TENURE AND PROMOTION MANUAL - PVAMU Home · 2019-12-18 · b. “The Tenure and Promotion...

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


2

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.

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.


3

LIST OF REVISIONS

Previous Document: “Tenure and promotion manual, 1993” (Approved)


4

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


5

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. Chemical Engineering 2. Civil and Environmental Engineering 3. Computer Science 4. Electrical and Computer Engineering 5. Engineering Technology 6. 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”.


6

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 Date of Submission

Start Date of Process

End Date of process

Outcomes

Faculty Applicant Submits “Application Portfolio” for Review

September 30

-

Department Committee Review

October 1 October 30 Submit the Recommendation and the Portfolio to the Department Head for forwarding to the Dean

College Committee Review

November 1 November 30 Submit the Recommendation and the Portfolio to the Dean for forwarding to the Department Head (without the recommendation of the College Committee)

Department Head Review

December 1 December 15 Department Head submits the Recommendation to the Dean


7

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


8

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. Short summary of teaching philosophy and teaching activities (not more than two pages),

ii. Matrix of teaching loads (See the sample blank matrix sheet in Appendix B) iii. Curriculum development (Samples of course outlines for new and modified courses) iv. Independent study projects supervised v. Samples of examinations, quizzes and projects

vi. 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]

vii. Accessibility to (adherence to office hours) and rapport with students viii. Various department and college administrative evaluations

ix. Evidence of innovative practices and the use of research in instruction x. Evidence of quality and standards as developed through consultation with colleagues to

meet the objectives set forth in the course syllabus xi. Evidence of special awards and recognition

xii. Student Advising (curriculum advising, student mentoring for senior design projects, and regular undergraduate & graduate student advising)

xiii. other


9

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)


10

(i) List of student’s organizations you served as advisor – department level, college level, university level and at large (community, state and nation)

(ii) List of committees where you acted with capacity (Copies of appointment letter to the committees): 1. Department a. Curriculum development committee b. Tenure and Promotion Committee c. Laboratory development committee d. Student organizations e. Student orientation organization f. Student advisement and counseling g. Other

2. College

a. Curriculum development committee b. Tenure and Promotion Committee c. Student-Faculty Relation Committee d. Scholarship committee e. Student orientation programs f. Accreditation and Course Assessment Committee g. Other

3. University a. Faculty senate b. University Academic Council c. University development and planning d. Graduate Council e. Evidentiary Hearing Committee f. Research Initiative Committee g. Other

(iii) List of professional Organizations where you acted as a member of/or

chairperson of committees and impact on the department, college and university) (iv) 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). (v) Professionally-relevant Public Service

a. Governmental committees (state and national) b. Extension/outreach activities c. Academic and professional consulting d. Serve as guest/keynote speaker e. Membership and services to professional organizations (chaired positions,

reviewer, discussant, presenter)


11

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. Two (2) Letters of Recommendation from faculty within the Department/College. 2. One (1) Letter from the Faculty Outside of COE and within the University. 3. Two (2) Letters of Recommendations from the faculty or experts outside the

University.

IV. 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:


12

i. Quality of research and collaborative efforts with national organizations and industry, ii. Release time,

iii. New course development, iv. Introduction of research into courses v. Mentoring students (senior design projects, thesis advising)

vi. Grant proposals vii. Publications in journals and conferences

viii. Participation in professional organizations and impact on the department and college ix. Departmental services (no emphasis on college level and institutional level) and

For promotion from associate to full professorship, the emphasis shall be on:

i. Quality of research and peer-to-peer recognition at large and how it impacts programs,

COE and institutional visibility in the nation ii. Grant proposals and Release time

iii. Mentoring junior faculty, and graduate and undergraduate student iv. Creation of research centers and/or participation in enhancing the research centers v. New program development

vi. Participation in professional organizations, invited seminars and workshops, chairing and/or organizing technical sessions.

vii. Participation in institutional and college level, and at large services (promote visibility) viii. Important departmental services that impact the programs, college and institution

ix. 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


13

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. EXCELLENT 2. GOOD 3. SATISFACTORY 4. UNSATISFACTORY

B. 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.



14

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.


V. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS

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. Curriculum development 2. Independent study projects supervised 3. Student evaluations 4. Various department and college administrative evaluations 5. Accessibility to (adherence to office hours) and rapport with students 6. New course development 7. Evidence of innovative practices and the use of research in instruction 8. 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


15

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. Other Professional Development a. Chair positions at meetings of academic organizations b. Roundtable or panel participation c. Professional certification d. Professional internships e. Participation in professional development workshops f. Chaired positions, discussant, reviewer g. Other activities and experiences

D. SERVICE


16

Commitment to service as evidenced by but not limited to: 1. Department h. Curriculum development committee i. Tenure and Promotion Committee j. Laboratory development committee k. Student organizations l. Student orientation organization m. Student advisement and counseling n. Other

2. College

h. Curriculum development committee i. Tenure and Promotion Committee j. Student-Faculty Relation Committee k. Scholarship committee l. Student orientation programs m. Accreditation and Course Assessment Committee n. Other

3. University h. Faculty senate i. University Academic Council j. University development and planning k. Graduate Council l. Evidentiary Hearing Committee m. Research Initiative Committee n. Other

4. Professionally-relevant Public Service

h. Governmental committees (state and national) i. Extension/outreach activities j. Academic and professional consulting k. Serve as guest/keynote speaker l. Membership and services to professional organizations (chaired positions,

reviewer, discussant, presenter) m. TV, radio, newspaper interviews n. Other


17

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 Excellent Good Good Promotion to Assoc. Professor Excellent Good Good Promotion to Professor Excellent Excellent Excellent

(ii) DEPARTMENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON MASTER’S AND UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Tenure Excellent Good Good Promotion to Assoc. Professor Excellent Good Good Promotion to Professor Excellent Excellent Excellent (iii) DEPARTMENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON DOCTORAL, MASTER’S AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Tenure Excellent Excellent Good Promotion to Assoc. Professor Excellent Excellent Good Promotion to Professor Excellent Excellent Excellent 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.


18

APPENDIX A

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY APPLICATION SUMMARY FORM

1. NAME______________________

2. DEPARTMENT_______________ 3. YEARS AT PVAMU____________

4. TERMINAL

DEGREE___________

5. 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) ______ ______


19

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) ______ ______


20

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 SP SU F SP SU F SP SU


21

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.

TENURE AND PROMOTION MANUAL - PVAMU Home · 2019-12-18 · b. “The Tenure and Promotion...

Documents

Transcript of TENURE AND PROMOTION MANUAL - PVAMU Home · 2019-12-18 · b. “The Tenure and Promotion...