POLICY STATEMENT

This policy delineates the expectations for earning tenure and/or promotion within the School of Nursing.

DEFINITIONS

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

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

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

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

Other Professional Duties: Assigned job duties that are evaluated in lieu 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: Source for publication that deviates from best editorial and publication practices by soliciting articles from authors and requiring a fee for publication without adhering to best practices of peer-review or editing services.

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

Service: Consultation, administration, or other activities directed toward the Nevada State community’s welfare. Activities including, but 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 three categories of Scholarship: Growth and Development (qualifies as Scholarship for Lecturers), Scholarship of Discovery and Creation, and Scholarship of Dissemination

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

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

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

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

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

PROCEDURES

I.             Overview and Philosophy

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

Therefore, annual review ratings are contextualized to represent expectations for “Unsatisfactory,” “Satisfactory,” Commendable,” and “Excellent” ratings in the tenure and promotion application process. The promotion and tenure ratings will be based on a faculty member’s cumulative performance during the time leading up to the tenure and/or promotion review.

Tenure is a privilege granted to recognize excellence and an expectation of sustained high-quality performance in the future on the part of academic faculty. 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.

The unit-level 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 (e.g., the NS Promotion & Tenure Committee) as they review application materials from faculty within the unit.

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

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 application 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 for scholarship should focus on the faculty member’s cumulative accomplishments regarding quality and quantity. 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 in the University.

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

II.A Teaching and/or Other Professional Duties

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of excellence in teaching. This narrative will provide context for the review of 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.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance (see below).

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.
  • Utilization of content that is relevant to the course.
  • Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor.
  • Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.

Other Professional Duties

• • Attend conferences related to Other Professional Duties.
  • Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and experiential learning.
  • Reserve rooms/space and complete other administrative tasks for exams or other activities.
  • Utilize the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
  • Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.

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.
  • Adapt and improve teaching based on feedback from students, peers, and the Dean or Dean’s designee.
  • Assess the effectiveness of teaching and student learning outcomes.
  • 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 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.

 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 toward 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 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.

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 in order to improve quality of course delivery.
  • Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.

II.B Scholarship

External validation (peer reviewed) of one’s work as a primary author in a published product is requisite for promotion and tenure 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 (Does not apply to predatory publication outlets as defined by this policy) and tenure. Faculty must include descriptions of the publications that indicate that the outlet is a reputable peer-reviewed journal. A peer-reviewed article accepted and in press, may also be considered. Publications, or the equivalent, will be considered for tenure and promotion only if they are published with NS as the faculty member’s affiliation, unless other arrangements are made at the time of hire and included in the faculty member’s contract. Tenure-seeking faculty members should plan their scholarship agendas during their probationary period, so they have time to complete the required expectations listed below. A consistent rating of Satisfactory on Annual Review is not equivalent to a rating of Satisfactory on the Tenure Review.

The School of Nursing has set the following benchmarks for rating scholarship in the tenure review process. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in those cases where faculty members have undertaken exemplary forms of scholarship or scholarly leadership not listed here.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance (see below).

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations

• One published peer-reviewed article. (Does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets). This requirement can be accompanied by, but not replaced by, additional forms of scholarship listed.
• Active program of quality research or creative activity as exemplified by sustained involvement in scholarly activities.
• Conference papers, poster presentations, or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents.
• Mentorship of undergraduate research students.
• Publication of shorter works that advance public knowledge.
• Active membership on editorial or review boards of scholarly journals.
• Publication of a research note or book review.
• Submission of a scholarship-based grant.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations

Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by:

• Meets Satisfactory performance standards.
• Two published peer-reviewed articles (Does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets). Note: A single article in a journal consensually defined in the field of study as a preeminent publication also may be considered; it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that the journal meets this standard.
• 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.

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 (Does not apply to 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.

II.C. Service

Faculty members applying for tenure and promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of performance in service. This narrative will provide a context for reviewing the individual’s contributions to the School of Nursing, University (NS), 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.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance (see below).

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 sub-committee.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• 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

Commendable: Exceeds expectations

• Primary role in leading and organizing a campus-wide presentation.
• Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
• Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
• Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
• Serving on the University P&T Committee.
• Serving as a search committee member for other NSU department needs.
• Serving as a search committee member for the School of Nursing.
• Serving as a Chairperson on 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.
• 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).
• Faculty specialty active practice for less than five years through the academic year. Specialty Practice shall not exceed 20% of academic base pay per NSHE policy (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
• 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

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner

• Serving as a search committee chair for other NSU department needs.
• Serving as a search committee chair for the School of Nursing.
• Chairing as a Faculty Senate committee Chair.
• Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice-chair, secretary, or parliamentarian), NFA, or in a significant professional or community organization.
• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Consistent faculty specialty active practice for at least five years or greater through the academic year. Specialty practice shall not exceed 20% of academic base pay per NSHE policy (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization(s), including Nevada State Student Nurses Association with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
• Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring

III.          Guidelines and Expectations for Promotion to Rank IV of Professor

In evaluating a candidate’s qualifications for promotion to 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/Other Professional Duties, Scholarship, and Service that exceeds the criteria outlined for granting tenure and promotion from the Associate Professor’s rank. To be eligible for promotion for Professor, the University P&T Committee must assign a candidate’s portfolio a rating of “excellent” in the area of Teaching/Other Professional Duties and a “commendable” in either Scholarship or Service. An associate professor is expected to be in the position for five (5) years before applying for promotion to Professor. Promotion to Professor is optional.

The rank of Professor is awarded to those who demonstrate the following:

• Cumulative and ongoing professional achievements;
• Significant contributions to advancing the mission of the University;
• Continued innovation and dedication in teaching with 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.

III.A Teaching and/or Other Professional Duties

The applicant for promotion to rank of Professor must provide evidence of consistent, sustained activities and contributions that benefit the University community. 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.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance (see below).

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.
  • Utilization of content that is relevant to the course.
  • Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor.
  • Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.

Other Professional Duties

• • Attend conferences related to Other Professional Duties.
  • Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and 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.
  • Utilize the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
  • Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.

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 Dean’s designee.
  • Participation in the structured assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes.
  • Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.

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.

 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 toward the respective course and student learning outcomes.
  • Efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from personal reflection, student evaluations, and published literature on teaching effectiveness.
  • Earning/maintaining external certification in teaching/professional practices.
  • Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies for improving student writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
  • Development of new methods to ensure the participation of all students through attention to classroom dynamics and best practices.
  • Continued innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) to achieve positive student outcomes.
  • Participation in University level assessment retreats, 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 the 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.

III.B Scholarship

Candidates for promotion to rank of Professor must show appropriate scholarly contributions in the post-tenure period. 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 while being in the Associate Professor’s rank. All scholarly work is produced since the time of tenure.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance (see below).

Satisfactory: Meets expectations

Active program of quality research or creative activity, since achieving 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 (Does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets).
• 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 or poster presentations or peer-reviewed, discipline-specific equivalents.
• Mentorship of undergraduate research, including guiding students in the publication of their work.
• Publication of shorter works that advance public knowledge.
• Active membership on editorial or review boards of scholarly journals.
• Publication of a research note or book review.
• Submission of a scholarship-based grant.
• Refereeing a book or other major work for an academic press.

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 (Does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets.) Note: A single article in a journal consensually defined in the field of study as a preeminent publication also may be considered; it is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that the journal meets this standard.
• 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).

 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 (Does not apply to predatory or pay-for-publication outlets.)
• Peer-reviewed, discipline-specific book.
• Development of a model or practice that is widely adopted.
• Invited address, symposia, colloquia or presentation.
• Obtaining funding through competitive grant writing, including management of an external grant.
• Editor of a peer-reviewed journal.
• Mentorship of other faculty in research.

III.C. 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 during the evaluation process.  With promotion to Professor, the rank comes with the expectation that the candidate will have fulfilled service obligations professionally, with leadership roles being a prominent part of that Service.  The candidate’s responsibility is to make a case that the level of “satisfactory,” “commendable,” or higher is achieved in Service over the post-tenure period.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance (see below).

Satisfactory: Meets expectations

• Serving on a University-level Committee or a School of Nursing ad-hoc task force.
• Serving on a School of Nursing ad-hoc task force or School of Nursing sub-committee.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are evidenced
• Volunteering with a private or public organization relating to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
• 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

Commendable: Exceeds expectations

• Primary role in leading and organizing a campus-wide presentation.
• Contributes significant content for a campus-wide presentation.
• Presenting at a faculty development workshop.
• Actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee.
• Serving on the University P&T Committee.
• Serving as a search committee member for other NSU department needs.
• Serving as a search committee member for the School of Nursing.
• Serving as a Chairperson on 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.
• 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).
• Faculty specialty active practice for less than five years through the academic year. Specialty Practice shall not exceed 20% of academic base pay per NSHE policy (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
• 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

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner

• Serving as a search committee chair for other NSU department needs.
• Serving as a search committee chair for the School of Nursing.
• Chairing a Faculty Senate committee.
• Serving as Promotion & Tenure Committee chair (University level).
• Holding office in Faculty Senate (Vice-chair, Secretary, or Parliamentarian), NFA, or in a significant professional or community organization
• Serving on an NSHE committee or advisory board
• Taking a leadership role in a University task force to advance the University mission
• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills and increases the visibility or stature of the University
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills
• Consistent faculty specialty active practice for at least five years or more through the academic year. Specialty practice shall not exceed 20% of academic base pay per NSHE policy (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization(s), including Nevada State Student Nurses Association with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
• Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring.

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

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

IV.A 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) shall provide a brief narrative description of excellence in teaching. This narrative will provide a context for the review of the individual’s teaching excellence and it is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “excellent” is achieved. Those applying for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer must provide evidence of a pattern of sustained and substantial excellence in teaching, with meaningful contributions in other areas of evaluation. Appropriate and consistent application of rigor for each 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.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance (see below).

Satisfactory: Meets expectations

• • Well-developed syllabi and topical calendar.
  • Adequate student evaluation ratings, including positive written comments.
  • Availability to students outside of classroom hours.
  • Utilization of content that is relevant to the course.
  • Major assignments, projects, exams, or other assessments developed by the instructor.
  • Final grade distributions not significantly skewed in a persistent manner.

Other Professional Duties

• • Attend conferences related to Other Professional Duties.
  • Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and experiential learning.
  • Reserve rooms/space and complete other administrative tasks for exams or other activities.
  • Utilize the NSU student notification systems for academic concerns.
  • Coach/create/maintain Canvas shells for other faculty.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations

• • 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 Dean’s designee.
  • Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors and student learning outcomes.
  • Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.

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.

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner

• • 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 toward 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 student-writing skills for courses that require or can benefit from written assignments.
  • Being highly attentive to classroom dynamics and working to ensure the participation of all students.
  • Consistent and well-researched innovation in andragogy (e.g., technologies, teaching techniques) that is practically applied and is successful most of the time.
  • 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 and methods that include multicultural and diverse learners.
  • Earning/maintaining external certification in teaching/professional practices.
  • Participation in University-level assessment retreats, focusing on course and program student learning outcomes (also see next category).
  • Sustained or substantial participation in educational programs that benefit the school, University, profession, and 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 in order to improve quality of course delivery.
  • Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.

IV.B Creative Activities/Professional Development

The applicant must have a record of continuing creative activities and/or professional growth and development.  Evidence may include, but is not limited to: creation, application, synthesis, or transmission of knowledge; cross-disciplinary collaboration; acquiring and maintaining expertise; and visual, performing, and literary arts that express original ideas, imagination, thoughts, or feelings. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make a case that the level of “satisfactory,” “commendable,” or higher is achieved in Creative Activities while in the rank of Lecturer. Those applying for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer must make a case that the level of “satisfactory,” “commendable,” or higher is sustained in Creative Activities/Professional Development while at the rank of Senior Lecturer.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance (see below).

 Satisfactory: Meets expectations

• 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 own teaching or scholarly activities.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations

• Earn teaching certificates offered by the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE).
• Earn/maintain external certification in teaching/professional practices.
• Develop new curriculum and courses for the program.
• Apply research findings in the context of teaching and professional practice.
• Evaluate student outcomes through assessment of learning outcomes for the department or program.
• Publication of shorter works that advance public or professional knowledge.
• Write a grant for a community organization.

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner

• Teaching awards through the University or professional organization.
• Participation on panels and presentations on pedagogy at the School or University level or to external audiences in the state or nationally.
• Present at a faculty development workshop.
• Contribute as a team member to research projects and publications.
• Mentor new faculty in the program or school.
• Production of professional reports, technical reports, monographs, and lab manuals.
• Present podium or poster at a professional conference.
• Review and develop educational technologies, book chapters, and other media.
• Contribute to public or University forums that focus on inquiry, critical analysis, and sharing new information.

IV.C. Service

Faculty members applying for promotion shall provide a brief narrative description of performance in service. This narrative will provide a context for reviewing the individual’s contributions to the School of Nursing, University (NS), 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. Those applying for promotion to Distinguished Lecturer must make a case that the level of “satisfactory,” “commendable,” or higher is sustained in service while at the rank of Senior Lecturer.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet expectations

Fails to produce evidence of Satisfactory performance (see below).

 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 sub-committee.
• Actively recruiting at University fair events.
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative.
• Serving as an active advisor to nursing students.
• Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are demonstrated through evidence.
• Volunteer activities with a private or public organization that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills.
• 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.

Commendable: Exceeds expectations

• A primary leader 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 department needs.
• Serving as a search committee member for the School of Nursing.
• Serving as a Chairperson on 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).
• Contributing in a significant way to a committee for a governmental, academic, or community organization.
• Serving as a Board Member for a community or professional organization.
• Establishing partnerships with external organizations (e.g., creating student internship opportunities).
• Faculty specialty active practice for less than five years through the academic year. Specialty Practice shall not exceed 20% of academic base pay per NSHE policy (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
• 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

Excellent: Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner

• Serving as a search committee chair for other NSU department needs.
• Serving as a search committee chair for the School of Nursing.
• Chairing a Faculty Senate committee.
• Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice chair, secretary, or parliamentarian), NFA, or in a major professional or community organization.
• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, and skills.
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position and skills.
• Consistent faculty specialty active practice for at least five years or greater through the academic year. Specialty practice shall not exceed 20% of academic base pay per NSHE policy (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 9).
• 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(s), including Nevada State Student Nurses Association with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.
• Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring

V.           Guidelines and Expectations for Annual Reviews

The School of Nursing (SoN) subscribes to the philosophy that teaching should be the primary area of emphasis for faculty members, with scholarship and service as important but lower priorities. Faculty will be recruited, evaluated, awarded tenure, and promoted predicated on this perspective. Scholarship is valued and encouraged, but is not required as part of a lecturer contract. However, scholarship of growth and development is required for promotion within the Lecturer rank.

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 (c) to determine eligibility for merit pay.

V.A Teaching and/or Other Professional Duties

For annual reviews, teaching refers to the act of cultivating a rich learning environment, which includes sharing knowledge, nurturing critical inquiry, inspiring curiosity, and encouraging students to apply what they have learned. 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 annual review.

As part of their annual review materials, faculty members shall submit a teaching narrative that provides context for the review of the individual’s teaching effectiveness. The narrative will be a reflection on important teaching activities, accomplishments, and challenges experienced in the year under review.

Material evaluated for annual reviews will include a syllabus (including the standard elements discussed below), official student course evaluations and evidence of student learning or accomplishment for each course taught. Faculty members should expect to provide additional evidence of teaching effectiveness as requested by the Dean or Dean’s 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, mentoring students toward making a conference presentation, or taking a leadership role in teaching workshops, should be submitted in the scholarship or service categories, as defined in the service and scholarship sections of this document

Required Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness:

• Syllabus for each course taught incorporates the elements in the standard SoN template (courses taught during review period only);
• Teaching observation(s) from the Dean or Dean’s designee;
• Teaching narrative of one to two pages highlighting teaching exemplars and other examples of teaching effectiveness.
• Evaluators have copies of final grade distributions and student evaluations on file. Faculty need not provide these items. Include summary self-analysis of grade distributions and student evaluations as part of narrative. The faculty member may request that the Dean or Dean’s designee exclude course evaluations with extremely low response rates from consideration.

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 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 or address of any other technological assignment completed by student
• Teaching awards;
• Other discipline-specific evidence of teaching effectiveness;
• Acceptance of an external teaching-related grant;
• Additional evidence as requested by the faculty member’s Dean or Dean’s designee.

Activities Related to Teaching

• As a 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 the annual review materials. These activities may include, but are not limited to:
• New preparations or substantial revisions or improvements to a course;
• Significant student mentoring that includes a teaching component and an assessment of student learning.

Rating Teaching in the Annual Review Process

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 the variability of the numerical ratings on student evaluations across courses, the numerical thresholds in this section 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;
• Substantiated formal student documented complaint
• Existence of major student written complaints about one or more of the instructor’s courses. If such complaints occur, the faculty member may provide a justification or explanation of the student complaints. This explanation will be considered by the Dean or Dean’s designee when determining whether an Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate.

Satisfactory: Meets expectations

At the Satisfactory level, faculty members are expected to be competent teachers, as evidenced by the creation of a classroom climate that respects students and welcomes diversity, the absence of major problems or written student complaints related to an instructor’s courses, and by quality contributions in all of the following areas:

• Well-developed syllabi with adequate expectations and rigor that includes a course description, course objectives, evaluation criteria/methods, and office hours; additionally, a well-developed and feasible topical calendar must be evidenced;
• Availability to students outside of classroom hours, such as established/posted office hours and other scheduled appointments;
• Content that is relevant to the course as evidenced by adequately rigorous readings, texts, and updated course materials that demonstrate a systematic effort by the instructor to convey course material;
• Student evaluations include written comments that are generally satisfactory and numerical ratings above 3.0 on a 5-point scale, with 5 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 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 Dean’s 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 for the teaching criterion used in the annual review is on quality, 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 Dean’s designee;
• Grading assignments and providing effective feedback in a reasonable timeframe (students receive feedback on previous assignments(s) prior to the subsequent assignment(s) due date) such that students are aware of their progress throughout the course;
• Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching endeavors;
• Demonstrated effort of meeting goals set in the annual review plan for the year or new goals that developed during the year;
• Application of appropriate rigor for the level of the course;
• Assessment of student learning;
• Supervision of an independent study or experiential learning activities that include assessment of student learning;
• Incorporating or significantly addressing diversity issues in courses or course materials.
• Receipt of a teaching award or certificate.
• Acceptance of external teaching-related grant.

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 for the teaching criterion used in the annual review is on quality, substance- not quantity);
• Consistent integration of active learning strategies in the classroom;
• Consistent use of highly-engaging and appropriate learning materials that are  targeted toward the respective course and student learning outcomes;
• Efforts to design and revise courses based on evidence from published literature on teaching effectiveness;
• 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.
• Effective integration of written work and use of data-driven strategies that improve student 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.

Rating Other Professional Duties in the Annual Review Process

Academic faculty may have decreased teaching loads to accommodate completion of administrative duties. The Annual Review combines evaluation of teaching and evaluation of other professional duties. 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 of the previous year. Specific duties vary by faculty release expectations, 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 ranking the evaluation.

Satisfactory: Meets expectations

• Attend conferences related to Other Professional Duties.
• Engage regularly in professional development and training opportunities.
• Support and collaborate with faculty and staff to solve problems.
• Supervise lab/clinical/other activities and 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.
• Utilize 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 Dean of Nursing 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 an appropriate timeline for a project 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 your job duties or professional activities.
• Orient faculty, staff and students by planning, leading, and participating in orientation sessions.
• Conduct peer review of faculty and contribute to evaluation of 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 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 your 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 innovate 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 CTLE Board and Library Board.
• Mediate student and faculty conflict, consistently maintaining and applying SON standards and policies.

V.B Scholarship

For annual reviews, the 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 of orientation from basic to applied, including the scholarship of teaching. However, unlike tenured and tenure-track faculty, lecturer positions do not include a scholarship requirement. Accordingly, scholarship is not formally evaluated in annual evaluations, though all scholarly accomplishments will be noted by the Dean or Designee of the School of Nursing in the annual evaluation form; nor is scholarship used in merit pay calculations for lecturers.

The scholarship component of the School of Nursing Promotion, Tenure, and Expectations document is applicable to TENURED and TENURE-TRACK faculty only. 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, creative works, and the mentoring of substantial student research projects.

Regarding the scholarship criterion for the annual review process, 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. Ranked faculty should provide a short narrative statement in their annual review to provide a context for their scholarly efforts. Collaboration on products is encouraged and supported by the faculty of the SoN, although it is expected that a share of the products will reflect sole or primary authorship.

Evidence of Scholarship (may include, but are not limited to):

• Research and Professional Publications. The quality of the research and professional publications or reports will be evaluated within the context of norms for the area of expertise. Juried outlets are accorded more significance than publications that do not undergo peer review. Tenure Track Faculty must have at least one peer-reviewed publication prior to submission for Tenure.
• Chapters in Books. Book chapters will be evaluated in terms of the inherent quality of the piece and scope of impact or dissemination within the context of norms for the candidate’s discipline. Refereed chapters are accorded more significance than non-refereed chapters.
• 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 significant within this subcategory. Textbooks that compile and organize existing knowledge are weighted less than an author’s unique work. Readings, edited books, and conference proceedings shall, in turn, be given less significance than standard 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. Ranked 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 research, and peer-reviewed professional publications. Projects that are more time- intensive (over several semesters) will be accorded more significance than those where ranked faculty take a more peripheral role in mentoring students or research projects. Student work accepted for publication in a professional, peer­ reviewed journal will be accorded the most significance within this subcategory.
• Professional Reports, Technical Reports, Informational Reports, Monographs, and Lab Manuals. Professional publications will be evaluated in terms of their quality, with reference to the intended audience. As with books and book chapters, the scope of dissemination will be considered.
• Conference Papers and Poster Presentations. The value attributed to paper and poster presentations is variable, and will be evaluated by the following six factors (listed here in no particular order of importance): (a) the quality of the paper or poster, (b) the quality of the conference, (c) the scope of the conference- international, national, regional, or local, (d) the scope of the dissemination of the paper, (e) whether the item was refereed, and (f) whether the paper or poster was invited. Generally speaking, formal presentations will be granted more weight than poster presentations. Evaluators may also grant more weight to papers or presentations that include significant student involvement.
• Scholarship-Based Grants and Contracts. Funded grants and contracts provide evidence of the capacity to organize scholarly activity judged meritorious by external funding agencies. Therefore, external funding will be accorded more significance than internal (University) funding. Grant and contract proposals should be evaluated in terms of the funding agency and the scope of the funded research.
• Scholarship Production in Progress. Evidence of scholarship in progress, particularly the continuation of funded endeavors, manuscripts under review, exhibitions under development, and formal working papers serves as an indicator of the candidate’s intent to complete projects. Completing a prospectus, literature review, or data collection, and writing individual parts or chapters of a project, are examples of production in progress. Statements of scholarship in progress should be supported by artifacts such as working drafts or notes.
• Other Peer-Reviewed Creative Endeavors. Evidence provided for scholarship production in other forms (lectures, creative work, unique equipment, computer software/program design, video productions) will be evaluated in terms of (a) scope of dissemination, (b) character of receiving audience, and (c) prestige of validating authority, institution or agency. External validation of quality is essential.
• Refereeing Peer-Reviewed Books and Journal Articles. Reviewing the contributions of other scholars is an important service. This achievement will be evaluated based on the time and effort it takes to referee the publication, as well as the overall impact of the publication.
• Shorter Works that Advance Public Knowledge. This may include short articles published in the bulletins of academic organizations and various forms of public media (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. Therefore, two works that fall into this subcategory count as one item for annual review. This category cannot be counted more than once in any review year, regardless of the total number of items published.

Academic Leadership in Scholarship (may include, but are 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 one’s recognition and involve other faculty, students, and staff.
• Developing regional, national, or international conferences, symposia, or the like for the dissemination of research findings;
• Active membership on editorial boards of scholarly journals.

National Recognition in Scholarship (may include, but are 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 literature;
• Obtaining funding through competitive proposal writing;
• Number and quality of invited addresses, symposia, colloquia, and presentations.

Rating Scholarship in the Annual Review Process

Each year, all ranked faculty members shall present evidence of scholarly progress that outlines their scholarly contributions over the year in review. Evaluators will then assess each faculty member’s scholarly output by applying the following categories.

Categories for Rating Evidence of Scholarship in the Annual Review

Contributions to scholarship not listed will be taken into consideration during the review, based on the scope and contribution to knowledge in nursing and education.

Level C: Includes quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis for the scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality, 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)
• Submission of scholarly work 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 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 ranked faculty member is among principal researchers). Note: Submission of external grant applications that require significant research and preparation may be considered as a level B item at evaluators’ discretion
• Management of an external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether ranked faculty member is among principal researchers). Note: The acceptance of a management role of a large external grant may be considered a level B item at evaluators’ discretion
• Two (2) short discipline-specific published works that advance public knowledge (non­ refereed). Note: “**Two works that fall into this category together count as one item for the purposes of annual review. This item cannot be counted more than once in any review year:**

Level B: Includes high-quality contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort or equivalent (emphasis for the scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality, 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 or students toward the successful presentation of a scholarly paper or poster at a professional conference
• Mentoring a student to publish work in an undergraduate research journal or creative outlet
• Presentation as keynote or invited speaker at a conference, symposia, colloquium, or other significant academic event
• Publishing a book chapter (editor- or peer-reviewed)
• Refereeing a book for an academic press
• Receipt of a local or regional external grant (level of contribution may be indicated by whether ranked faculty member is among principal researchers)
• Completion of two or more chapters of an accepted book that is a synthesis of previously compiled knowledge
• Completion of final draft of an accepted book that is a synthesis of previously compiled knowledge
• Peer-reviewed exhibition or release of a single, discipline-specific, stand-alone piece of creative work (for those in the arts)
• Completion of a scholarly technical/professional report or monograph
• Publication of a laboratory work book
• Publication of an accepted book chapter or journal article that required substantial revisions or further research, as documented by evidence
• Acceptance of book prospectus

Level A: Includes superior contributions in some of the following major areas of scholarly effort   or equivalent (emphasis for the scholarship criterion used in the annual review is on quality, 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-level external research grant (faculty member is among principal researchers)
• Acceptance of a scholarly peer-reviewed or editor-reviewed book chapter
• Completion of two or more chapters of an accepted editor- or peer-reviewed book that is scholarly and based on original research and thought
• Exhibition or publication of a major discipline-specific nationally- or regionally recognized peer- reviewed creative/innovative work(s)
• Serving as Editor of a peer-reviewed journal or guest editing a journal or book

Scholarship Ratings for Annual Review (Tenure-Track Faculty)

The School of Nursing sets the following rating guidelines for assessing Scholarship on the annual review. These benchmarks serve solely as a guide. Evaluators can be flexible in the ratings where ranked faculty members have undertaken forms of scholarship or scholarly leadership not listed here and as accounted for in the narrative provided by the faculty (refer to section 3.1).

Note: A consistent rating of Satisfactory on annual reviews is not equivalent to a rating of Satisfactory on the tenure review. Tenure-seeking faculty should plan out their scholarship agendas so they have time to complete the required expectations listed in the Tenure Guidelines.

Unsatisfactory	Fails to meet expectations	Fails to produce evidence of a Satisfactory performance
Satisfactory	Meets expectations	Active program of quality research or creative activity which contributes to the discipline’s body of knowledge and includes either:  Two (2) items at Level C OR One (1) Level B item.
Commendable	Exceeds expectations	Evidence of quality peer-reviewed research accomplishment as evidenced by either: Two (2) Level B items OR One (1) Level B item and two (2) Level C items.
Excellent	Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner	Distinguished by the quality and quantity of contributions which advance knowledge, as indicated by: One (1) Level A item OR Two (2) Level B and two (2) Level C items.

V.C Service

The SoN defines service as a faculty member’s professional responsibilities to Nevada State University and its external community. Although we value all forms of service (institutional, professional, and community/governmental), the SoN places most emphasis on service at the institutional level.

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 the institution, followed to a lesser degree by contributions to the profession and community or government agencies.

When evaluating faculty contributions in service, both the quantity and quality of service are important considerations. Quantity in the absence of quality is insufficient to earn high ratings in service. As part of their annual review materials, faculty members shall submit a brief narrative description of their service activities. 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 of service contributions as requested by their Dean or Dean’s designee during the review process.

Evidence of Service

Lines of evidence related to the demonstration of accomplishment in service are listed below, but these are examples only and do not exhaust the range of possibilities. Additionally, the case may be made for any service contribution in one level that, due to a particular time commitment or other requirements, might be considered as qualifying 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 of Level C Service Items:

• 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 and/or sub-committee
• Actively recruiting at University fair event
• Presenting at a faculty development workshop
• Serving as a Faculty Senate representative
• Serving on a School of Nursing standing committee, in which regular attendance and substantive contributions are 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
• Documented student meetings that provide some mentorship such as career or professional advising beyond a normal advising role.

Level B: Substantive involvement in a meaningful endeavor that requires a moderate time commitment and/or reflects the faculty member’s contribution to the accomplishment of an important institutional goal.

Examples of Level B Service Items:

• Holding office in Faculty Senate (vice chair, secretary, or parliamentarian)
• Chairing a Faculty Senate committee, or actively serving on a Faculty Senate committee that holds regular meetings
• Serving as a search committee member (University and/or School of Nursing)
• Serving as a Chairperson on 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)
• Providing individual mentorship to students that is not related to the advisory role expected of faculty.
• 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
• Serving as a faculty mentor or providing significant mentorship to another faculty member
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a campus student organization(s)
• Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization(s), including Nevada State Student Nurses Association with evidence of sustained and substantial time investment.

Level A: Substantive involvement in or guidance of a meaningful endeavor that requires a significant time commitment, involves an important leadership role, and reflects the faculty member’s contribution to the accomplishment of an essential institutional goal.

Examples of Level A Service Items:

• Serving as Faculty Senate chair
• Serving as NFA president
• Serving as Curriculum Committee chair (University-level)
• Serving as a search committee member (University and/or School of Nursing)
• Serving as the Promotion and Tenure Committee chair (University-level)
• Developing innovative approaches to student advising and mentoring

Community and Professional Service 

Contributions to the profession or community that serve the mission of Nevada State University may be counted as service items 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 of Level C Community and Professional Service Items:

• 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 of Level B Community and Professional Service Items:

• Participating in a significant humanitarian endeavor that directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position, or skills
• Serving as an officer in a local, state, regional, or national professional or learned society
• Playing a significant role in planning a conference, which directly relates to the faculty member’s discipline, position and/or skills.

Level A activities are typically reserved for internal, institutional service. However, a faculty member may provide evidence that a particular external service activity goes beyond Level B and deserves a higher rating. For example, a faculty member who plans an entire national conference in Las Vegas that directly benefits the University may contend that the effort justifies Level A status.

Rating Service in the Annual Review Process

The following are selected, non-comprehensive examples of how service to the institution and community/profession might be evaluated for annual reviews. Evaluators should converse with evaluees to determine the quality of service, considering the time and effort required and the substance of the contribution. The quantities indicated below are general guidelines, not fixed designations. The quantity required may vary based on the quality of the contribution. Failure to meet designated service obligations may diminish a faculty member’s annual review ratings, 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

To achieve a Satisfactory rating in service, the faculty member must receive 4-5 points.

To achieve a Commendable rating, the faculty member must receive 6-7 points, and must include at least one A or B level activity.

To achieve an Excellent rating, the faculty member must receive 8 points or more, and must include at least one A or B level activity.

Unsatisfactory	Fails to meet expectations	3 points or less	1. Two Level C activities = 2 points
Satisfactory	Meets expectations	4-5 points	1. One Level A activity = 4 points 2. Four Level C activities = 4 points 3. Two Level B activities and 1 Level C activity = 5 points
Commendable	Exceeds expectations	6-7 points, including one Level A or B	1. One Level A activity and two Level C activities = 6 points 2. Five Level C activities and one Level B activity = 7 points.
Excellent	Exceeds expectations in a sustained manner	8 points or more, including one Level A or B	1. One Level A activity and four Level C activities = 8 points. 2. Five Level C activities and two Level B activities = 9 points.

Importantly, a faculty member who completes six or more Level C activities would not meet the standards for Commendable, because it requires at least one Level A or B activity.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

• Application for Third-Year Review and Recommendation for Promotion and/or Tenure (NSHE)

RELATED INFORMATION

• Board of Regents NSHE Code, Chapter 5.
• Board of Regents NSHE Code, Chapter 7.
• Tenure expectations for each academic unit.
• NS AA 5.1 Promotion and Tenure Policy.
• Provost’s Yearly Memorandum on P&T Timeline.
• Raoul A. Arreola. (2007). Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Guide to Designing, Building, and Operating Large-Scale Faculty Evaluation Systems, 3rd Edition. San Francisco: Anker Publishing (now Jossey-Bass).

HISTORY

• Replaces AA 18: Standards of Academe (School of Nursing)

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. June Eastridge, Dean of Nursing, January 5, 2024.
Approved by Dr. Sarah Frey, Provost, January 17, 2024.