aspects of educating nurses as assumptions are challenged, perspectives are broadened, and socialization across diverse settings and people occurs. This should be evident in all aspects of review for promotion.
4.1.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.
4.1.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
Teaching
– Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
– Organized Canvas course.
– Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
– Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
– Use of content that is relevant to the course.
– Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments are developed by the instructor.
– Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.
– Reflect on one’s teaching and continual improvement of teaching effectiveness.
– Foster integration and synthesis in teaching to inspire knowledge development by students.
– Commitment to active learning and creating an engaging learning environment for students.
– Engage regularly in professional development and training opportunities.
– Attend conferences related to teaching.
Other Professional Duties
– Attend conferences related to OPD.
– Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and/or experiential learning.
– Reserve rooms/space and complete other administrative tasks for exams or other activities.
– Use the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
– Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.
4.1.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
Teaching
– Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
– Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
– Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
– Development and use of innovative course materials, teaching and active-learning techniques, or technologies.
– Adapting and improving teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean (or designee).
– Assessment of effectiveness of teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes mastery.
– Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
– Earn CTLE teaching certificate.
– Apply research findings in the context of teaching and professional practice.
– Evaluate student outcomes mastery through assessment of learning outcomes.
Other Professional Duties
– Engage in professional development related to committee/meeting management, agenda development, and other elements of group management.
– Develop appropriate timelines for a project and ensure projects are completed on time.
– Search for open-source texts.
– Apply concepts of innovative teaching/learning frameworks across courses.
– Coordinate the work of multiple faculty teaching the same course.
– Faculty specialty active practice during the academic year over the past 1-5 years. Specialty practice cannot exceed 20% of academic base pay (NSHE Handbook Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
4.1.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.
Teaching
– Consistently meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards.
– Consistent evidence of application of appropriate rigor for meeting course outcomes.
– Positive student evaluation ratings with positive written comments.
– Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom.
– Consistent use of highly engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted to the respective course and student learning outcomes.
– Efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from published literature on teaching effectiveness.
– Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies that improve students’ writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
– Being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students.
– Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) that is practically applied and is successful most of the time.
– Mentorship and leadership to formally share successful practices with other faculty and the teaching community.
– Teaching awards through the University or professional organizations
– Consistent use of highly engaging and appropriate learning materials and methods that include multicultural and diverse learners.
– Earning/maintaining external certification in teaching/professional practices.
– Sustained or substantial participation in educational programs that benefit SON, the University, the profession, and/or community groups.
Other Professional Duties
– Successfully manage/lead a campus initiative or program.
– Develop and/or apply an assessment procedure to activities in your area of responsibility.
– Course/clinical placement management: “…maintaining and operating a course” or clinical placement.
– Instructional research: “…skills and techniques associated with the scholarly inquiry into all aspects of instruction, teaching, and education.”
– Provide faculty development and mentorship to improve quality of course delivery.
– Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.
4.2 Service
Faculty members applying for promotion will provide a brief narrative description of their performance in service. This narrative will provide context for reviewing the individual’s contributions to SON, the University, and professional or community areas. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level Satisfactory or higher is achieved. Those applying for promotion to Level III (distinguished lecturer) must make a case that the level of Satisfactory, Commendable, or higher was sustained since applying for Level II (senior lecturer).
4.2.1 Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance.
4.2.2 Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
– Serving on a University-level committee.
– Serving on a SON ad-hoc task force.
– Serving on a SON subcommittee.
– Actively recruiting at University fair events.
– Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
– Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
– Serving as an active advisor to nursing students.
– Serving on a SON standing committee, with regular attendance and substantive contributions demonstrated through evidence.
– Volunteer activities with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
– Contributing information to SON advising site in Canvas.
– Initiating communication with advisees on a regular basis each semester.
– Responding to and supporting advisees who have academic or social concerns.
– Maintaining office hours for student advisees.
4.2.3 Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
– A primary role in leading and organizing a campus-wide presentation.
– Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
– Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
– Serving as a search committee member for other NSU units.
– Serving as a search committee member for SON.
– Chairing a standing SON committee.
– Serving on the Unit P&T committee.
– Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs (e.g., redesigning a program, introducing a course, or making substantial degree revisions).
– Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
– Holding office on a significant professional or community organization.
– Serving as a board member for a community or professional organization.
– Establishing partnerships with external organizations (e.g., creating student internship opportunities).
– Providing individual or group mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty and provides significant support to promote student progression in SON.
– Providing advising-related programs for groups of students outside of the SON curriculum.
– Developing new resources on advising topics that benefit groups of students.
– Present at a faculty development workshop.
– Participation on panels and presentations on pedagogy at the School or University level or to external audiences in Nevada or nationally.
– Mentor new faculty in the program or school.
4.2.4 Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.
– Chairing a search committee for other NSU department units.
– Chairing a search committee for SON.
– Chairing a Faculty Senate committee.
– Participation in University assessment events focusing on course and program student learning outcomes mastery.
– Serving on the University P&T Committee.
– Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice chair, secretary, or parliamentarian).
– Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
– Playing a significant role in planning a conference that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position and skills.
– Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.
– Leading a CTLE Faculty Learning Community.
– Writing a grant for a community organization.
– Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization, including Nevada State Student Nurses Association, with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
– Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.
5 Guidelines and Expectations for Annual Reviews
The School of Nursing subscribes to the philosophy that teaching should be the primary area of emphasis for faculty members, with scholarship (for tenure-track faculty) and service as important but lower priorities. Faculty are recruited, evaluated, awarded tenure, and promoted based on this perspective. Scholarship is not required as part of a lecturer contract.
The academic evaluation and reward system in the SoN has three purposes: (a) to provide the means by which faculty, through annual reviews, progress through the academic ranks; (b) to certify high achievement, and (c) to determine eligibility for merit pay.
5.1 Teaching and/or Other Professional Duties
For annual reviews, teaching refers to the act of cultivating a rich learning environment, including sharing knowledge, nurturing critical inquiry, inspiring curiosity, and encouraging students to apply what they have learned. Teaching primarily reflects instruction-related activities that directly impact student learning. Because Nevada State University is a teaching institution, offering engaging and meaningful instruction is a highly valued activity in the SoN.
According to the Nevada State University mission statement, “excellence in teaching leads to innovative, technology-rich learning opportunities that promote the acquisition of interdisciplinary knowledge and skills.” To support this mission, the lines of evidence for excellence in teaching provide some comparability in evaluation while recognizing the diverse ways in which faculty may demonstrate teaching excellence.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are integral to the practice of nursing. Inclusiveness is practiced in all aspects of educating nurses as assumptions are challenged, perspectives are broadened, and socialization across diverse settings and people occurs. This should be evident in all aspects of the annual review.
As part of their annual review materials, faculty members submit a teaching narrative that provides context for reviewing their teaching effectiveness. The narrative is a reflection on important teaching activities, accomplishments, and challenges experienced in the year under review.
Material evaluated for annual reviews will include an example course syllabus, official student course evaluations, and exemplars of student learning or accomplishments from courses taught during the year. Faculty members should expect to provide additional evidence of teaching effectiveness requested by the Dean (or designee) during the review process.
Items submitted as evidence of teaching effectiveness should relate to the quality of the learning environment provided to students in courses at NSU. Other items that may be related to teaching, such as research or publications in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), mentoring students toward making a conference presentation, or taking a leadership role in teaching workshops, should be submitted in the scholarship or service categories.
5.1.1 Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
– Syllabus for each course that incorporates the elements in the standard SoN template (courses taught during review period only).
– Teaching observation(s) from the Dean (or designee).
– Teaching narrative highlighting teaching exemplars and other examples of teaching effectiveness.
– Final grade distributions and student evaluations are imported from the data warehouse. Faculty include a summary self-analysis of these materials as part of their narrative. The faculty member may request that the Dean (or designee) exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates from consideration.
5.1.2 Additional Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
May include, but are not limited to:
– Exams, assignments, projects, or other assessments developed by the instructor to measure student performance.
– Lectures, handouts, and other materials used to aid instruction.
– Peer observations of a colleague’s teaching conducted by the faculty member.
– Video- or audio-recordings of teaching.
– Descriptions of innovative teaching methods used.
– Grade distributions for assignments or exams.
– Descriptions of how diversity issues were incorporated into course content.
– Examples of feedback provided on papers, projects, exams, or other assignments.
– Data-driven (quantitative and/or qualitative) assessment of the effectiveness of an assignment, activity, or instructional technique used in a course.
– Video- or audio-recordings of student performance.
– Website/URL of any other technological assignment completed by students.
– Teaching awards.
– Other discipline-specific evidence of teaching effectiveness.
– Acceptance of an external teaching-related grant.
– Additional evidence as requested by the Dean (or designee).
5.1.3 Activities Related to Teaching
As part of their teaching responsibilities, faculty members often participate in related activities that enrich the quality of education at Nevada State University. A description of these activities should be provided in their annual review materials. These activities may include, but are not limited to:
– New preparations or substantial revisions to a course that go beyond routine updates.
– Significant student mentoring that includes a teaching component and an assessment of student learning.
5.1.4 Rating Teaching in Annual Reviews
When rating teaching, evaluators will consider the faculty member’s progress toward meeting the goals in the annual review plan. The quality of contributions will be rated more highly than the quantity. Due to variability of numerical ratings on student evaluations across courses, numerical thresholds provided below should be interpreted as guidelines and not absolute standards. Numerical ratings are one measure among many used for evaluation.
Unsatisfactory
Fails to meet expectations. An Unsatisfactory rating indicates one or more of the following conditions:
– Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance.
– Failure to sufficiently improve in aspects of teaching identified in previous annual reviews as essential areas for improvement.
– Failure to regularly meet academic calendar and departmental deadlines, including but not limited to attendance rosters, failure notifications, reinstatement recommendations, and final grade submissions.
– Substantiated formal student documented complaint.
– Existence of a pattern of student written complaints about one or more of the instructor’s courses. If such complaints occur, the faculty member may provide a justification or explanation regarding the complaints. This explanation will be considered by the Dean (or designee) when determining whether an Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate.
Satisfactory
Meets expectations. At the Satisfactory level, faculty members are expected to be competent instructors, as evidenced by the creation of a classroom climate that respects students and welcomes diversity, the absence of major problems or written student complaints related to an instructor’s courses, and by quality contributions in all of the following areas:
– Well-developed syllabi with adequate expectations and rigor that include a course description, course objectives, evaluation criteria/methods, and office hours; additionally, a well-developed and feasible topical calendar must be documented.
– Canvas Course is minimally organized.
– Availability to students outside of classroom hours, such as established/posted office hours and other scheduled appointments.
– Content that is relevant to the course as evidenced by adequately rigorous readings, texts, and updated course materials that demonstrate a systematic effort by the instructor to convey course material.
– Student evaluations include written comments that are generally satisfactory and numerical ratings above 3.0 on a 5-point scale, with 5.0 being the highest. Where faculty members do not meet these criteria, they may explain mitigating circumstances they believe led to lower student ratings.
– Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments are developed by the instructor.
– Participation in CTLE programs.
– Demonstrated evidence of substantive feedback given to students regarding performance on major assignments, exams, and high-stakes learning projects/activities.
– Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner. Faculty members may submit a rationale explaining cases in which grade distributions are skewed, which will be considered by the Dean (or designee).
Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
– Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
– Evaluations with positive written (qualitative) comments and numerical ratings (quantitative) above 3.0 on a 5-point scale.
– Quality contributions in some of the following major areas of teaching effort or equivalent (emphasis is on quality and substance. not quantity):
– Development and use of innovative course materials, teaching and active-learning techniques, or technologies.
– Adapting and improving teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean (or designee).
– Grading assignments and providing effective feedback in a reasonable timeframe (students receive feedback on previous assignments prior to the subsequent assignment’s due date) so students are aware of their progress throughout the course.
– Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors.
– Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course.
– Assessment of student learning.
– Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
– Demonstrated effort toward meeting goals set in the annual review plan for the year or new goals that developed during the year.
– Supervision of an independent study or experiential learning activities that include assessment of student learning.
Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.
– Consistently meets and exceeds Commendable performance standards;
– Evaluations should have positive written (qualitative) comments and numerical ratings (quantitative) above 3.5 on a 5-pt scale.
– High-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of teaching effort or equivalent (emphasis is on quality and substance, not quantity):
– Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom.
– Consistent use of highly engaging and appropriate learning materials that are targeted to the respective course and student learning outcomes.
– Efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from published literature on teaching effectiveness.
– Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies that improve students’ writing skills.
– Being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students.
– Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) that is practically applied and successful most of the time.
– Earning/maintaining external certification in teaching/professional practices recognized by the NLN, ANCC, and/or the AANP (nurse practitioners) national accrediting bodies, which positively impact teaching within the SoN. Other nationally recognized accrediting bodies for certifications(s) will be considered.
– Receipt of a teaching award or certificate.
– Acceptance of an external teaching-related grant.
5.1.5 Rating Other Professional Duties in Annual Reviews
Academic faculty may have decreased teaching loads to accommodate completion of administrative duties. The annual review combines evaluation of teaching and of OPD. When rating other professional duties, the Dean (or designee) will consider the faculty member’s progress toward meeting the goals in the annual review plan from the previous year. Specific duties and expectations vary by faculty release and are based on activities included in the role description. The following list is not meant to be comprehensive or specific, but serves as a guide for ratings.
Satisfactory
Meets expectations.
– Attend conferences related to OPD.
– Engage regularly in professional development and training opportunities.
– Support and collaborate with faculty and staff to solve problems.
– Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and/or experiential learning.
– Reserve rooms/space and complete other administrative tasks for exams or other activities.
– Organize poster sessions and other exhibition events for a class.
– Use the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
– Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.
– Respond effectively, appropriately, and in a timely manner to student emails/other communications.
– Submit reports and recommendations to the Dean on a regular basis.
Commendable
Exceeds expectations.
– Engage in professional development related to committee/meeting management, agenda development, and other elements of group management.
– Develop appropriate timelines for projects and ensure projects are completed on time.
– Manage/supervise course and off-campus learning sites (in-person or online, including student teaching and clinical sites).
– Foster inclusivity in the instructional environment.
– Implement information and/or skills from campus trainings/workshops to enhance job duties or professional activities.
– Orient faculty, staff, and students by planning, leading, and participating in orientation sessions.
– Conduct peer reviews of faculty and contribute to evaluating faculty and staff.
– Participate in search committees and interviews for new faculty and staff.
– Participate in campus leadership committees which contribute to teaching and learning, such as the CTLE Board and Library Board.
Excellent
Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner.
– Successfully manage/lead a campus initiative or program.
– Develop and/or apply an assessment procedure to activities in the area of responsibility.
– Course/clinical placement management: “…maintaining and operating a course” or clinical placement.
– Participate in instructional research: “…skills and techniques associated with the scholarly inquiry into all aspects of instruction, teaching, and education.”
– Identify and implement changes that demonstrably improve the learning experience for students.
– Consult with faculty to improve teaching and incorporate innovative approaches such as UDL, clinical judgment, and caring theory.
– Develop and update Canvas resource sites for SON faculty and staff.
– Effectively design and manage group work/projects; address conflicts or issues that arise.
– Sustained participation in campus leadership committees that contribute to teaching and learning, such as the CTLE Board and Library Board.
– Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.
5.2 Scholarship
For annual reviews of tenure-track and tenured faculty, SON defines scholarship as the process of exploring a relevant question or problem, synthesizing existing knowledge, developing new ideas, and sharing the results through discipline-appropriate outlets. The SON values scholarly efforts representing the spectrum from basic to applied, including the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Evidence of productive scholarship can be supported by published records and other original discipline-specific peer-reviewed and editor-reviewed work of a professional nature, including research on the scholarship of teaching and learning, creative works, and mentoring substantial student research projects.
Lecturer (Rank I) positions do not require scholarship. Scholarship is not evaluated in their annual evaluations, nor is it used in their merit pay calculations.
Regarding the scholarship criterion in annual reviews, quality refers to the extent to which scholarship contributes to advances in knowledge and/or the enrichment of teaching. This concept of quality places more importance on the process and effect than on the quantity of products. Collaboration on products is encouraged and supported by SON faculty, although it is expected that a share of the products will reflect sole or primary authorship.
5.2.1 Scholarship Evidence
May include, but not limited to:
– Research and professional publications. The quality of the publications or reports will be evaluated within the context of norms for the area of expertise. Peer-reviewed outlets are accorded more significance than publications that do not go through peer review. Tenure-track faculty must have at least one peer-reviewed publication prior to application for tenure.
– Book chapters. Book chapters will be evaluated in terms of the inherent quality of the piece and scope of impact or dissemination within the context of the norms for the discipline. Refereed chapters are accorded more significance than non-refereed chapters.
– Books. Scholarly books that broaden a disciplinary knowledge base with original research or produce novel applications of existing knowledge to professional problems are accorded the most significance. Textbooks that compile and organize existing knowledge are weighted less than unique work. Readings, edited books, and conference proceedings are given less significance than textbooks.
– Aesthetic creations. The School of Nursing respects the work of scholars engaged in the aesthetics of nursing and supports such efforts. Works that are creative in nature (nursing aesthetics) will be evaluated within the context of norms for the nursing discipline.
– Undergraduate research. Faculty members are encouraged to mentor student research and research projects. Mentorship and supervision of student research will be evaluated in terms of the length of project, dissemination of findings, and peer-reviewed professional publications. Projects that are more time- intensive (over several semesters) will be accorded more significance than those where faculty take a more peripheral role in mentoring students or research projects. Student work accepted for publication in a professional, peerreviewed journal will be accorded the most significance.
– Professional reports, technical reports, informational reports, monographs, and lab manuals. Professional publications are evaluated in terms of their quality, with reference to the intended audience. As with books and book chapters, the scope of dissemination is considered.
– Conference papers and poster presentations. The value attributed to paper and poster presentations varies and will be evaluated by the following six factors (listed in no particular order of importance): (a) quality of the paper or poster, (b) quality of the conference, (c) scope of the conference (international, national, regional, or local), (d) scope of dissemination, (e) whether the item was refereed, and (f) whether the paper or poster was invited. Generally paper presentations will be granted more weight than poster presentations. Evaluators may grant more weight to papers or presentations that include significant student involvement.
– Scholarly grants and contracts. Funded grants and contracts provide evidence of the capacity to organize scholarly activity that is judged meritorious by external funding agencies. Therefore, external funding will be accorded more significance than internal (University) funding. Grant and contract proposals will be evaluated in terms of the funding agency and the scope of the funded research.
– Scholarship in progress. Evidence of scholarship in progress, particularly the continuation of funded endeavors, manuscripts under review, exhibitions under development, and formal working papers, serves as an indicator of the candidate’s intent to complete projects. Examples of work in progress include completing a prospectus, literature review, or data collection, and writing individual parts or chapters of a project. Statements of scholarship in progress should be supported by evidence such as working drafts or notes.
– Other peer-reviewed endeavors. Evidence provided for scholarship production in other forms (such as lectures, creative work, unique equipment, computer software/program design, video productions) will be evaluated in terms of (a) scope of dissemination, (b) nature of intended/receiving audience, and (c) prestige of validating authority, institution, or agency. External validation of quality is essential.
– Peer-reviewing books and articles. Reviewing the contributions of other scholars is an important aspect of the creation of knowledge. This will be evaluated based on the time and effort it takes to referee the item, as well as the overall impact of the publication outlet.
– Shorter works that advance public knowledge. This may include short articles published in the bulletins of academic organizations and mass media (newspapers, legitimate web magazines, etc.) that advance the general public knowledge. Such activities have less significance than original peer-reviewed contributions such as journal articles. Two works in this subcategory count as one item for annual reviews. This category cannot be counted more than once in any review year, regardless of the total number of items published.
5.2.2 Academic Leadership in Scholarship
May include, but not limited to:
– Identifying, developing, funding, designing, implementing, and completing research, development, dissemination, or evaluation projects of significant scope. Evaluations will consider the extent to which such projects enhance the faculty member’s recognition and involve other faculty, students, and staff.
– Developing regional, national, or international conferences, symposia, or the like for disseminating research findings.
– Active membership on editorial boards of scholarly journals.
– Mentorship of faculty in scholarship and writing that includes formal meetings, a project plan, and implementation that leads to submission for publication.
5.2.3 National Recognition in Scholarship
May include, but not limited to:
– Development of a model or practice that is widely adopted.
– Extensive publications in primary scholarly outlets.
– Record of high accomplishment in creative endeavors of relevance to the field.
– Frequent citations in the literature.
– Obtaining funding through competitive proposal writing.
– Number and quality of invited addresses, symposia, colloquia, and presentations.
5.2.4 Categories for Scholarship Evidence
Tenure-track and tenured faculty members present evidence of scholarly progress that outlines their contributions during the year in review. Evaluators assess scholarly output by applying the following categories.
Contributions not listed below will be taken into consideration during the review based on the scope and contribution to knowledge in nursing and education.
Level C: Includes quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis is on quality and substance, not quantity):
– Develops, conducts, and/or supervises research with students.
– Evidence of preparation of scholarly work with a clear timeline for completion (e.g., pilot testing; data collection, literature review).
– Submission of a manuscript to a refereed publication for initial peer review (primary or non-primary authorship).
– Resubmission of an article to a peer-reviewed journal that required revisions.
– Submission for presentation at a conference.
– Completion of other scholarly products (e.g., software or conference proceedings).
– Refereeing an article for a peer-reviewed journal.
– Presentation of a new poster at a professional conference.
– Publication of a research note or book review.
– Publication of a peer-recognized field-specific encyclopedia article.
– Submission of an external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether the faculty member is among principal investigators). Submission of external grant proposals that require significant research and preparation may be considered as a level B item at the evaluator’s discretion.
– Management of an external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether the faculty member is among the PIs). Acceptance of a management role of a large external grant may be considered as a level B item at the evaluator’s discretion.
– 2 short discipline-specific published works that advance public knowledge (non refereed). Two works in this category together count as one item for the annual review. This item cannot be counted more than once in any review year.
Level B: Includes high-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis is on quality and substance, not quantity):
– Acceptance of a peer-reviewed journal article for publication (non-primary authorship).
– Presentation of a new scholarly paper or a research presentation at a professional conference.
– Substantial role in mentoring a student(s) toward successful presentation of a scholarly paper or poster at a professional conference.
– Mentoring a student to publish work in an undergraduate research journal or creative outlet.
– Presentation as keynote or invited speaker at a conference, symposium, colloquium, or other significant academic event.
– Acceptance of a scholarly peer-reviewed or editor-reviewed book chapter.
– Refereeing a book for an academic press.
– Receipt of a local or regional external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether the faculty member is among PIs).
– Completion of two or more chapters of an accepted book that is a synthesis of previously compiled knowledge.
– Completion of final draft of an accepted book that is a synthesis of previously compiled knowledge.
– Peer-reviewed exhibition or release of a single, discipline-specific, stand-alone piece of creative work (for those in the arts).
– Completion of a scholarly technical/professional report or monograph.
– Publication of a laboratory work book.
– Publication of an accepted book chapter that required substantial revisions or further research (documented by evidence).
– Acceptance of book prospectus.
– Serving as editor of a peer-reviewed journal.
Level A: Includes superior contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis is on quality and substance, not quantity):
– Acceptance of a peer-reviewed journal article for publication (sole or primary authorship).
– Substantial role in guiding an undergraduate research project that is accepted for peerreviewed publication.
– Acceptance of a national external research grant (faculty member is among PIs).
– Completion of two or more chapters of an accepted editor- or peer-reviewed book that is scholarly and based on original research and thought.
– Publishing a book chapter (editor or peer-reviewed).
– Exhibition or publication of a major discipline-specific nationally or regionally recognized peer-reviewed creative/innovative work.
5.2.5 Scholarship Ratings for Annual Reviews (Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty)
The School of Nursing sets the following rating guidelines for assessing scholarship in annual reviews. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in the ratings where faculty members have undertaken forms of scholarship or scholarly leadership not listed here and as accounted for in the faculty member’s narrative.
A consistent rating of Satisfactory on annual reviews is not equivalent to a rating of Satisfactory on a tenure or promotion review. Tenure-seeking faculty should plan out their scholarship agendas so they have time to complete the requirements provided in the tenure section.
| Rating | Performance | Evidence |
| Unsatisfactory | Fails to meet expectations
|
Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance |
| Satisfactory | Meets expectations
|
Active program of quality research or creative activity that contributes to the discipline’s body of knowledge and includes either:
2 Level B items or 1 Level B item. |
| Commendable
|
Exceeds expectations | Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by either:
2 Level B items or 1 Level B and 2 Level C items. |
| Excellent | Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner
|
Distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions that advance knowledge, as indicated by:
1 Level A item or 2 Level B and 2 Level C items. |
5.3 Service
The SoN defines service as a faculty member’s professional responsibilities to Nevada State University and its external community. Service is one of the many ways that faculty work together to fulfill our mission. First and foremost, faculty are expected to demonstrate how they contribute significantly to meeting the needs of Nevada State University, followed to a lesser degree by contributions to the profession and community or government agencies.
When evaluating service contributions, both quantity and quality are important considerations. Quantity in the absence of quality is insufficient to earn high ratings. As part of their annual review materials, faculty members submit a brief narrative description of their service activities. Faculty members are encouraged to submit relevant evidence (e.g., documents created, revisions or edits made) that reflects particular service contributions and may be asked to provide additional evidence as requested by the Dean (or designee).
5.3.1 Service Evidence
Lines of evidence for demonstrating service accomplishments are listed below but are examples only and do not exhaust the range of possibilities. A case may be made for a service contribution in one level that, due to a particular time commitment or other requirements, might qualify for another level.
Institutional Service
Level C: Substantive involvement in a single meaningful event (e.g., University fair) or participation in an endeavor that requires a relatively low time commitment. Examples:
– Leading and/or major contributions in organizing a campus-wide presentation.
– Serving on a University-level committee and/or a School of Nursing ad-hoc task force or subcommittee.
– Actively recruiting at a college fair event.
– Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
– Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
– Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
– Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee, with regular attendance and substantive contributions clearly evidenced.
– Contributing information to SON advising site in Canvas.
– Initiating communication with advisees on a regular basis each semester.
– Responding to and supporting advisees who have academic or social concerns.
– Maintaining office hours for student advisees.
Level B: Substantive involvement in a meaningful endeavor that requires a moderate time commitment and/or reflects the faculty member’s contribution to accomplishing an important institutional goal. Examples:
– Serving as a search committee member (University and/or School of Nursing).
– Chairing a standing SON committee.
– Serving on Unit Promotion and Tenure Committee.
– Substantially developing or revising curricula or programs (e.g., redesigning a program or making substantial degree revisions).
– Providing individual or group mentorship to students that goes well beyond the advisory role expected of faculty and provides significant support to promote student progression in SON.
– Providing advising-related programs for groups of students outside of the SON curriculum.
– Developing new resources on advising topics that benefit groups of students.
Level A: Substantive involvement in or guidance of a meaningful endeavor that requires a significant time commitment, involves an important leadership role, and reflects the faculty member’s contribution to accomplishing an essential institutional goal. Examples:
– Holding office on Faculty Senate (Chair, vice-chair, secretary, or parliamentarian).
– Chairing a Faculty Senate Committee.
– Serving on University P&T Committee.
– Chairing a search committee.
– Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization, including Nevada State Student Nurses Association, with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
– Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.
Community and Professional Service
Contributions to the profession or community may be counted as service if they contribute to the mission or promote the objectives of NSU. The examples below are not exhaustive.
Level C: Substantive involvement in a single meaningful event (e.g., participating as a speaker at a community event) or participation in an endeavor that requires a relatively low time commitment. Examples:
– Serving as an officer in a local, state, regional, or national professional or learned society.
– Providing pro bono consultation to individuals or local, state, regional, national, or federal organizations.
– Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
– Writing a grant for a community organization.
– Establishing partnerships with external organizations (e.g., creating student internship opportunities).
– Volunteering with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
Level B: Substantive involvement in a meaningful service endeavor in the community that requires a moderate time commitment. Examples:
– Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
– Playing a significant role in planning a conference that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position and/or skills.
Level A: This category is typically reserved for institutional service within the University. However, a faculty member may provide evidence that a particular external service activity goes beyond Level B and deserves a higher rating. For example, a faculty member who plans an entire national conference that directly benefits the University may argue that the effort justifies Level A status.
5.3.3 Rating Service in Annual Reviews
The following are non-comprehensive examples of how service to the institution and community/profession might be evaluated for annual reviews. Evaluators should converse with faculty members to determine the quality of service, considering the time and effort required and the substance of the contribution. The quantities indicated below are general guidelines, not fixed thresholds. The quantity required may vary based on the quality of the contribution. Failure to meet designated service obligations may reduce a faculty member’s annual review rating, regardless of other service contributions.
To acknowledge various service contributions, the three service levels equate to this point scale:
1 Level C activity = 1 point
1 Level B activity = 2 points
1 Level A activity = 4 points
| Rating | Performance | Points | Activity Levels |
| Unsatisfactory | Fails to meet expectations | 3 points or fewer | 2 Level C items = 2 points |
| Satisfactory | Meets expectations | 4-5 points | 1 Level A item = 4 points
4 Level C items = 4 points 2 Level B items + 1 Level C item = 5 points |
| Commendable | Exceeds expectations | 6-7 points, including one Level A or B item | 1 Level A item + 2 Level C items = 6 points
5 Level C items + 1 Level B item = 7 points |
| Excellent | Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner | 8 or more points, including one Level A or B item | 1 Level A item + 4 Level C items = 8 points
5 Level C items + 2 Level B items = 9 points |
A faculty member who completes six or more Level C items would not meet the standard for a Commendable rating because it requires at least one Level A or B item.
6 Related Information
– Application for Third-Year Review and Recommendation for Promotion and/or Tenure (NSHE)
6.1 Definitions
Academic rank: Position of academic faculty within Nevada State’s promotion and tenure structure. NS recognizes four ranks: Rank I for Lecturer (all levels), Rank II for Assistant Professor, Rank III for Associate Professor, and Rank IV for Professor.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI): Initiatives, activities, or efforts that promote a culture of belonging in which all perspectives are valued; that advocate for and amplify voices of marginalized and minoritized people to advance the success of historically excluded individuals and populations; and that bridge communities to lay pathways for social justice, equal opportunity, excellence, and innovation in a diverse global society.
Lecturer: Title for full-time, non-tenure-track academic faculty. Includes three levels: Lecturer (Level I), Senior Lecturer (Level II), and Distinguished Lecturer (Level III).
Other professional duties: Assigned job duties that are evaluated in place of teaching for promotion and tenure. May be a short-term or long-term assignment.
Peer review: External review and evaluation of research and creative works conducted by peer experts in the field prior to publication or exhibition.
Predatory publication outlet: Journal or other publication source that deviates from best editorial and publication practices by soliciting articles from authors and requiring a fee for publication without adhering to established best practices of peer-review or editing services.
Service: Consultation, administration, or other activities directed toward the Nevada State community’s welfare. Activities include, but are not limited to, advising students and/or mentoring colleagues; participation in professional organizations; working with Nevada State faculty, staff, and students in the best interests of the academic community and the people it serves and to the extent that the job performance of the faculty member’s unit is not otherwise adversely affected; membership on and contributions to Nevada State or NSHE committees; recognition among colleagues for possessing professional integrity and the capacity for further significant intellectual and professional achievement; and recognition and respect outside Nevada State for participation in activities that use the faculty member’s knowledge and expertise, further the mission of NS, or provide an opportunity for professional growth through interaction with industry, business, government, and other institutions at the local, state, national, or global level (NSHE Code Section 7.4.2).
Scholarship: Activity including, but not limited to, creation, application, synthesis, or transmission of knowledge; cross-disciplinary collaboration; acquiring and sustaining faculty expertise; and, in appropriate fields or disciplines, visual, performing, and literary arts that express original ideas, interpretations, imaginations, thoughts, or feelings (NSHE Code Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2). Nevada State recognizes two categories: Scholarship of Discovery and Creation and Scholarship of Dissemination.
Scholarship of Discovery and Creation: Engagement in activities that lead to the development or production of research findings or, in relevant fields, artistic creations.
Scholarship of Dissemination: Communicating findings, knowledge, product(s), or artistic work related to scholarship for the benefit of others.
Teaching: Activities associated with instruction of students, including, but not limited to, lecture course, laboratory, practicum, and laboratory instruction; course preparation; evaluation of students’ performance; direction of independent study, student research, and thesis projects; and consultations with students enrolled in classes.
Tenure: Status granted to an eligible academic faculty member after a probationary period that provides protection from summary dismissal.
6.2 Dean’s Approval
Approved 8/12/2025 by Dean June Eastridge.
Revised 6/24/2026: Updated scholarship, service, and lecturer promotion criteria throughout added Definitions and Dean’s Approval Sections.