MECHANICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
Department
ENGINEERING
College
Policy Statement Concerning:
Annual Evaluations
including Professorial Performance Award Criteria and Standards
Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015
Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment
Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015
Chronic Low Achievement Standards
Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015
7/1
(
Department Head's i nature
/ z-D
Date
Dean's Signature
\3
Provost's Signature
Date
For Office of Academic Services Use Only
Date Posted to Web:
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION DOCUMENT
(Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015)
PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENT
(Approved by Faculty Vote on 09/17/2015)
REVIEW DATE FOR ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION DOCUMENT*(which includes:
Section 1. The CRITERIA, and STANDARDS, and PROCEDURES for FACULTY ANNUAL
EVALUATIONS;
Section 2. The CRITERIA and STANDARDS for MINIMUM-ACCEPTABLE LEVEL of
PRODUCTIVITY and CHRONIC LOW ACHIEVEMENT; and
Section 3. The GUIDELINES for the PROFESSORIAL PERFORMANCE AWARD): 12/2018
REVIEW DATE FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENT* (which includes the
PROMOTION and TENURE PROCEDURES and the PROMOTION and TENURE
GUIDELINES): 11/2015
William L. Dunn, Head of the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
Date signed: 09/17/2015
Darren Dawson, Dean of the College of Engineering
Date signed:
April C. Mason, Provost and Senior Vice President of Kansas State University
Date signed:
*Each academic department is required by University Handbook policy to develop department documents
containing criteria, standards, and guidelines for promotion, tenure, reappointment, annual evaluation and merit
salary allocation. These documents must be approved by a majority vote of the faculty members in the department,
by the Department Head or chair, by the dean concerned, and by the provost. In accordance with University
Handbook policy, provision must be made to review these documents at least once every five years or more
frequently if it is determined to be necessary. Dates of revision (or the vote to continue without revision) must
appear on the first page of the document.
Annual Faculty Evaluation Document
1.
2.
3.
Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Faculty Annual Evaluations
Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity
and Chronic Low Achievement
Guidelines for the Professorial Performance Award
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
College of Engineering
Kansas State University
Approval date: 09/17/2015
Section 1. Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Faculty
Annual Evaluations
Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
College of Engineering
Kansas State University
Guidelines for Quantifying the Contributions made by the Faculty for the
Betterment of the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
Background
The mission of the department is to excel in education and scholarship for the betterment of
our students, the state of Kansas, the engineering profession, and society as a whole. The
department will achieve this mission by recognizing activities that strengthen our current
foundation, and then encouraging new activities and efforts that raise the level of that
foundation. An appropriate combination of teaching, scholarship, and service are generally
expected of tenured and tenure-track faculty members.
Each faculty member is unique and contributes individual abilities to the department. The
evaluation approach taken by the department seeks to respect this uniqueness by establishing
a set of guidelines and standards that are relatively flexible, yet offers enough rigor to allow a
framework for guiding and evaluating each faculty member. The philosophy behind
quantifying the contributions made by department faculty members has three important parts.
•
The "accomplishment plan." Each faculty member will submit his/her
accomplishment plan (Appendix A) to the head during the latter part of each year
which will be based on the department's mission and objectives. These plans will
permit each faculty member to work towards individual goals that are aligned with
the department's mission and objectives. It is recognized that the information
requested in Appendix A may change from the previous year. If the % time (faculty
load distribution) indicated for scholarly activity and extramural support, teaching,
and service remain the same as that of the previous year, an interview to discuss the
accomplishment plan with the head is not needed. However, if the % time among the
categories does change, then the head shall meet with the faculty member to discuss
and possibly adjust the faculty member's load distribution to better meet the
department's mission and objectives. The head has the ultimate responsibility of
determining if the cumulative effect of all the plans meets the department's mission
and objectives. If not, then the head shall meet with individual faculty members as
needed to suggest changes to their plans.
•
Relative importance. The head maintains the responsibility of determining the
relative benefit of the individual plans. The relative importance will be based on how
well the plan addresses the department's mission and objectives.
•
Summary of Accomplishments for the Preceding Year. Completion of Appendix
B accompanied by a detailed accounting of accomplishments is needed. The
supporting material includes all the information needed to show the quantity, quality,
1
and significance of work from the past year. Supporting scholarship information
should include such items as published works, submitted proposals, funded proposals,
supervised graduate students, etc. Supporting teaching information should include
courses taught, laboratory sections taught, semester, enrollment, and TEVAL student
evaluations for each course. The effort expended in developing a new course,
modifying an existing course, undergraduate student advising or other important
effort should also be included in the teaching summary. Supporting service
information should include sufficient detail to identify leadership and contributions
that were made.
Evaluation Criteria and Standards
In accordance with section C41.1 of University Handbook, the department must have a
system for annual evaluation of faculty. The system of evaluation must include a statement of
the department's evaluation criteria and standards. The responsibility for developing and
revising an annual evaluation system for faculty rests primarily with the department's faculty
in consultation with the department head, the dean, and the provost.
It is the responsibility of each faculty member to clearly document his or her efforts and
achievements in teaching, research/scholarship, service and other activities related to
furthering the department's, college's and university's missions. Guidelines for specific
information to be included in each section are given below.
Information Considered in Evaluating Teaching
A faculty member should provide information about his or her workload in teaching for the
year of evaluation and show evidence of his or her teaching effectiveness along with efforts
to become a better teacher. Some common items that are used to demonstrate effective
teaching may include:
• All courses taught for the year of evaluation including enrollment for each course and
student TEVAL evaluations.
• Development of teaching labs and lab sessions.
• Teaching awards sponsored by the department, college, or university as well as other
awards sponsored by student groups, external agencies and professional societies.
• Contributions to new course development and revisions of courses.
• Introduction of innovative teaching materials or instructional techniques.
• Special contributions to effective teaching for diverse student populations.
• Special teaching activities outside the university.
• Participation in learning enhancement programs.
• Instructional research.
• Papers or other publications on teaching.
• Grants related to the education of students.
• Contributions to the development of new programs/curricula or improvement of
current programs/curricula
• Leadership in developing or improving programs or curricula.
• Various efforts made to improve teaching effectiveness such as:
2
•
o Interviews and/or surveys, including senior exit interviews, to obtain
information about teaching effectiveness.
o Consultation with other faculty on teaching and instruction.
o Use of innovative approaches to teaching.
o Input from faculty members at peer institutions regarding effectiveness of online courses taught by KSU faculty members to students at the peer institution.
Other creative teaching activities.
Information Considered in Evaluating Scholarship/Research
Evidence of scholarly and creative work includes but is not limited to:
• Refereed papers published in, accepted by, and submitted to technical journals.
• Papers presented in, accepted by, and submitted to technical conferences.
• Technical reports accepted and submitted.
• Technical book chapters, books and monographs.
• Non-refereed technical articles published or distributed widely.
• Invited lectures, presentations or seminars in universities, industry, professional
organizations, or government laboratories.
• Ph.D. students advised.
• M.S. students advised.
• Supervisory committees of graduate students other than your own.
• Honor students/undergraduate projects advised.
• Graduate students supported on an hourly basis.
• Undergraduate students supervised/supported on an hourly basis.
• Patents filed; patents awarded.
• Research proposals submitted.
• Research grants and contracts awarded.
• Other sources of funding.
• Summer spent in universities, industry or national laboratories.
• Sabbatical spent in universities, industry or national laboratories.
• Citations received for the year of evaluation.
• Honors or awards for research.
• Other creative research activities.
Information Considered in Evaluating Service
Evidence of service to the institution, the profession, and the general public may include:
1. Internal/Institutional
• Serving on committees, task forces, or councils for the department, college, and
university.
• Serving in the Faculty Senate.
• Advising professional or honorary student organizations.
• Advising undergraduate students.
• Hosting prospective student visits.
• Helping with university Open House while not serving as the Open House advisor.
• Helping with ABET activities while not serving on the ABET related committee.
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
Performing special functions assigned by the department head.
Making arrangements for seminars and hosting seminar speakers.
Contributing to the recruitment of new faculty while not serving on the search
committee.
Fundraising.
Extra departmental duties such as organizing/coordinating group teaching or research
related activities.
Other creative service activities.
2. External/Professional/Public
• Holding offices, or committee positions, and/or membership in professional/honorary
societies.
• Serving on editorial board of professional journals.
• Organizing/chairing conference sessions or serving on organizing committees.
• Editing technical monographs and proceedings of conferences.
• Serving as reviewer for journals, publishers of professional literature and funding
agencies.
• Presenting workshops.
• Interacting with prospective funding agencies, alumni, and industrial representatives
to foster cordial relations.
• Raising the technical awareness of the lay-public through direct interaction or through
print and electronic media.
• Other creative public service activities.
Although each activity listed above adds value to the department's mission and objectives, no
faculty member is expected to participate in all activities. It is appropriate that each faculty
member engages in activities that support the mission of the department.
Numerical Scores
In the Faculty Evaluation Form (see Appendix C), a 1 to 5 numerical scale will be used to
represent a faculty member's performance in each responsibility area. The follow table
clarifies the meaning of the numerical scores:
5
4 to <5
3 to <4
2 to <3
1 to <2
Far exceeded expectations
Exceeded expectations
Met expectations
Fallen below expectations but has met minimum-acceptable levels of productivity
Fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity
Reasonable contributions of a faculty member to each of her or his assigned areas of
responsibility are considered to be in the "Met expectations" category for the purpose of
annual evaluation, while substantial contributions are considered to be in the "Exceeded
expectations" category. Some combination of publication of journal articles and/or
conference Proceedings, supervision of graduate students, research expenditures during the
evaluation year, and proposal submission would constitute reasonable contributions under
4
scholarship for a tenured faculty member. Substantial contributions would require several
publications, multiple graduate students, and some other scholarship activity such as patents
filed, books or book chapters in progress, proposals funded, or undergraduate students
supported. For the last category "Fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity,"
the section of Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and
Chronic Low Achievement applies. Chronic Low Achievement only applies to tenured
members of the faculty. In finalizing the numeric scores for all faculty members, the
department head shall look for consistency across the faculty.
About Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity
In accordance with Section C31.6 of the University Handbook, the standards for the "Met
expectations" category in the preceding section are not the same as those concerning
minimum-acceptable levels of productivity. The criteria and standards for the minimumacceptable levels of productivity are given in the Section, Criteria and Standards for
Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement.
Salary Adjustments (Merit Raises)
Procedures for salary adjustments are given in the K-State University Handbook Section
C46.2. The merit salary increase for each faculty member will be proportional to the average
of his or her current and previous two years (if available) overall performance scores if the
average score is greater than 2.0. If the average overall performance score is less than or
equal to 2.0, no merit salary increase will be given. In accordance with Section C46.2 of the
University Handbook, the average percentage increases in the highest category are expected
to be about twice those in the lowest category; this ratio is expected to fluctuate both with the
degree to which members of the department differ in effectiveness and with the degree to
which funds are available.
Distribution of Statistical Evaluation Data Sheets
After evaluation scores are finalized, statistical data sheets on evaluation of faculty members,
with faculty names removed, should be distributed to faculty members in the department.
The data includes statistical evaluation scores for each responsibility area and overall
performance, and raw data on research dollars, publications, students advised, courses taught,
etc. This promotes transparency and allows a faculty member to know how the peers are
doing.
5
Procedure
Procedures for annual evaluation are outlined in the following table:
Task
Responsibility Due Date
1. Review and modify as necessary department's
Evaluation
mission and objectives. These objectives will be Committee
based on the college's mission and objectives,
and shall be presented to the faculty for
approval.
Five year
cycle, due
Sept. 1
The following actions shall happen each year:
2.
Establish the immediate objectives for the
following year from the department's mission
and objectives. These objectives shall be
discussed by the faculty and ultimately
approved by a majority vote.
Department head Aug. 15
3.
Develop individual accomplishment plans for
the following calendar year and submit these
plans to the head. The plan should follow the
format provided in Appendix A of this
document.
Faculty
Aug. 30
Faculty
Jan. 15
Should a faculty member fail to or refuse to
participate in the process of developing the
accomplishment plan, then the department head
is free to allocate the faculty member's time
according to department needs.
4.
Submit a summary of accomplishments from
the previous calendar year in the form of
Appendix B in this document and a supporting
document which provides details for the
accomplishments.
5. Meet with each faculty member and review the Department head Jan. 31
and faculty
accomplishments from the previous calendar
members
year, the accomplishment plan for the current
calendar year, and discuss any modifications to
the accomplishment plan. Discussions related to
the accomplishment plan should point out
potential outcomes and any deficiencies. The
head shall give an evaluation of how well the
plan meets the department's performance
objectives and the expectations of each faculty
6
member.
During the meeting, the faculty member must
sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity
to review and to discuss the evaluation. In
accordance with the University Handbook
(C45.3), within seven working days after the
evaluation, the faculty member has the
opportunity to submit written statement of
unresolved differences regarding his or her
annual evaluation to the department head and to
the Dean of Engineering.
6. After evaluation scores are finalized, the
department head will provide each faculty
member a copy of his or her finalized
evaluation and statistical evaluation data sheets
about all faculty members in the department.
7
Department head Feb. — Mar.
Section 2. Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level
of Productivity and Chronic Low Achievement
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
College of Engineering
Kansas State University
INTRODUCTION
Issues concerning minimum-acceptable level of productivity and chronic low achievement
for tenured faculty members within the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
(MNE) are presented in this section. This section is a supplement to the procedures outlined
in the Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Faculty Annual Evaluations. The purpose, as
required by the Kansas State University (K-State) University Handbook, Section C31.5
Chronic Low Achievement, is to clarify issues related to an evaluation of a tenured faculty
member who chronically fails to satisfy the minimum-acceptable level of productivity.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Decisions on minimum-acceptable performance must be fair and contain the individual
judgments of the faculty and administrators involved in the decision. Each tenured faculty
member is expected to perform his/her professorial duties in a professional manner and at or
above a minimum-acceptable level. Chronic failure of a tenured faculty member to perform
his or her professional duties at or above a minimum-acceptable level (i.e., Chronic Low
Achievement) shall constitute evidence of "professional incompetence" and warrant
consideration for "dismissal for cause" under existing university policies. Chronic Low
Achievement is about revocation of tenure in individual cases. Tenure is essential for the
protection of the independence of the teaching and research faculty in institutions of higher
learning in the United States. Decisions about revocation of tenure should not be exclusively
controlled or determined by and should not be unduly influenced by single individuals
without input from faculty. "Dismissal for cause" in cases of professional incompetence can
only be based on departmental guidelines about minimum-acceptable levels of performance
that apply generally to all members of the department. In accordance with Section C31.6 of
the University Handbook, it is not the purpose of Chronic Low Achievement to promote,
endorse, encourage, or to have any stand whatsoever on the definition of "productivity," its
relation to publication, or the proper relationship between measurable definitions of
productivity and an intellectual University environment that is favorable to substantive
scholarship, long-range projects, or critical and creative thinking.
8
DEFINTION AND STANDARDS OF LOW ACHIEVEMENT
Low achievement of a faculty member in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
Department occurs when a faculty member receives an annual evaluation overall
performance score of less than 2.0 based on the Performance Rating Scale of 1 to 5 listed in
the Faculty Appraisal Form (see Appendix C).
All faculty members must perform all duties outlined in the K-State University Handbook
and be in compliance with all university policies. The "minimum-acceptable level of
productivity" standards established in this document will apply to all tenured faculty
members of the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering.
Productivity in each area of responsibility will be evaluated based on the assigned activities
and the percentage of the faculty member's appointment allocated to that activity. Gross and
chronic failure by a faculty member to perform assigned responsibilities at these levels of
productivity can be construed as professional incompetence and failure to meet minimum
acceptable levels of productivity. Each faculty member is expected to perform, as a
minimum, the following activities, as assigned:
TEACHING
a. Be conscientious about meeting classes on time; the content, organization, and
presentation of lectures; and the appropriate evaluation of student performance.
b. Strive to be consistent in content and depth of material covered in required courses
such that the students earning a 'C' or better grade are appropriately prepared for
higher level courses.
c. Work to keep course material current. Ensure that an appropriate balance of analysis,
design, and computer applications is included in the course material.
An annual evaluation score of less than 2 for teaching can only be assigned if a faculty
member fails to meet the above expectations in an egregious manner. Examples of such
failure might include
• missing more than two weeks of the scheduled class meetings without a valid reason
(such as having health problems or being on business trips) during a semester, or
• receiving consistent TEVAL scores of less than 1.9, or
• failure to evaluate students' performance uniformly and fairly.
SCHOLARSHIP
a. Engage in scholarly and other creative activities appropriate to the profession.
b. Serve as graduate student advisor and/ or committee member.
c. Engage in extramural funding opportunities.
An annual evaluation score of less than 2 for scholarship will be assigned only if, for
example, a faculty member fails to:
• write any proposals and to submit any items for publication during a year, or
• serve as a member of any graduate student committees.
9
SERVICE
a. Serve on departmental and other university committees.
b. Attend departmental and college faculty meetings.
c. Perform student advising conscientiously and treat all students fairly and as mature
individuals.
d. Participate in external professional activities.
e. Attend appropriate functions.
An annual evaluation score of less than 2 for service will be assigned only if, for example, a
faculty member fails to:
• missing more than five faculty meetings without a valid reason (such as having health
problems or being on business trips) during a semester, or
• failure to actively participate on committees to which the faculty member has been
assigned, or
• failure to participate in any scheduled enrollment advising sessions without making
appropriate alternative arrangements with advisees.
PROCEDURES
Chronic Low Achievement is a serious matter and should only be initiated in extreme cases
for a tenured member. Furthermore, Chronic Low Achievement must be a persistent and
consistent failure in duties. The process of determining that a faculty member fails to meet
the minimum standards of productivity must be initiated by the department head. The faculty
member is classified as a chronic low achiever only upon a vote by eligible faculty members.
Eligible faculty members are tenured members with ranks at or above that of the tenured
faculty member of concern.
Prior to the point at which "dismissal for cause" is considered, other less drastic actions
should have been taken. In most cases, the faculty member's deficient performance ("below
expectations" or worse) in one or more areas of responsibility will have been noted in prior
annual evaluations. At that point, the first responsibility of the head of the department is to
determine explicitly whether the duties assigned to the faculty member have been equitable
in the context of the distribution of duties within the department and to correct any inequities
affecting the faculty member under review. Second, the department head should have offered
the types of assistance indicated in section C30.3 of the University Handbook. Referral for
still other forms of assistance (e.g., medical or psychological) may be warranted. Third, if the
deficient performance continues in spite of these efforts and recommendations, the
department head and the faculty member may agree to a reallocation of the faculty member's
time so that he/she no longer has duties in the area(s) of deficient performance. Of course,
such reallocation can occur only if there are one or more areas of better performance in the
faculty member's profile and if the reallocation is possible in the larger context of the
department's mission, needs, and resources.
During the annual evaluation of the faculty, the department head will determine whether a
tenured faculty member fails or appears to fail to meet the "minimum-acceptable level of
productivity" as defined in this document. When a tenured faculty member's overall
10
performance falls below the minimum-acceptable level, the department head shall indicate so
in writing to the faculty member of concern. The department head will also indicate, in
writing, a suggested course of action to improve the performance of the faculty member of
concern. A Review Committee of eligible faculty will be convened (unless the faculty
member requests otherwise) to review the performance of the faculty member of concern. If
there are at least three eligible faculty members, the review committee will consist of three
members: one selected by the department heat, one selected by the faculty member of
concern, and one selected by the eligible faculty members. If there are fewer than three
eligible faculty members, all will serve as the review committee. All eligible faculty
members will vote on the case. The findings of the committee and the result of the vote will
be presented to the department head in writing.
In subsequent annual evaluations, the faculty member of concern will report on activities
aimed at improving performance and any evidence of improvement. If the department head
decides the performance improvement is insufficient, the Review Committee will further
review the case and report its findings to eligible faculty. If a vote by eligible faculty
members indicates the faculty member of concern still falls below minimum standards for the
year following the department head's suggested course of action, his or her name will be
forwarded to the appropriate dean. If the faculty member has two successive evaluations or a
total of three evaluations in any five-year period in which minimum standards are not met,
then "dismissal for cause" will be considered at the discretion of the appropriate dean.
11
Section 3. Guidelines for the Professorial Performance Award
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
College of Engineering
Kansas State University
Award Criteria
Professors in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department at Kansas State University
are expected to accept responsibility for and give leadership in all aspects of the educational
community including teaching, research and service.
To be eligible for the Professorial Performance Award, the candidate must have a full-time
appointment and have attained the rank of Professor at least six years earlier and have not
received a PPA in the prior six years. In the past six years, the candidate must have
demonstrated all the qualities required for promotion to Professor in the MNE department,
namely:
1. Show evidence of excellence in undergraduate teaching. Such evidence must include
student feedback, senior exit interviews, and course reports. It may also include success in
securing resources to support course, laboratory, and curriculum development/enhancement.
2. Show evidence of scholarly work and the ability to support the graduate/research program
in an area sustainable by the candidate. Such evidence must include publication of the
candidate's research in peer-reviewed journals, securing support for the candidate's work, and
successful supervision of graduate students. It may also include development and teaching of
graduate courses, securing resources for graduate student support, laboratory development,
equipment procurement, as well as other documentation of scholarly excellence.
3. Show evidence of service to the university community and of contributions to the
Engineering and Teaching professions. Such evidence must include effective student advising
and documented contributions in departmental and college committee and service assignments.
It may also include participation in university governance, leadership, and participation in
technical and professional society activities. But, it does not include consulting.
In addition, during the previous six years, the candidate must:
1. Show evidence of leadership in the operation and development of the undergraduate and
graduate programs.
2. Show evidence of national recognition of scholarly work and professional service.
It is recognized that these examples of desirable activities may vary greatly from candidate to
candidate and that the merit of each activity must be evaluated separately for each candidate.
12
Timeline and Procedure
In accordance with Sections C49.1-C49.14 of the University Handbook (UH), this section of
the document constitutes the review mechanism and procedure for the Professorial
Performance Award of the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department. This review
mechanism and procedure document will be reviewed at least every five years. Any
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering (MNE) tenured full professor is eligible for the
Professional Performance Award (PPA) provided at least six years have elapsed since the
faculty member's initial appointment at the rank of Professor or since receiving the last PPA.
Those full professors holding at least a 50% appointment in MNE, are eligible to review the
qualifications of the PPA candidates and will report their findings and recommendations to
the MNE Department Head.
The procedure and time line for those faculty wishing to apply for the PPA are:
Fall Semester End (nominally December 15):
The candidate informs department head in writing of his/her wish to be
considered for the PPA and consults with the department head.
Start of Spring Semester (nominally January 15):
After another consultation with the department head, if the candidate decides to
continue the PPA application process, then the candidate forwards the documents
and records concerning teaching, scholarship, and service occurring over the
previous six years with the PPA Summary Table (please refer to appendix D) to
the department head. External letters of reference and evaluation are not required.
Last week in January (nominally January 31):
The forwarded material is made available to the eligible faculty for the purposes
of review.
At least 14 days following the previous step (nominally February 15):
The eligible faculty will meet to consider the merits of each PPA applicant and
the materials submitted by that applicant. No candidate may participate in the
review of his or her own application for the PPA. The eligible faculty will choose
a chairperson from its membership. It is the responsibility of the chairperson to
conduct the meeting, to assure the fairness of the proceedings, and to prepare and
submit in a timely fashion all documents regarding the review to the department
head. The purpose of the meeting is for the eligible faculty to identify those
candidates which they deem worthy of the PPA and to forward to the department
head within one week following the meeting a list containing the recommended
candidates together with written evaluations attesting to why each individual is or
13
is not deemed worthy of the PPA. A transcript of the written comments
pertaining to a particular candidate is given to that candidate by the department
head. After considering the results of the review, the candidate may either choose
to continue the application process or to withdraw from further consideration
during that year by so notifying the department head in writing. If the candidate
chooses to continue the application process, the department head prepares a
written recommendation. A copy of the department head's written
recommendation is given to the candidate.
Approximately two weeks following the meeting of the eligible faculty (nominally March 1):
Each candidate will have the opportunity to discuss with the department head the
written evaluation from the eligible faculty and the department head's written
recommendation. Each candidate will sign a statement acknowledging the
opportunity to discuss and review the evaluation and recommendations. Within
seven working days after the review and discussion of the recommendations and
eligible faculty evaluation, each candidate has the opportunity to submit to the
MNE department head and to the Dean of Engineering written statements of
unresolved differences regarding his or her evaluation by the eligible faculty and
the recommendations.
End of the second week in March (nominally March 15):
At a minimum, the MNE Department Head must submit the following items to
the Dean of Engineering:
a) The candidate's supporting materials that served as the basis of evaluating
eligibility for the award.
b) The recommendation prepared by the department head.
c) A copy of the department's evaluation document used to determine
qualification for the award,
d) Documentation establishing that there was an opportunity for the
candidate to examine the written evaluation and recommendations,
e) Any written statements of unresolved differences concerning the
evaluation and recommendations.
If the department head wishes to apply for the PPA, the Chair of the MNE Promotion and
Tenure Committee will fulfill the function of the department head in all of the above
procedures for that individual.
14
Appendix A
Accomplishment Plan for the Following Year
Scholarly
activity'
and
Extramural
support2
Teaching
(list
specific
courses
you plan to
teach
during the
spring,
summer,
and fall
semesters)
Service
2
Number of Journal publications
Number of conference proceedings
Books
Invited lectures
Graduate student supervision
Other
Industry funding (cash contracts)
Government funding (cash contracts)
In-kind equipment donation
Other
Course name and number
New/Modified?
Time
$
$
$
$
Semester
%
Time
Department/College/
University
External to the University
%
Time
Provide article names on a separate sheet
•
List
funding sources on a separate sheet
Note: The accomplishment plan is designed to be a stand-alone document. It will be used by the
department head and individual faculty members to determine an appropriate work load, and
to estimate the ranking relative to other departmental faculty. Completing the
accomplishments listed on this plan does not guarantee a specific end-of-year ranking, nor
does it guarantee a specific salary raise.
15
Appendix B
Summary of Accomplishments for the Preceding Year
Scholarly activity'
and Extramural
support2
% Time:
Score:
Teaching 4
Number of Journal articles published'
Number of Journal articles accepted for publication'
Number of Journal articles submitted/under review'
Number of Conference Proceedings published'
Number of Conference articles accepted for publication'
Number of Conference articles submitted/under review'
Number of Conference Abstracts accepted for publication'
Number of Conference Abstracts submitted/under review'
Number of technical reports submitted/accepted'
Book or book chapters published'
Book or book chapters under preparation'
Invited lectures
Graduate student supervision (Major Prof.)
Graduate student supervision (Co-Major Prof.)
Graduate student committee member (other than your own)
Number of honor students/undergrad. projects advised
Number of graduate students hourly supported
Number of undergrad students supervised/hourly supported
Patents filed
Patents issued
Summer spent in universities, industry or national labs
Sabbatical spent in universities, industry or national labs
Citations received for the year of evaluation.
Honors or awards for research
Other creative scholarly activities
Proposals submitted (unfunded) 2
Proposals submitted (pending) 2
Industry funding 3
Government funding (including UTC scholarships) 3
Total Research Funding for past calendar year 3
Total research expenditures during the evaluation year (if
available - otherwise it will be requested from SPA) 3
In-kind equipment donation 3
Scholarship /Fellowship funding for students 3
Other (funding) 3
Course name
and number
Enrollment
New/
Modified?
% Time:
Score:
16
Semester
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
TEVAL5
Development of teaching labs/lab sessions
Teaching awards
Contributions to new course development/revisions
I ntroduction of innovative teaching
Contributions to effective teaching for diverse student populations
Special teaching activities outside the university
Participation in learning enhancement programs
Instructional research
Papers/other publications on teaching
Grants related to the education of students
Contributions to curriculum development/improvement
Leadership in curriculum development/improvement
Various efforts to improve teaching effectiveness
Other creative teaching activities
Service (Indicate if
you were a
chair/organizer)
% Time:
Score:
Internal/Institutional
Committee/Taskforce/Council
Dept., College or Univ.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Faculty senate
Number of student organizations advised
Number of undergraduate advisees
Number of prospective students hosted
Helping with university open house while not serving as the
Open House advisor
Helping with ABET activities while not serving in the ABET
related committee
Performing special functions for the department
Arranging seminars and hosting speakers
Contributing to recruitment of new faculty while not serving
in the search committee
Fundraising
Organizing/coordinating group activities
Other creative service activities
Chair or member
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
External/Professional/Public
Member, committee or chair
Professional/honorary society
1.
2.
3.
Number of journal editorial boards served
_
Number of conference sessions organized and/or chaired
17
Number of monographs/proceedings edited
Number of journal papers reviewed
Number of books/book chapters reviewed
Number of research proposals reviewed
Number of workshop presented
Interacting with agencies/alumni/industrial representatives
Interacting with lay-public
Other creative public service activities
1
2
3
4
5
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
[ ] yes
Provide full article citation on a separate sheet in summary
List title and funding sources on a separate sheet in summary
Total funding amount in US dollars designated for the MNE department. List proposals in your
supporting summary documentation
List specific courses taught during the spring, summer, and fall semesters — indicate if a course
was new or substantially modified and show student enrollment
Report TEVAL score "Overall effectiveness as a teacher"
Note:
This page is meant to summarize the accomplishments during the previous calendar year.
Supporting materials should be included on separate sheets with the summary as the cover
sheet. The Department head will provide an evaluation summary that includes performance
relative to the rest of the department faculty.
18
Appendix C
FACULTY EVALUATION FORM
January 1 to December 31
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
College of Engineering
Kansas State University
FACULTY MEMBER:
RANK:
The list below describes the various categories of faculty activity. Faculty assessment
in the three areas of responsibility (Teaching, Scholarship, and Service) involves: compiling
the scholarly and extramural accomplishments; evaluating teaching quality using TEVAL's
and possibly other information such as senior exit surveys, DH senior exit interviews, DH
classroom visits, and possibly others; examining service impact on the department, college,
university, and the profession. Assume that a faculty member's total work load is
represented by 1.0 point. In column 1, distribution of work load among the three areas is
presented to describe faculty member's responsibilities during the evaluation period. For
those activities assigned 0.1 or higher in column 1, performance scores are given in column 2
using the following 1 to 5 rating scale.
PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE
5 Far exceeded expectations
4 to <5 Exceeded expectations
3 to <4 Met expectations
2 to <3 Fallen below expectations but has met minimum-acceptable levels of
productivity
1 to <2 Fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity. For this case, the
section of Criteria and Standards for Minimum-Acceptable Level of Productivity and
Chronic Low Achievement below applies.
19
RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE
I.
Teaching
(Classroom teaching, course
development, advising, laboratory
supervision and maintenance,
other creative teaching activities)
II.
Scholarship
(Scholarly research, publications,
research grants or contracts,
proposals, technical papers,
graduate student supervision,
books, invited lectures, other creative
scholarly activities)
III.
Service
(department, college, and
university committees, professional
service, public service, other creative
service activities)
IV.
Overall
Date:
Department Head:
REMARKS:
Date:
Reviewed by Faculty Member:
20
Appendix D
MNE Department Professorial Performance Award
Accomplishment Summary Table
Name:
Ph.D. Degree Institution and Time:
Date Hired at KSU:
Date Promoted to Full Professor:
Date of Last Professorial Performance Award:
For items listed in the "Total Since Hired" column, please provide an itemized list, for which
a sufficiently detailed CV is an acceptable substitution. For items listed in the "Past 6 Years"
column, please provide appropriate documentary evidence.
Total Since
Hired
Books
Book Chapters
Journal Papers
Refereed Conference Papers
Non-Refereed Conference Papers
Technical Reports
Invited Lectures/Seminar Talks
Patents Filed
Patents Issued
Proposals Submitted (Unfunded)
Proposals Funded
Scholarship Funding ($)
Awards and Honors
New Courses Developed
Others
Undergrad (.599)
Split Level (600)
Courses Taught
Graduate (?700)
Ph.D. Maj. Prof.
MS Chair
M
Students
UG Res. Support
Honor Students
Professional
Service Contributions
University
21
Past 6 Years
PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENTS
1. Promotion and Tenure Procedures
2. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
College of Engineering
Kansas State University
Approved date: 17 September 2015
Promotion and Tenure Procedures
1.
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
Approved: 13 February 2003
Last Revised: 18 November 2010
22
I
Eligible MNE Faculty for Promotion and Tenure Decisions
In this document the term "eligible faculty" identifies those MNE faculty who are
responsible for participating in the promotion and tenure decisions. The conditions for
eligible faculty members are:
•
Tenured faculty members equal to or higher than the proposed promotion rank.
•
Faculty members with a 50% or greater departmental appointment.
Eligible faculty are expected to actively participate in the entire evaluation process of the
candidate. This includes evaluation of the candidate's promotion and tenure materials
and participation in the formal deliberations about the candidate's qualifications. Each
individual faculty member must decide whether he/she "actively participated" in the
evaluation process. If an individual faculty member decides he/she has not actively
participated, then he/she is expected to refrain from voting.
II
The Promotion and Tenure Committee
The members of the Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee are appointed annually by
the Department Head. The Chair of the P&T Committee, a full professor, is elected for a
three-year term by the MNE faculty. The Chair also serves on the College P&T
Committee. The responsibilities of this committee include:
•
Review, modify, and/or develop departmental policies regarding tenure and
promotion;
•
Facilitate the annual review of faculty on probationary appointments and make a
recommendation to eligible faculty concerning re-appointment/tenure/promotion;
•
Conduct a formal mid-probationary review of all non-tenured tenure-track faculty;
•
Advise non-tenured tenure-track faculty about their progress toward earning
tenure and, if ready, see that all necessary forms are completed effectively and
forwarded in a timely manner; and
•
Review all tenured associate professors who seek the committee's assessment
about their progress toward earning promotion. If promotion is desired, ensure that
all necessary forms are completed effectively, forwarded in a timely manner, and
make a recommendation to the eligible faculty.
General issues related to faculty evaluations are discussed in the University Handbook,
Sections C30-C39.
23
III
Probationary Review (See University Handbook, C50-C66)
1. Each faculty member holding probationary appointment must undergo an annual
evaluation to determine if the faculty member shall be reappointed for the following
year. As a part of the evaluation, each faculty member on probationary appointment is
given feedback regarding his/her performance when judged according to the MNE
Department's criteria and standards for tenure.
2. During first year of academic service: The department head evaluates the
probationary faculty member. If the faculty member is not to be reappointed, then the
department head must first meet with the eligible faculty to present and discuss the
reasons for this decision. The faculty member is notified in writing on or before
March 1 if his or her appointment is to be terminated at the end of that academic year.
3. Each faculty member on probationary appointment, after the first year of service,
must submit to the department P&T Committee material that documents the
professional accomplishments since his or her initial appointment. This material must
include, but is not limited to:
a. Completed University Promotion Forms.
b. Evidence of effective teaching including evaluations of teaching.
c. Evidence of scholarly work which must include technical articles
published or pending publication, summaries of research projects started
and underway, copies of research proposals submitted, a list of supervised
graduate students, and summaries of any other scholarly activities.
d. Evidence of service to Kansas State University, the profession, and
appropriate professional societies.
e. Copies of all written records forwarded to the probationary faculty
member by the P&T Committee from previous reappointment evaluations.
4. The P&T Committee members shall individually attend at least one class taught by a
probationary faculty member during each academic year. The P&T Committee shall
meet towards the end of the academic year to develop written comments that are then
provided to that faculty member.
5. During the second year of academic service: The date for submission of probationary
faculty member's evaluation materials follow:
a. September, end of second week: Faculty member submits the evaluation
materials (described in 111.3.) to the P&T Committee. The P&T
Committee shall review the evaluation materials as a committee, provide a
written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the candidate
seeking reappointment. The Department Head shall participate in this
meeting. Upon review of the evaluation materials by the P&T Committee,
the faculty member may change and/or modify the materials in response to
suggestions provided by the P&T Committee.
b. October, end of second week: The faculty member's materials are made
available for review by the eligible departmental faculty.
24
c. November, end of first week: After the evaluation materials have been
available to the eligible faculty for at least 14 days, the department head
and the eligible faculty will meet to discuss the probationary faculty
member's suitability for reappointment and advancement toward tenure
(see C53.1). The P&T committee will make its recommendation to the
eligible faculty at this time. At this meeting, any eligible faculty member
may request that the probationary faculty member (within 5 calendar days)
meet with all the eligible faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification,
the evaluation materials submitted by the probationary faculty member.
After all discussions are complete, a ballot of the eligible faculty
concerning the reappointment of the probationary faculty member will be
submitted to the department head. Each vote must have a written
explanation supporting the cast vote.
d. November, end of second week: Department head submits the final
recommendation, explanations, and complete evaluation materials to the
Dean (see C53.3). Included in the submitted materials to the Dean are the
unedited written comments of each of the eligible faculty members and the
numerical results of the ballot. The department head will present to the
probationary faculty member the written recommendation and the
associated explanations. Also, the department head will discuss with the
probationary faculty member his or her advancement toward tenure. These
recommendations and explanations are kept in the probationary faculty
member's confidential file.
6. After two or more years of academic service: the date for submission of probationary
faculty member's evaluation materials follow:
a. January, end of second week: Faculty member submits the evaluation
materials (described in III. 3.) to the P&T Committee. These materials must
include the cumulative record of written recommendations and associated
explanations given to the probationary faculty member from previous
reappointment meetings and any other written comments from relevant
individuals outside the department. The P&T Committee shall review the
evaluation materials as a committee, provide a written summary letter to the
candidate, and then meet with the candidate seeking reappointment. The
Department Head shall participate in this meeting. Upon review of the
evaluation materials by the P&T Committee, the faculty member may change
and/or modify the submitted evaluation materials.
b. February, end of second week: The faculty member's materials are made
available for review by the eligible departmental faculty.
c. March, end of first week: After the evaluation documents have been available
to the eligible faculty for at least 14 days, the department head and the eligible
faculty shall meet to discuss the probationary faculty member's suitability for
reappointment and advancement toward tenure (see C53.1). The P&T
committee shall make its recommendation to the eligible faculty at this time.
If the P&T Committee recommendation is not unanimous, then a minority
25
statement will also be made. At this meeting, any eligible faculty member may
request that the probationary faculty member (within 5 calendar days) meet
with the eligible faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the evaluation
materials submitted by the probationary faculty member. After all discussions
are complete, a ballot of the eligible faculty concerning the reappointment of
the probationary faculty member shall be submitted to the department head.
Each vote must have a written explanation supporting the cast vote.
d. March, end of second week: Department head submits the final
recommendation, explanations, and complete evaluation materials to the Dean
(see C53.3). Included in the submitted materials to the Dean are the unedited
written comments of each of the eligible faculty members and the numerical
results of the ballot. The department head shall present to the probationary
faculty member the written recommendation and the associated explanations.
Also, the department head shall discuss with the probationary faculty member
his or her advancement toward tenure. These recommendations and
explanations are kept in the probationary faculty member's confidential file.
IV
Mid-Probationary Review (See University Handbook, C92-C93)
Midway through the probationary period, a review of a probationary faculty member is
conducted. The mid-probationary review occurs during the faculty member's third year
in the department. The purpose of this review is to provide substantial feedback to the
probationary faculty member from both the faculty and administrators about how well
the faculty member's accomplishments satisfy the department's criteria for obtaining
tenure. A favorable mid-probationary review does not guarantee tenure shall be given in
the future, nor does a negative review guarantee that tenure shall not be given.
Each faculty member on probationary appointment must submit to the P&T Committee
material that documents the professional accomplishments since his or her initial
appointment. This material is specified in Section III. 3. As part of the mid-probationary
review, the P&T Committee shall provide to the candidate an assessment of the
candidate's progress towards tenure and expectations of continued progress.
Procedures and time line for the mid-probationary review are those described in Section
III. 6.
V
Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor (See University
Handbook, C70-C116)
I. By the first day of the fall semester, each untenured faculty member intending to seek
tenure during the academic year (and, if an assistant professor, also promotion to
associate professor) must write a letter to the Chair of the P&T Committee (with a
copy to the Department Head) indicating the intention to seek tenure. This letter must
include completed University Promotion Forms responding to the Department's
26
Promotion and/or Tenure Guidelines, as well as all supporting materials (copies of
publications, teaching evaluations, etc.) (see C111).
2. The P&T Committee shall review the letter, forms, and any supporting material as a
committee, provide a written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the
candidate seeking tenure and/or promotion. The Department Head shall participate in
this meeting. Suggestions for improving the candidate's application and for
addressing any concerns the committee perceives shall be discussed with the
candidate. The final decision to go forward rests with the candidate.
3. Faculty members going forward for promotion and/or tenure shall submit to the P&T
Committee, by September 1, a list of four potential reviewers outside the University.
At least two of these reviewers, plus at least two others selected by the Department
Head, shall be contacted for written evaluations (see C112.2). Faculty members going
forward for promotion and tenure shall prepare the final documentation supporting
their application, in consultation with the P&T Committee and the Department Head,
by October 1.
4. Eligible MNE faculty members individually review each candidate's file, which shall
be available at least fourteen days prior to the meeting at which eligible faculty
discuss the candidate's petition (see C112.3). Any eligible faculty, prior to the vote,
may request to meet with the candidate to clarify any materials submitted by the
candidate (see C 112.4). A meeting of eligible faculty shall be called. At this meeting,
the P&T Committee shall report to the eligible faculty its deliberations. If the P&T
Committee recommendation is not unanimous, then a minority report is also made.
The eligible faculty, less the Department Head, then submit their votes and written
comments to the Department Head. The vote and unedited faculty comments are
forwarded with the candidate's reviewed material to the Dean (see C112.5).
5. The Department Head shall report to the eligible faculty the faculty vote tally and his
or her recommendation to the Dean. If the Department Head's recommendation is
contrary to the faculty vote, the Head shall meet with the eligible faculty to explain
the reasons for not accepting the faculty vote.
VI
Promotion to Full Professor (See University Handbook, C120C156)
1. By the first day of the fall semester, each tenured associate professor intending to
seek promotion during the academic year must write a letter to the chair of the P&T
committee (with a copy to the Department Head) indicating the intention to seek
promotion. This letter must include completed University Promotion Forms
responding to the Department's Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, as well as all
supporting materials (copies of publications, teaching evaluations, etc.) (see C 151).
2. The P&T Committee shall review the letter, forms, and any supporting material as a
committee, provide a written summary letter to the candidate, and then meet with the
27
candidate seeking promotion. The Department Head shall participate in this meeting.
Suggestions for improving the candidate's application and for addressing any
concerns the committee perceives shall be discussed with the candidate. The final
decision to go forward rests with the candidate.
3. Faculty going forward for promotion shall submit to the P&T Committee, by
September 1, a list of four potential reviewers outside the University. At least two of
these reviewers, plus at least two others selected by the Department Head, shall be
contacted for written evaluations (see C 152.2). Faculty members going forward for
promotion shall prepare the final documentation supporting their application, in
consultation with the P&T Committee and the Department Head, by October 1.
4. Eligible MNE faculty members individually review each candidate's file, which shall
be available at least fourteen days prior to the meeting at which eligible faculty
discuss the candidate's petition (see C152.3). Any eligible faculty, prior to the vote,
may request to meet with the candidate to clarify any materials submitted by the
candidate (see C152.4). A meeting of eligible faculty shall be called. At this meeting,
the P&T Committee shall report to the eligible faculty its deliberations. The eligible
faculty, less the Department Head, then submit their vote and written comments to the
Department Head. The vote and unedited faculty comments are forwarded with the
candidate's reviewed material to the Dean (see C152.5).
5. The Department Head shall report to the eligible faculty the faculty vote tally and his
or her recommendation to the Dean. If the Department Head's recommendation is
contrary to the faculty vote, the Head shall meet with the eligible faculty to explain
the reasons for not accepting the faculty vote.
II.
Post Tenure Review
The purpose of post-tenure review at Kansas State University is to enhance the continued
professional development of tenured faculty. The process is intended to encourage
intellectual vitality and professional proficiency for all members of the faculty throughout
their careers, so they may more effectively fulfill the mission of the university. It is also
designed to enhance public trust in the University by ensuring that the faculty community
undertakes regular and rigorous efforts to hold all of its members accountable for high
professional standards.
Kansas State University recognizes that the granting of tenure for university faculty is a vital
protection of free inquiry and open intellectual debate. It is expressly recognized that
nothing in this policy alters or amends the University's policies regarding removal of tenured
faculty members for cause (which are stipulated in the University Handbook). This policy
and any actions taken under it are separate from and have no bearing on the chronic low
achievement or annual evaluation policies and processes.
28
The department policy on post tenure review follows the overarching purpose, principles,
objectives, and procedures in the university policy on post tenure review (see University
Handbook, Appendix W), which was approved by Faculty Senate on February 11, 2014."
Procedural Issues
1. The post-tenure review will be conducted for all tenured faculty either every six
years, or in the sixth year following promotion or awarding of a major university
performance award.
2. When a tenured faculty member has received six or more annual evaluations by 31
December of any given year, the faculty member will see that copies of the six
previous annual evaluations are made available to the Department Head by 31
January of the following year. Copies of these previous annual evaluations may be
taken from those on file for the faculty member. Additional more detailed
documentation associated with these six previous annual evaluations may also be
provided by the faculty member for clarification purposes.
3. The Department Head will review the materials and may request input from
appropriate other tenured faculty members having rank equal to or greater than that
of the submitting faculty member.
4. If all six annual evaluations meet or exceed expectations, the Department Head will
make a determination that the submitting faculty member has demonstrated
appropriate contribution to the University. Otherwise, the Department Head will
request the submission of a Professional Development Plan, which will specify
activities for the coming year that the submitting faculty member will undertake to
demonstrate appropriate contribution to the University. The Department Head may
specify the following:
Notable Strengths:
Areas for Improvement:
Faculty Member
Department Head
29
III. Meetings of the Promotion and Tenure Committee
Meetings of the P&T Committee, when individual qualifications are considered, shall be
closed and any written responses shall be confidential.
30
2. Promotion And Tenure Guidelines
Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department
Approved: 17 September 2015
Last Revised: 18 November 2010
Faculty members in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department at Kansas State
University are expected to accept responsibility for and give leadership in all aspects of the
educational community including teaching, research and service.
I.
Considerations for mid-probationary review
The material should demonstrate the probationary faculty member can become a department
leader and be successful in all aspects of professorial duties. The probationary faculty
member should show clear progress towards tenure.
Reappointment should be based on clear progress towards tenure. Suitable criteria include
effective classroom teaching, progress towards establishing an externally funded scholarly
agenda, and effective collaboration with colleagues. The candidate must demonstrate a
professional demeanor (see D.3) and a commitment to good citizenship in the department.
II. Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor
To qualify for tenure and/or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor a candidate must:
1. Show multiple sources of evidence of excellence in undergraduate teaching. Such
evidence must include student feedback and senior exit interviews. It may also
include success in securing resources to support course, laboratory, and
curriculum development/enhancement.
2. Show evidence of scholarly work and the ability to support the graduate/research
program in an area sustainable by the candidate. Such evidence must include
publication of the candidate's research in peer reviewed journals or peer-reviewed
conference proceedings, securing support for the candidate's work, and successful
supervision of graduate students. It may also include development and teaching of
graduate courses, and securing resources for laboratory development and
equipment procurement and other documentation of research excellence
3. Show evidence of service to the university community and contribution to the
Engineering and Teaching professions. Such evidence must include effective
student advising and documented contribution in departmental and college
committee and service assignments. It may also include participation in university
governance, leadership and participation in technical and professional society
activities, but does not include consulting.
31
4.
Demonstrate a professional demeanor (see D.3) and a commitment to good
citizenship in the department.
III. Promotion to Full Professor
To qualify for promotion to the rank of Professor a candidate must show substantial and
sustained growth in professional leadership and stature. In addition to sustained excellence
in the measures required for tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, a
candidate for promotion to Professor must:
1. Show evidence of leadership in the operation and development of the
undergraduate and graduate programs, and
2. Show evidence of national recognition of scholarly work and professional service.
The documented evidence shall be reviewed by peers from other institutions. Peer
reviewers shall be chosen by the candidate and the Promotion and Tenure
Committee.
3. Demonstrate a professional demeanor (see D.3) and a commitment to good
citizenship in the department.
Examples of such evidence might include a substantial body of published work in peer
reviewed journals, sustained support for research program, successful supervision of
doctoral students, presentation of research at prestigious conferences, significant citations of
published work, authorship of texts, monographs, and other special publications, significant
application of research results for the advancement of technology, leadership in professional
and technical society activities, organization of sessions at professional meetings, committee
leadership and editorial board service for professional societies, proposal and technical
paper review services, service on governmental panels, attainment of prestigious honors and
awards and other recognition of prominent professional leadership. It is recognized that
these examples of desirable activities may vary greatly from case to case and that the merit
of each activity must be evaluated for each case.
32