Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
TENURE AND PROMOTION HANDBOOK
COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY
DATE OF REVISION: MAY 2009
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
Disclaimer
This “Tenure and Promotion Handbook – Recommended Draft 001 – 2009/04/27” is
prepared to assist the candidate faculty members with adequate information in order to prepare
for tenure process or for promotion or both.
This Handbook complements the information provided in the following documents:
1. Prairie View A&M University Rules 12.01.99.P1 on “Academic Freedom, Responsibility,
and Tenure Procedure (PVAMU)” as well as “Post Tenure Review Procedures
(PVAMU)”, Revised March 25, 2006.
2. Prairie View A&M University Rules 12.01, “Academic Freedom, Responsibility and
Tenure”, Revised September 26, 2008.
3. TAMUS Policy 12.06 Post Tenure Review of Faculty and Teaching Effectiveness.
4. TAMUS 12.02 Institutional Procedures for Implementing Tenure.
5. PVAMU Faculty Senate Handbook, 2007-2008; Approved by the Faculty Senate.
Notes to the Faculty Applicant:
a. The applicant applying for tenure and/or promotion may access the above documents
either through the Department Head or the Dean of Roy G. Perry College of Engineering.
b. “The Tenure and Promotion Handbook” may be periodically revised as deemed
necessary by the Dean, College of Engineering. The faculty applicant is expected to
ensure that he/she has the applicable “Approved Handbook” when preparing his/her
“Application Portfolio” for Tenure and/or Promotion.
c. The submission of the application portfolio for tenure and/or promotion based on the
listed categories and associated items in each category should not be considered as
meeting the requirements for tenure and/or promotion. It is merely “necessary
information” being provided for evaluation for tenure and/or promotion.
2
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
LIST OF REVISIONS
Previous Document: “Tenure and promotion manual, 1993” (Approved)
3
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. 5
1. Implementation Guidelines ……………………………………………………… 5
2. Summary of Tenure And Promotion Process ……………………………………. 6
II. Faculty Portfolio Preparation …………………………………………………………. 7
III. Recommendation Letters …………………………………………………………….. 9
IV. Candidate Portfolio Evaluation ……………………………………………………….. 9
V. Examples of Activities for Consideration for the Evaluation Process ………………
11
VI. Guidelines for Evaluation of Faculty Portfolios ………………………………………15
Appendix A: College Of Engineering; Prairie View A&M University- Application Summary
Form ………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Appendix B: Course Load Matrix – (To Be Completed By Applicant) ………………….. 18
Appendix C: Tenure and/or Promotion Requirement …………………………………… 19
4
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY
ROY G. PERRY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
TENURE AND PROMOTION HANDBOOK
I.
INTRODUCTION
This “Tenure and Promotion Handbook” defines the criteria and guidelines relating to
faculty promotion and tenure in the Roy G. College of Engineering at Prairie View A&M
University. It has been developed with the recommendation of the faculty in the College of
Engineering. The College of Engineering consists of the following departments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chemical Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Computer Science
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Engineering Technology
Mechanical Engineering
This Handbook is applicable for the entire College of Engineering (COE) faculty from all
of the above departments and is referred to as “COE Tenure & Promotion Handbook (COTPH)”.
The final authority for tenure and/or promotion and granting of tenure within the Texas
A&M University Systems rests with the System Board of Regents upon the recommendation of
the President of the University and the Chancellor of the Texas A&M University System. The
general policies are in “Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure (Prairie View A&M
University Rules 12.01) and have been adopted by the System Board of Regents and published in
the Administrated Policy and Procedures Manual applies to all system institutions and is used as
a guide in establishing institutional policies and procedures and supersedes any such institutional
or college policies.
The criteria and guidelines contained herein are supplementary to the “Faculty Handbook
2007 – 2008” published by Prairie View A&M University. The provisions of that document shall
prevail on any matter not covered herein or on any point wherein this college document is
inconsistent with those provisions.
1.
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
This policy will apply to those faculty applicants whose first full year tenure-track
appointment in the College begins in the academic year following the approval of this “Tenure
and Promotion Manual”.
5
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
Current tenured and tenure-track faculty will be evaluated within the spirit of this policy
effective in the academic year following the approval of this “Tenure and Promotion Manual” in
terms of portfolio preparation.
It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide evidence that standards for
promotion or the granting to tenure have been met.
2.
SUMMARY OF TENURE AND PROMOTION PROCESS
Each faculty member, applying for tenure and/or promotion, must submit an application
portfolio to the department head by September 30 in the year being considered. The portfolio
should contain, at the minimum, a complete and up-to-date curriculum vita detailing the faculty
member’s educational and professional background, qualifications and experience as well as
scholarly and professional activities and achievements in the three areas of teaching,
scholarly/creative activities and institutional services. In each of these categories, the candidate
must demonstrate his/her achievements consistent with the category of tenure or promotion to a
higher grade.
The Department Committee shall complete the review of the portfolio by October 30 and
submit the Committee recommendation and the portfolio to the Department Head. Then, the
Department Head shall submit the portfolio to the COE Dean, who then shall make the portfolio
available to the College Committee by November 1. The College Committee shall then complete
the review of the portfolio by November 30 and submit its recommendation and the portfolio to
the Dean. The Dean would return only the Portfolio to the Department Head (without the
recommendation of the College Committee) for his/her review and the recommendations of the
Department Head should be submitted to the Dean by December 15.
Table 1 summarizes the timelines for completing the process of review at various levels:
Table 1: Timelines for Applicant Portfolio Review Process
Activity
Start Date of
Process
-
End Date of
process
Outcomes
October 1
October 30
College Committee
Review
November 1
November 30
Department Head
Review
December 1
December 15
Submit the Recommendation and the
Portfolio to the Department Head for
forwarding to the Dean
Submit the Recommendation and the
Portfolio to the Dean for forwarding to
the Department Head (without the
recommendation of the College
Committee)
Department Head submits the
Recommendation to the Dean
Faculty Applicant
Submits “Application
Portfolio” for Review
Department
Committee Review
Date of
Submission
September
30
6
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
The department which consists of regular full-time tenured faculty shall elect three or
five tenured faculty members to serve on the Departmental/Division Tenure and Promotion
Advisory Committee (DTPAC). A lottery system may be used to select three or five members to
serve on DTPAC. The Committee members shall elect a chair and notify the department head
and dean of the action in writing.
Candidates for service on the DTPAC should not be selected if their service would create
a conflict or appearance of conflict as described in the TAMUS ethics policy 07.01. It also
implies that a candidate who is a member of the departmental committee cannot serve on the
COE committee for the same “faculty applicant” for tenure and/or promotion.
In instances where a department has an insufficient number of tenured full-time faculty
members to support a faculty election to serve on DTPAC, the Department Head and Dean shall
jointly identify qualified faculty in related areas within the COE to serve on the review
committee (See TAMUS Policy 07.01). Also, where necessary, the department head in
consultation with the dean of COE and the tenured department faculty may choose to decide to
start the review process at the Department Head level. This implies that there will be no
departmental tenure promotion committee.
All members of the DTPAC must be present to conduct business. All members must sign
the DTPAC’s recommendation, but may register a minority opinion. All review materials and
deliberations must be treated as confidential. In the final recommendations, votes of individual
members of the DTPAC should not be shown by name. Instead, the total voting “yes” and the
total voting ''no” should be recorded. All members are to sign the final report affirming their
participation in the review process as members of the committee.
The responsibility of the committee at the department level rests on the Department
Head.
The Department head reviews the following materials: (i) faculty’s portfolio, (ii) relevant
material from department personnel files; and (iii) recommendations of the Departmental Tenure
and Promotion Advisory Committee. The Department Head submits his or her recommendations
with justification to the Dean by December 15.
The members of the College Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee are appointed
by the Dean. The Committee consists of five tenured faculty members. The committee reviews
the following materials: (i) all materials reviewed by the applicant’s departmental Tenure and
Promotion Committee; (ii) Department Head’s recommendation, and (iii) relevant materials from
the Dean’s office personnel files. The Committee submits recommendations, with justification,
to the Dean. For individuals applying for Promotion to full Professor, the College Tenure and
Promotion Committee shall consist of at least five (5) tenured faculty members with a rank of
full Professor (and tenured).
The Dean reviews all materials reviewed by College Tenure and Promotion Advisory
Committee, and also the recommendations of the College Tenure and Promotion Advisory
Committee. The Dean submits to the Provost and, the Vice President of Academic Affairs the
7
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
following: (i) Faculty’s Application Portfolio; and (ii) Recommendations from the Departmental
Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee, College Tenure and Promotion Advisory
Committee and Dean. Note that the Department Head’s recommendation is only available on
December 15.
After consultation with the Dean of the College, the Vice President for Academic Affairs
makes his/her recommendations to the President who shall then make the final university
decision regarding recommendations to the Board of Regents. Once the process of evaluation is
completed, the faculty applicant shall receive a feedback from the Dean of COE/Department
Head.
II.
FACULTY PORTFOLIO PREPARATION
A faculty portfolio should be limited to a maximum of one 4-inch binder and shall
contain the following:
Note to the faculty applicant: The information regarding the items listed in teaching, research
and service when consideration is being made for tenure and/or promotion shall be made
available for the period from the beginning of the employment or from the beginning of the
previous promotion.
A.
Application Summary Form (See Appendix A)
B.
An updated Vitae of the Candidate
C.
Annual Faculty Evaluations Conducted by the Department Head
D.
Teaching: (The following is a list of example items)
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
Short summary of teaching philosophy and teaching activities (not more than two pages),
Matrix of teaching loads (See the sample blank matrix sheet in Appendix B)
Curriculum development (Samples of course outlines for new and modified courses)
Independent study projects supervised
Samples of examinations, quizzes and projects
Copies of student opinion survey (SOS) summaries (to be considered only if the SOS has
been completed by ≥ 70% of the students in the class). [See the note below]
Accessibility to (adherence to office hours) and rapport with students
Various department and college administrative evaluations
Evidence of innovative practices and the use of research in instruction
Evidence of quality and standards as developed through consultation with colleagues to
meet the objectives set forth in the course syllabus
Evidence of special awards and recognition
Student Advising (curriculum advising, student mentoring for senior design projects, and
regular undergraduate & graduate student advising)
other
8
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
Note: Under the current system, the students are asked to use the web pages to access and
complete the SOS. Many students either forget to complete the SOS or they do not have
time to access. Until a system is developed where most students participate in the SOS, the
SOS summaries are flawed and as such should not be considered. The committee makes a
recommendation to bring back the old in-class SOS method in order to ensure full
participation by the students.
E.
Research/Scholarly Activities: (The following is a list of example items)
a. Short summary:
a1. For Engineering and Computer Science faculty applicant, a short summary
demonstrating a balance of research/scholarly activities and experience (preferably not
more than 2 pages).
a2. For Engineering Technology faculty applicant, a short summary demonstrating a
balance of research/scholarly activities and industry experience (preferably not more than
2 pages).
Each Department makes their own judgment on the balance of different activities
specified in above.
b. List of grant proposals submitted by the candidate [as PI or Co-PI] with dates –
Funded and Unfunded proposals, period of performance.
c. List of graduate students supervised by the candidate as the Chairman of Advisory
Committee or a Committee Member.
d. List of undergraduates involved in research (not senior design project) and detail
examples of finalized work.
e. List of publications by the candidate that are in Refereed Journals, Refereed
Conferences, Invited Papers and Non-refereed Conferences (Include one sample of
papers and first pages of remaining papers).
f. List of patents (pending and awarded, and licensed) authored by the candidate.
g. List of professional meetings attended during the last 3 to 5 years.
h. List of presentations made during the last 3 to 5 years (invited lectures, workshops
and others).
i. Number of refereed papers reviewed by the candidate (list of papers preferable if the
candidate is legally allowed to do).
j. Number of peer proposals reviewed by the candidate (Name of proposals and
organizations preferable if the candidate is legally allowed to do).
k. List the usage of research concepts and results in course offering.
l. Research in preparation of a book or chapter of a book.
F.
Service: (The following is a list of example items)
9
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
(i)
(ii)
List of student’s organizations you served as advisor – department level, college
level, university level and at large (community, state and nation)
List of committees where you acted with capacity (Copies of appointment letter
to the committees):
1.
Department
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Curriculum development committee
Tenure and Promotion Committee
Laboratory development committee
Student organizations
Student orientation organization
Student advisement and counseling
Other
College
Curriculum development committee
Tenure and Promotion Committee
Student-Faculty Relation Committee
Scholarship committee
Student orientation programs
Accreditation and Course Assessment Committee
Other
University
Faculty senate
University Academic Council
University development and planning
Graduate Council
Evidentiary Hearing Committee
Research Initiative Committee
Other
List of professional Organizations where you acted as a member of/or
chairperson of committees and impact on the department, college and university)
List of conference sessions where the candidate was a Chair or a member of the
organizing committee (and benefit to the department, college and university).
Professionally-relevant Public Service
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Governmental committees (state and national)
Extension/outreach activities
Academic and professional consulting
Serve as guest/keynote speaker
Membership and services to professional organizations (chaired positions,
reviewer, discussant, presenter)
10
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
f. TV, radio, newspaper interviews
g. Other
G.
Others
(i)
Awards and Commendations (Copies of related letters or certificates)
(ii)
Professional License/Certification
III.
RECOMMENDATION LETTERS
Recommendation letters are required for the review process: The following recommendation
letters are required and they should be sent to the Department Head to be included in the Faculty
Portfolio. The letters should arrive prior to the date of submission. In the event of any conflict
with the arrival of letters and the date of submission, the Dean of COE and the Department Head
should resolve the conflict:
1.
2.
3.
IV.
Two (2) Letters of Recommendation from faculty within the Department/College.
One (1) Letter from the Faculty Outside of COE and within the University.
Two (2) Letters of Recommendations from the faculty or experts outside the
University.
CANDIDATE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION
In the College of Engineering, teaching, scholar/creative activity, and service shall be
used for the evaluation of faculty applicant for tenure and/or promotion.
The departments in the COE have different sets of requirements for the enhancement of
their programs in different departments and this shall be reflected in the performance criteria for
tenure and promotion of faculty applicant to different ranks. For example, the engineering
departments who have graduate programs may emphasize teaching and research differently than
an engineering technology department where there is only an undergraduate program. Also, a
faculty applicant for tenure and/or promotion in a department that has doctoral and master’s
degree programs may require emphasis more on research and graduate student support, while the
departments that do not have graduate program may emphasize on teaching innovation and
innovative undergraduate projects, undergraduate research and educational research. The
Engineering Technology department may emphasize industrial experience as part of research
activities in addition to teaching innovation and project design and implementations as opposed
to graduate research. Similarly, the department of computer science may place emphasis in
innovative software designs and associated research publications, and innovative teaching where
software tools are being developed by students.
In addition, at each level of promotion (for tenure, from assistant to associate; and from
associate to full professor) the criteria shall be different. For example, promotion to tenure and/or
promotion from assistant to associate professorship, the emphasis shall be on:
11
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Quality of research and collaborative efforts with national organizations and industry,
Release time,
New course development,
Introduction of research into courses
Mentoring students (senior design projects, thesis advising)
Grant proposals
Publications in journals and conferences
Participation in professional organizations and impact on the department and college
Departmental services (no emphasis on college level and institutional level) and
For promotion from associate to full professorship, the emphasis shall be on:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Quality of research and peer-to-peer recognition at large and how it impacts programs,
COE and institutional visibility in the nation
Grant proposals and Release time
Mentoring junior faculty, and graduate and undergraduate student
Creation of research centers and/or participation in enhancing the research centers
New program development
Participation in professional organizations, invited seminars and workshops, chairing
and/or organizing technical sessions.
Participation in institutional and college level, and at large services (promote visibility)
Important departmental services that impact the programs, college and institution
Innovation in teaching and provide value added education to promote the standing of the
university
The above performance matrix is provided as guidelines. It should be noted that specific
faculty members may have accomplished some of the above items above and not all items.
Ultimately, the genuine impact to the department, college and institution must be measurable.
The position of a Full Professorship carries significant responsibilities in terms of impacting
the department, college and university. The credentials of the “faculty applicant” must include
the cumulative work over his/her career and not just during the period of performance from the
previous promotion to the current promotion.
For the purposes of policy and for the process involved in the annual decisions concerning
promotion and tenure, the following definitions are provided to assist the Departmental/Division
Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee (DTPAC) for their evaluations.
The performance grading consists of “Excellent, Good, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory” for
each category. It is expected that the committee provides short comings and recommendations
for improvement to the Department Head when the performance grade is “Good” or
“Satisfactory”. This will provide an opportunity for discussions between the Department Head
and the “faculty applicant” consistent with the annual performance expectation and the “faculty
applicant will have a reasonable chance to improve the performance to meet the expectations for
tenure and/or promotion. Also, the grade of “Unsatisfactory” indicates that the “faculty
applicant” has failed to meet minimum requirements and therefore, the Department Head will
12
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
have an opportunity to decide whether the “faculty applicant” has the necessary ability to
improve the performance or not, and the administration may take actions consistent with the
university policies.
The performance levels of Excellent, Good, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory must be clearly
separated. Excellent in a category (Teaching, Research and Service) implies that the “faculty
applicant” has demonstrated significant achievements in the category consistent with listed items
in Section V and the annual performance by Department Head. Good implies that the “faculty
applicant” has demonstrated more than sufficient achievements in the category consistent with
the listed items in Section V and the annual performance by Department Head. Satisfactory
implies that the “faculty applicant” has met the minimum performance achievement in the
categories consistent with listed items in Section V and the annual performance by the
Department Head. Unsatisfactory implies that the “faculty applicant” has failed to meet the
minimum performance consistent with Section V and the annual performance by Department
Head.
A.
TEACHING
Teaching is understood to include not only classroom performance, but other factors such
as preparation for courses, staying current in the discipline, instructional innovation,
curriculum improvement and development, course content and requirements, advising,
tutoring, directed instructions and other activities directly related to student development.
The evaluation has four levels of performance grading:
1.
2.
3.
4.
B.
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
UNSATISFACTORY
RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES
Research/Scholarly activities include research and publication that enhances teaching
effectiveness and the professional growth, industrial experience and development of
faculty members. Example of such activities include: publishing books, journal articles,
papers and case studies; presenting of papers and research findings at professional
meetings; conducting research. An assessment of both qualitative and quantitative
measures will be made.
1.
2.
3.
4.
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
UNSATISFACTORY
13
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
C.
SERVICE
Service includes any professional activities that contribute to the accomplishment of the
internal and external service mission of the department, college, and university and the
community. Examples of service activities include: Active participation/contribution on
committees, holding offices in professional organizations, sponsoring student
organizations.
1.
2.
3.
4.
V.
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
UNSATISFACTORY
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES
EVALUATION PROCESS
FOR
CONSIDERATION
FOR
THE
The activities listed below are not meant to be collectively exhaustive nor are they
listed in any prioritized order. Also, it is not expected that each “faculty applicant” has to
demonstrate performance in all items listed in each category.
B.
TEACHING
Commitment to, and proficiency in, teaching as evidenced by but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Curriculum development
Independent study projects supervised
Student evaluations
Various department and college administrative evaluations
Accessibility to (adherence to office hours) and rapport with students
New course development
Evidence of innovative practices and the use of research in instruction
Evidence of quality and standards as developed through consultation with
colleagues to meet the objectives set forth in the course syllabus
9.
Evidence of special awards and recognition
10. Student Advising (curriculum advising, student mentoring for senior design
projects, and regular undergraduate & graduate student advising)
11. other
C.
RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES
Commitment to, and proficiency in research/scholarly activities as evidence by
but not limited to:
1. Research (Theoretical and Applied) and Publications
14
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
a. Publications and academic journals (journal quality)
b. Publication of a book or monograph (quality)
c. Grant applications and receipts (quality of research projects, release time,
support of graduate and undergraduate RAs, collaborative research with
industry, peer recognition nationally, impact to the department standing,
college standing and institutional standing)
d. Research in the preparation of a book or chapter of a book
e. Referee or reviewer of articles for journals
f. Book reviews
g. Journal abstracts
h. Research Reports
i. Research in progress
j. Publication in proceedings-local, regional and national meetings
k. Citation of applicant’s work by others
l. Externally published case studies
m. Editor of books or journals or consulting editor
n. Consulting editor
o. Invited articles or book chapters
p. Mentoring undergraduate students and graduate students
q. Industrial experience
r. Other
2.
Professional Program Presentations/Speeches and Participation
a. Noteworthy academic program paper presentations/speeches (local, regional,
national, or international)
b. Attendance and participation in academic conferences and conventions
c. Membership in academic organizations, societies, and/or associations
d. Presentations at faculty research seminars
e. Invited lectures and workshops, and chairing/organizing sessions
f. Other
3.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
D.
Other Professional Development
Chair positions at meetings of academic organizations
Roundtable or panel participation
Professional certification
Professional internships
Participation in professional development workshops
Chaired positions, discussant, reviewer
Other activities and experiences
SERVICE
15
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
Commitment to service as evidenced by but not limited to:
1.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
2.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
3.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
4.
Department
Curriculum development committee
Tenure and Promotion Committee
Laboratory development committee
Student organizations
Student orientation organization
Student advisement and counseling
Other
College
Curriculum development committee
Tenure and Promotion Committee
Student-Faculty Relation Committee
Scholarship committee
Student orientation programs
Accreditation and Course Assessment Committee
Other
University
Faculty senate
University Academic Council
University development and planning
Graduate Council
Evidentiary Hearing Committee
Research Initiative Committee
Other
Professionally-relevant Public Service
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Governmental committees (state and national)
Extension/outreach activities
Academic and professional consulting
Serve as guest/keynote speaker
Membership and services to professional organizations (chaired positions,
reviewer, discussant, presenter)
m. TV, radio, newspaper interviews
n. Other
16
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
VI.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF FACULTY PORTFOLIOS
The guidelines for evaluating portfolios (minimum requirements) for tenure and promotion to the
various levels are as follows:
Research/
Teaching
Scholarly
Service
Activity
(i) DEPARTMENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Tenure
Promotion to
Assoc. Professor
Promotion to
Professor
Excellent
Good
Good
Excellent
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
(ii) DEPARTMENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON MASTER’S AND UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION
Tenure
Promotion to
Assoc. Professor
Promotion to
Professor
Excellent
Good
Good
Excellent
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
(iii) DEPARTMENTS WITH EMPHASIS
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS
ON
DOCTORAL,
MASTER’S
Tenure
Promotion to
Assoc. Professor
Promotion to
Professor
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
AND
Deviations based on Committee discretionary decisions from the above guidelines shall be
acceptable. It must be emphasized that each portfolio will be evaluated on it’s own merit. The
above table should be used as a guideline.
Note: The Departments shall define the specific guidelines for performance in each item based on their needs.
However, the overall performance evaluation must be consistent with the university policies for teaching,
research and service and the list of items listed in Section IV and Section V of this document. The faculty
members in the committee need to take great care in assessment of the candidate in terms of how he/she impacts
the department, COE and university.
17
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
APPENDIX A
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY
APPLICATION SUMMARY FORM
1.
NAME______________________
2.
DEPARTMENT_______________
3.
YEARS AT PVAMU____________
4.
5.
TERMINAL
DEGREE___________
CHECK APPROPRIATELY:
____ADJUNCT FACULTY (INDICATE NUMBER OF YEARS)________________
____ASST. PROF.:
___
YRS.
( )
TENURED
____ASST. PROF.:
___
YRS
( )
TENURED
____ PROFESSOR:_____
YRS
( )
TENURED
REQUEST FOR: ( ) REAPPOINTMENT ( ) PROMOTION ( ) TENURE
TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND PERFORMANCE (At PVAMU)
YEARS OF TEACHING AT PVAMU______ELSEWHERE____
NOTE:
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS FORM, ONLY GIVE THE NUMBER OF
FREQUENCY. DO NOT LIST DETAILS.
PVAMU
ELSEWHERE
1.
COURSES DEVELOPED AND TAUGHT
______
______
2.
STUDENT ADVISEMENT ACTIVITIES
______
______
3.
OTHER (DESCRIBE)
______
______
18
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
RESEARCH AND/OR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
YEARS OF RESEARCH AT PVAMU_____ ELSEWHERE ______
YEARS OF NON -TEACHING RESEARCH/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE____
PVAMU
ELSEWHERE
1.
GRANTS APPLIED FOR PI/CO-PI
______
______
2.
GRANTS AWARDED AS PI/CO-PI
______
______
3.
GRANT FUNDING LEVELS
_______
______
4.
PUBLICATIONS IN REFERRED JOURNALS
______
______
5.
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
______
______
6.
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
______
______
7.
RESEARCH RELATED FINAL REPORTS
COMPLETED
8.
MASTERS STUDENTS ADVISED AS CHAIR
______
______
9.
MASTERS STUDENTS ADVISED AS
COMMITTEE MEMBER
______
______
10.
INVITED TALKS/WORKSHOPS/SESSION CHAIR______
______
11.
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES ______
______
12.
OTHER (DESCRIBE)
______
______
SERVICE
1.
DEPARTMENT COMMITTEES
______
______
2.
COLLEGE COMMITTEES
______
______
3.
UNIVERISTY COMMITTEES
______
______
4.
SERVICE AT LARGE
______
______
5.
OTHER (DESCRIBE)
______
______
19
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
APPENDIX B
COURSE LOAD MATRIX
To be completed by applicant
(To be used by Tenure and promotion committee for the calculation of teaching
load.)
NAME OF FACULTY: _____________________________
YEAR
Course/Semester F
SP
S
F
SP
SU
F
20
SP
SU
F
SP
SU
F
SP
SU
Final Draft Recommendation from the COE Tenure Promotion Handbook Review Committee
(Draft 4 2009 05 10)
APPENDIX C
TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION REQUIREMENT
As mentioned in the Faculty Handbook, “Tenure and/or Promotion” shall be based on
clear convincing and cumulative evidence of significant continuing achievement in teaching,
research/scholarly activities and service.
Portfolio Summary must quantify all the criteria for research, teaching and service listed
in Section V A, B, and C consistent with the annual performance expectations and evaluations
for each level of promotion.
The “faculty applicant” must keep focus on how his/her efforts in “research/teaching/services”
are impacting the department/COE/university. The department Head and the “tenure and/or
promotion evaluation committee” must focus on the same when evaluating the “faculty
applicant”. Consistent and regular evaluations and feedback must be reasonably assured when
evaluating the faculty applicant.
21