Guidelines For Promotion And Tenure College Of Agricultural Sciences
Approved by the Faculty November 11, 1992
Revised September 1, 1994*
Revised September 9, 1998**
Revised October 11, 2001**
Revised July 3, 2002**
Revised September 1, 2005**
I. Review Committee, College of Agricultural Sciences
The Promotion and Tenure Review Committee is one of the standing committees of the College. Membership consists of five senior faculty members (professors, with tenure) elected by mail ballot of the faculty, and two senior faculty members appointed by the Dean of the College. The five elected members shall serve three-year terms.
The College Nominating Committee shall attempt to identify nominees for the five elected positions that represent a balance among extension, research, and resident education. The Dean shall consider this balance when appointing members to the committee. Of the seven-member committee, there shall be at least two representatives with a major commitment to each of these areas. The Nominating Committee and the Dean shall attempt to insure that all program areas (i.e., biological sciences, social sciences, engineering, etc.) of the College are represented on the Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.
Appointed members shall serve one-year terms and not more than three consecutive one-year terms. Faculty with any percentage of their time assigned to an academic administrator position are not eligible for appointment.
The Dean of the College annually shall appoint a chairperson from among the five elected members.
When an elected member cannot serve, the vacancy will be filled by one of the non-elected candidates in the most recent election. The individual of this group having received the highest number of votes will serve the remainder of the three-year term.
Academic Unit and College committees reviewing campus faculty must have at least one member from outside University Park on the committee.
*To reflect the three criteria base for promotion and tenure adopted by the University on April 25, 1994.
**To reflect recommendations by Provost to be in compliance with present University HR-23 Guidelines.
II. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for further achievement in the several areas enumerated below as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment.
The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor is sufficient to warrant promotion to associate professor. In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; however, the burden would be on the committee(s) or administrator(s) who wish to separate promotion from a positive tenure decision to show why promotion is not warranted.
All candidates for the rank of assistant professor or higher must have a doctoral degree or terminal degree in their respective profession.
In addition to the University’s general criteria (HR-23), the College of Agricultural Sciences Promotion and Tenure Review Committee considers the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty with Extension Appointments in the College of Agricultural Sciences (Appendix A); and the following;
A. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
1. Assistant Professor
a. Resident Education
The candidate should have potential or demonstrated ability to: (1) use classroom techniques and strategies that foster learning by students, (2) stimulate student interest and creativity, (3) construct fair instruments for evaluation of student academic performance, (4) maintain high academic standards, and (5) impartially and effectively counsel and advise students.
b. Extension Education
The candidate should have potential or demonstrated creative ability to plan and implement an effective extension education program in his/her field of competency as shown by the candidate’s ability to:
(1) interpret research and conduct related educational programs including conferences, short courses, winter courses, and correspondence courses,
(2) evaluate and analyze problems and program needs of clientele,
(3) develop appropriate educational materials, and
(4) conduct effective in-service training programs for county-based extension staff.
2. Associate Professor
a. Resident Education
In addition to possessing the qualifications for assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated acceptable ability to effectively help students learn as evidenced by teaching experience and performance ratings by students and colleagues. The associate professor ordinarily will have taught graduate courses, advised graduate students, and critiqued student research.
b. Extension Education
In addition to possessing the qualifications for assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated acceptable ability to: (1) exhibit originality and creative ability in designing new extension programs, and (2) assess program effectiveness and make modifications as changing needs and/or priorities arise.
3. Professor
a. Resident Education
In addition to the established criteria for members of the lower ranks, the candidate must have a proven record of effectiveness in teaching. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (1) the development of instructional techniques and/or educational materials, (2) publications in educational journals, (3) being the recipient of professional and/or honorary awards for teaching excellence, (4) being capable of directing graduate students of all levels, and (5) having teaching accomplishments that have been recognized by colleagues outside the College.
b. Extension Education
In addition to the established criteria for members of the lower ranks, the candidate must have a proven record of effectiveness in extension education programs. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (1) documented impact of the candidate’s educational programs on the clientele, (2) an established outstanding recognition and reputation for an effective education program among regional and national colleagues, and (3) other evidence of the development and production of distinguished achievements in creative program development and delivery.
B. The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments
1. Assistant Professor (or Research Associate)
The candidate should have demonstrated ability to: (a) develop scientific hypotheses, (b) properly design and conduct research in acceptable areas, and (c) interpret and publish results within an appropriate time period.
In addition, the candidate should have demonstrated evidence of thorough under-standing of the basic knowledge of his/her discipline, and should be a member of and participate in appropriate professional, technical, industrial, or honorary organizations.
2. Associate Professor (or Senior Research Associate)
In addition to possessing the qualifications of the assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated ability to effectively organize and direct a productive research program. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) the conduct of independent and cooperative research, (b) research results published in scientific journals and semi-technical or popular articles in other media, (c) financial support obtained for the research program, (d) guidance of independent student study and research, (e) growth in professional competence, and (f) the emergence of a regional and national reputation among peers.
The candidate must have demonstrated continuous growth in scholarship and mastery of subject matter. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) participation in and presenting papers at professional meetings and workshops, (b) a growing recognition by students, peers, and clientele of his/her above average academic performance (recipient of special awards and honors, student performance records, patents, consultant record, etc.), and (c) special academic or administrative assignments.
3. Professor (or Senior Scientist)
In addition to the established criteria for members of the lower ranks, the candidate must have established an excellent research program. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) documented evidence of outstanding contributions in research (publications, variety releases, patents, etc.), (b) an
outstanding national reputation within the candidate’s field of specialization, (c) established outstanding ability to stimulate independent student study and research, and (d) demonstrated effectiveness in acquiring financial support necessary to sustain a viable and productive research program consistent with recognized standards in the discipline.
The candidate must have attained outstanding recognition as an authority in his/her field of specialization. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) presenting invited papers at national and international workshops, symposia and professional meetings, (b) presenting invited seminars at other colleges, universities or learned groups, (c) professional improvement through fellowships, sabbatical study, visiting professorships, (d) membership on regional, national or international professional organization or society committees concerned with policies and priorities, and (e) editorships, lectureships, awards and honors.
C. Service and The Scholarship of Service to the University, Society and The Profession
A University often is defined as a community of scholars sharing their collective and individual knowledge with enrolled students as well as with society at large.
The College of Agricultural Sciences acknowledges the need of its members to be involved in service to the University, public outreach service as a representative of the University, (especially when it pertains to expertise associated with their field of specialization) and service to their professions.
The College of Agricultural Sciences considers the following criteria in evaluating performance as a service to the University, the public, and the profession:
1.Service to the University
Candidates for tenure or promotion must have given service to the University community. Service to the University may be shown by, but is not limited to, evidence of (a) participation in departmental, College and University committees and bodies pertaining to governance and function, (b) special academic and/or administrative service assignments, and (c) performance of other services to the University community.
Candidates for tenure or promotion to associate professor should present evidence to show modest service on departmental committees and activities. Candidates for promotion to professor shall present evidence of leadership in departmental and College committees and activities or service in University committees, task forces or activities.
2.Outreach Service as a Representative of the University
Candidates for tenure or advancement in rank are encouraged to provide outreach service to the public. This service may be shown by, but is not limited to, evidence of (a) professional assistance and consultation to agricultural groups, public organizations, government, and private citizens, and (b) service on state, national or international committees through which the faculty member contributes knowledge, ideas, and leadership.
3.Service to the Profession
Candidates for tenure or advancement in rank are encouraged to provide service to their professions. This service may be shown by, but is not limited to, evidence of active participation in professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities).
III. Guidelines for Obtaining Evaluative Information on Teaching Ability and Effectiveness for Faculty having Extension Appointments
The guidelines presented herein for evaluating the teaching ability and effectiveness may not be totally appropriate for all types of teaching activities conducted by faculty having extension appointments. Teaching activities conducted in the one-on-one, troubleshooting, demonstration or industry leader mode should be evaluated by appropriate methods selected by the Unit Leader in consultation with the faculty of the unit. Wherever possible, however, the tenets presented herein should be followed.
The faculty of each academic unit shall develop and implement a procedure and instrument(s) for this purpose. A copy of the approved procedure and instrument(s) shall be kept on file in the Office of the Dean. Also, a copy shall be given to each faculty member within the academic unit. The procedure and instrument(s) shall be reviewed by the faculty of the academic unit at four year intervals, and revised when necessary.
The procedure and instrument(s) developed by the faculty of each academic unit shall conform to the following tenets:
A. Sources of information:
Evaluative information regarding teaching ability and effectiveness shall be obtained from faculty peers and students (clientele). Evaluative information should be obtained from non-faculty cooperators when appropriate. Each of these populations of evaluators is defined as follows:
Faculty Peer - Any person whose academic and professional performance is reviewed for the granting of tenure and awarding of academic rank according to procedures and criteria codified in HR-23 and the Administrative Guidelines to HR-23. Note for clarification -- A Faculty Peer may hold the same academic rank as the faculty member being evaluated.
Non-Faculty Cooperator - Any person who is a member of any team cooperating in the planning, developing, and conducting of any educational program for which the faculty member has significant involvement. These persons would include but would not be limited to multi-county and county personnel of cooperative extension.
Student - Any person receiving any mode of instruction conducted by the faculty member. Note for Clarification: Whenever any person receives instruction in a workshop, in-service educational program, meeting, tour or any similar event, that person will be classified as a student during that time regardless of their role/position/title at other times.
B. Frequency of collecting the information:
Evaluative information shall be collected annually for those faculty having the academic rank of Assistant Professor or Associate Professor.
If the faculty member’s extension appointment is 10% or less, the evaluative
information may be collected biennially.
C. Responsibility for collecting the information:
The academic unit leader shall be responsible for collecting the information. The unit leader may choose to oversee the collection of information or delegate this responsibility to a senior faculty member. The unit leader or designate may request the assistance of a county or multi-county agent in the collection of student information. Student information collected in this manner would be sent immediately to the unit leader or designate. A staff assistant, administrative aide or administrative assistant may assist in collecting, tabulating and summarizing the information. The candidate shall not be involved in any of these activities.
D. Number and kinds of instruments:
The faculty of each academic unit may develop and use any number of instruments. If, in their opinion, one instrument will be effective for all faculty and by each of the three populations of evaluators, faculty would develop only one instrument. On the other hand, faculty may wish to develop a specific instrument to be used by each of the three populations. It would be acceptable for the faculty peers to provide their evaluative information in a letter format rather than use a prepared instrument.
NOTE: Each population of evaluators will have different perspectives, will be qualified to evaluate different attributes of the teaching ability and effectiveness of the faculty member, and will be looking at the same program and/or activity from a different viewpoint. It would be desirable to keep these ideas in the forefront when developing any instruments.
The combined faculty of two or more academic units having similar programs may develop instruments to be used across their departments rather than each unit having separate instruments.
Regardless of the number of instruments developed or the number of items contained on the instrument, there should be a seven (7) point scale for response rating of each item (1 = lowest rating, 4 = average rating and 7 = highest rating) and an open ended item for additional comments or reactions.
Instruments used and/or comments written by faculty peers shall be signed and dated.
Instruments used by non-faculty cooperators and students shall be anonymous. The name and location of the teaching activity, date, name of faculty member being evaluated and the following global item shall appear on each instrument:
Rate the overall quality of the instructor.
E. Mechanics and mechanisms:
There should be at least two (2) faculty peers chosen to conduct the evaluation of each candidate. The candidate shall be permitted to suggest the names of several persons to serve as faculty peer evaluators and to select one of the faculty peer evaluators. Each faculty peer evaluator should attend at least two oral presentations made by the candidate during the evaluation year. Faculty peer evaluators also should review program outlines, plans, computer software, visuals and other materials developed by the candidate for use in the educational program.
A sample of non-faculty cooperators who have worked with the faculty member during the evaluation year shall be asked to provide evaluative information.
The faculty member shall provide the names of non-faculty cooperators with whom she/he has had significant professional activity and provide a note specifying the nature of the cooperative involvement of each person during the evaluation year. The academic unit leader shall select a sample of evaluators from this list of names.
A description of the expectations for the faculty member who is being evaluated shall be distributed to the faculty peer evaluators and the non-faculty cooperator evaluators who are employees of The Pennsylvania State University and its Cooperative Extension. This description shall include the proportion of time assigned to extension activities. The distribution of this information to the above mentioned persons will help to reduce conflicts due to different agendas and expectations and help the evaluators concentrate on the teaching ability and effectiveness of the person being evaluated.
Student information shall be collected on a preplanned basis from a sample of student groups and teaching activities. The experiences selected for evaluation should reflect the methods, approaches, programs and activities that represent the variety and diversity of educational activities conducted by the faculty member. The faculty member shall be involved in identifying the times, places, location and types of teaching activities that shall be evaluated by students.
The person assigned the responsibility of distributing and collecting instruments from students (clientele) must be properly instructed so that bias and/or subjectivity do not enter into the process. The person should read the following statement or a similar statement prepared by the faculty of the academic unit administering the evaluation:
“Place the following information in the proper spaces at the top of the form:
Name of faculty member Todays date
Location (county, town, or city) Title of presentation
Penn State University actively evaluates the abilities and effectiveness of its faculty and the programs they present. Your cooperation and assistance in completing this form will provide the university with information it can use to develop future programs of the highest quality. Your responses to these brief questions are considered confidential information and you need not identify yourself when completing the form. When you have completed the form, please place it in the box provided as you leave the meeting room.
Thank you for taking your time to complete this evaluation and for your support of this and other Penn State Cooperative Extension programs.”
The evaluation year shall be July 1 through June 30. The collection of all evaluative information shall be completed by June 30, summarized and ready for inclusion in the dossier by July 30 of the same year.
F. Ownership and disposition of information:
All information collected through the teaching ability and effectiveness surveys shall belong to the faculty of the academic unit which administers the surveys, not to the faculty member who was evaluated.
The original of each faculty peer instrument and/or comments shall be placed into the promotion and tenure dossier of the faculty member who was evaluated. A copy of each of these instruments and/or comments shall be given to the faculty member.
A copy of the summary of the results of the non-faculty cooperators information and a copy of the summary of the results of the students information shall be placed into the promotion and tenure dossier of the faculty member who was evaluated. A copy of each of these summaries shall be given to the faculty member.
IV. Review Procedures
The academic units shall present their candidates’ credentials for promotion and tenure to the Dean 90 days prior to the date the materials are due in the Office of Human Resources. The Dean shall inform all faculty in writing immediately after learning this date from the Executive Vice President and Provost.
The College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee and the Dean are charged with the responsibility to adhere to the most recent University Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations (HR-23) and the most recent Administrative Guidelines for HR-23. In addition, the Committee and the Dean will use the criteria specific for the College in arriving at their independent decisions. The Committee’s recommendations will be presented to the Dean.
University Administrative guidelines for HR-23 includes several aspects of consultation in the review process. One of those key aspects is below:
“When an administrator differs with the committee at the same level
of review -- e.g., the department head and the department committee
--or a committee differs with the administrator at the previous review
level--e.g., the college committee and the department head-- consultation
must occur about reasons for divergence. Consultation should be
initiated by the committee or administrator differing with or seeking
clarification concerning the previous recommendation (e.g., a
department head would initiate consultation with the departmental review
committee and the dean with the college committee; the college
committee would initiate consultation with the department head; and
the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with the dean).
Consultation should be initiated after the previous review has been
completed and a recommendation has been made in writing.”
Positive recommendations by the Dean for promotion and/or for the granting of tenure shall be forwarded to the Executive Vice President and Provost through the Office of Human Resources for transmittal to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee by the announced date. In a case where the Dean has a negative recommendation the dossier will go forward to Executive Vice President and Provost if all other administrative and committee letters in the review process are positive. At the same time, a summary of the general processes followed in the reviews shall be forwarded, as specified in the policy, along with the number of recommendations reviewed, and the appropriate supporting information regarding significant instances of differences in judgment.
Negative promotion decisions will be sent to the representative head of the academic unit. If the decision is made not to award tenure, the Dean shall notify the faculty member accordingly in writing.