BCF10 Promotion Policy for No-Term and Term Non-Tenure-Line Faculty Members

Use the following links to jump to specific topics below.

Purpose

The Pennsylvania State University Policies AC23 Promotion and Tenure Procedures and AC21 Definition of Academic Ranks regulations state that it is the responsibility of each academic unit within the University to develop its own specific expectations and standards as the operational basis for promotion recommendations. The purpose of this document is to delineate the expectations and standards for promotion of no-term and term non-tenure-line faculty members at The Behrend College. This document should be read in the context of the broader procedures and regulations of the University. Knowledge concerning the expectations and standards contained in this document should be generally available, especially to newly appointed faculty members. Candidates for promotion also should be familiar with the unit-specific criteria for their School.

[BACK TO TOP]

Preamble

The no-term and term non-tenure-line promotion policy of The Behrend College should contribute to academic excellence and should be consistent with the College's mission. This mission parallels that of the University as a whole, encompassing baccalaureate, transfer, associate, and graduate programs.

The Behrend College faculty resembles a microcosm of the entire University faculty. This diversity dictates that the criteria presented in this document be widely applicable to the variety of disciplines represented by the faculty at The Behrend College.

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, is an important college within the University and provides a university degree in a smaller college setting. The Behrend College combines the teaching and service standards of a small college with the research and scholarship activities of a university. An understanding of this dual role is essential to the promotion process at The Behrend College. Innovative approaches to fulfilling this two-fold mission are encouraged.

[BACK TO TOP]

Definition of Ranks


Teaching Faculty

The Behrend College uses the term “lecturer” to describe no-term and term non-tenure-line teaching faculty members. Consistent with descriptions of rank used in AC21, The Behrend College uses the following titles for teaching faculty members:

  1. With terminal degrees
    1. First rank: Assistant Teaching Professor
    2. Second rank: Associate Teaching Professor
    3. Third rank: Teaching Professor
  2. Without terminal degrees
    1. First rank: Lecturer
    2. Second rank: Assistant Teaching Professor
    3. Third rank: Associate Teaching Professor

Research Faculty

The Behrend College uses the term “researcher” to describe no-term and term non-tenure-line faculty members whose primary responsibilities are research and outreach. Consistent with descriptions of rank used in AC21, The Behrend College uses the following titles for research faculty members:

  1. With terminal degrees
    1. First rank: Assistant Research Professor
    2. Second rank: Associate Research Professor
    3. Third rank: Research Professor
  2. Without terminal degrees
    1. First rank: Researcher
    2. Second rank: Assistant Research Professor
    3. Third rank: Associate Research Professor

[BACK TO TOP]

Levels of Review

Each Behrend College faculty member holds an appointment in one of the four Schools of the College: the Black School of Business, the School of Engineering, the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the School of Science. Therefore, each School will develop a unit-specific process and specific criteria for teaching, scholarly activity, and service for promotion to each rank. The initial review for a no-term or term non-tenure-line candidate for promotion takes place at the School level. It is at the School level that specific criteria are given and evaluated. The College level of review will bring broader faculty and administrative judgment to bear and will also monitor general standards of quality and equity of School policies and procedures.

[BACK TO TOP]

Criteria for Promotion

No-term or term non-tenure-line faculty members of The Behrend College become eligible for promotion when they fulfill the norms specified in University Policy AC21. Application for promotion is solely at the will of the faculty member, but the decision to apply for promotion should be made with the advice of a mentor or colleagues and after consultation with the School Director and the School or College Non-Tenure-Line Promotion Committee. To ensure sufficient time for necessary teaching reviews and dossier preparation, the intent to apply for promotion should be communicated in writing to the School Director by the end of the fall semester one year before the year of application for promotion (e.g., for a promotion from first to second rank, by the end of the faculty member’s ninth semester). Faculty members may apply for promotion more than once, and no jeopardy is associated with a negative decision.

The criteria for promotion embrace three distinct but interrelated areas: the scholarship of teaching and learning, the scholarship of research and creative accomplishments, and service and the scholarship of service to the University, society, and the profession. The Behrend College values continuing activities in each of these areas. While exceptional accomplishment in any area is commendable, it does not compensate for a lack of performance in another area. The full record of teaching, scholarly activity, and service from initial employment at Behrend should be included in the dossier. The best interests of The Behrend College and the accomplishment of its mission necessitate that faculty demonstrate achievement in the full spectrum of their professional duties.

[BACK TO TOP]

Elaboration of the Three Basic Criteria for Promotion

Teaching Faculty

Scholarly activity and Service expectations may vary widely among teaching faculty members. Criteria described below should be applied to the specific candidate in a manner consistent with the candidate’s assigned responsibilities, which should be elaborated in the candidate’s narrative statement.

1. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 

The primary mission of The Behrend College is to provide a high-quality education. In accordance with this mission, the College greatly values the teaching and advising roles of its faculty. Faculty members must possess an ongoing commitment to teaching and, in particular, must demonstrate success in communicating knowledge related to their area of expertise to students. This commitment and communication are essential to the educational process. It is the responsibility of candidates for promotion to offer persuasive documentation of their scholarship of teaching and learning. Such documentation should include SRTEs (until fall 2023) or Student Educational Experience Questionnaires (SEEQ) (effective fall 2023), peer reviews of teaching, and School-approved second forms of student evaluation.

Candidates for promotion from first to second rank should have a record that demonstrates excellence in their ability to convey concepts, processes, skills, and information in the classroom or laboratory; use appropriate pedagogical techniques; and create a classroom atmosphere conducive to learning. For promotion from second to third rank, the candidate’s record should provide evidence of continued excellence in the classroom, ongoing commitment to students, and a high level of pedagogical skill.

2. The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments. 

Policy AC21 states that no-term or term non-tenure-line teaching faculty recommended for appointment or promotion to a higher rank must have shown evidence of: a) professional growth and b) scholarship and/or mastery of subject matter at a level of distinction beyond that of the lower rank.

Maintenance of excellence at The Behrend College requires the continued professional growth of its faculty. This growth may be demonstrated in a variety of ways such as presentations at professional meetings, participation in seminars, development of new courses or new methods of teaching existing courses, active contribution to professional organizations, pursuit of further academic studies, and use of discipline-based expertise in outreach and consulting. Sources of evidence for scholarship and/or mastery of subject matter encompass ongoing research, scholarly activity, or creative accomplishments. Such accomplishments are usually demonstrated through publication, exhibition, or performance but they can also be demonstrated through other scholarly or creative activities such as grants or funded projects, training of students on research methods and practice, media interviews, honors or awards for scholarship, and book/article reviews.

Candidates for promotion from first to second rank should demonstrate a record of professional growth. For promotion from second to third rank, the candidate’s record should demonstrate evidence of sustained professional growth, scholarship of research and creative accomplishments, and/or mastery of subject matter at a level of distinction beyond that of the lower rank, e.g., completion of a master’s or PhD program or professional certification since the last promotion; regional, national, or international recognition of the candidate’s work; successful grantsmanship; scholarly activity or outreach with a documented significant positive effect on the discipline, college, or community.

3. Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession. 

The Behrend College views a record of service as evidence of the candidate's commitment to the College, the University, colleagues, and the community at large. For promotion from first to second rank, this service usually takes the form of committee work, participation in governance bodies, program and administrative support work, service to student groups, and professionally related service to the public, scholarly, and professional organizations. For promotion from second to third rank, The Behrend College expects that this record of service will reflect leadership and willingness to serve in difficult roles.

Research Faculty

Researchers at Behrend are a heterogeneous group, and the criteria for promotion are necessarily very broad. Research faculty members are encouraged to consult with their supervisor or School Director, as appropriate, to ensure that the criteria for the specific faculty member are clearly understood by all parties and are documented. Criteria described below should be applied to the specific candidate in a manner consistent with the candidate’s assigned responsibilities, which should be elaborated in the candidate’s narrative statement.

The types of activities in which researchers might be involved fall into several categories including, but not limited to:

  1. Traditional research/scholarly activity: grant writing, designing and conducting studies, analyzing data, preparing reports to sponsors, publishing papers, attending conferences, making presentations, and curriculum development
  2. Outreach: engagement with industry, corporate partners, the community, local elementary or high school students (K–12), training workshops, supervision of service learning
  3. Project management, operations management, student or research laboratory coordination and management
  4. Teaching: senior project advising, supervision of interns, coordination/leadership of academic programs, academic advising, limited resident instruction
  5. Development: fund-raising, development, alumni relations

In some cases, researchers might have resident instruction or service responsibilities in addition to their research-related responsibilities.

  1. Teaching: resident instruction
  2. Service: community outreach, committee work, service to the School, College, University, or Profession

For promotion from the first to second rank, researchers should show evidence of professional growth, engagement, productivity, and scholarship in their area of expertise or endeavor. The record of activity should extend beyond Behrend and should be sustained. For promotion from second to third rank, researchers should show excellence in their area of expertise or endeavor. They should have established a record of productivity that increases their professional stature beyond that achieved for the promotion to the second level.

[BACK TO TOP]

[BACK TO TOP]

Administrative Guidelines

  1. A five-member College Non-tenure Promotion Committee composed of no-term and term non-tenure-line faculty members who have been promoted from first to second rank will evaluate candidates for promotion first to second level. The Committee will comprise:
    1. A no-term or term non-tenure-line, promoted chairperson appointed by the Chancellor
    2. One elected, promoted no-term or term non-tenure-line, full-time faculty member from each School
  2. A three-member ad-hoc committee composed of no-term and term non-tenure-line faculty members who have been promoted to the third rank will evaluate candidates for promotion to the third rank.
    1. Ad-hoc committee members should be chosen by the Chancellor from the College Non-tenure Promotion Committee, and one member should be from the candidate’s school.
    2. If not enough faculty members fitting the needs of the candidate are serving on the College Non-tenure Promotion Committee, the Chancellor will appoint members as needed.
  3. Levels of review
    1. School Non-tenure-line Promotion Committee
    2. School Director
    3. College Non-tenure-line Promotion Committee
    4. Chancellor
  4. If a candidate is declined for promotion during the review process, the Chancellor should inform the candidate and provide feedback to the candidate regarding reasons for the decline. The candidate may withdraw their dossier from consideration after the second negative decision if they so desire.
  5. All rules regarding independence of levels of review, consultation, and decisions are per those described in AC21 and AC23.
  6. In regard to committee voting, members must recuse in advance of any discussion if there is a declared conflict of interest. Faculty members on leave of absence are prohibited from participating in promotion committees.

[BACK TO TOP]

Student Feedback Review Process for Promotion Candidates

At Behrend College, the goal of this approach is to provide a holistic review of SEEQ/SRTE student feedback for candidates that minimizes bias.

  • The academic school will identify a minimum of two individuals to serve as student feedback reviewers, consistent with the criteria below:
  • At least one individual selected from a list of two or more Penn State faculty members nominated by the candidate
  • One member of the academic school NTL promotion committee. School level committees may deputize one member to serve as a teaching feedback reviewer for all candidates in a year, but this is not required by college policy.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Examine student feedback from available courses for the period since a candidate’s last formal review and/or covered by the review (whichever is the shortest).
  • Write an evaluative report of no more than 750 words (about one single-spaced page) summarizing insights about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness based on quantitative and qualitative student feedback from SEEQ/SRTE responses across the courses taught during the review period.
  • As applicable, incorporate attention to the SITE (Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence) key elements of teaching, including:
  • Effective course design
  • Effective instruction
  • Inclusive and ethical pedagogy
  • Reflective and evolving practice
  • Note: Reviewers are encouraged to consult with SITE for guidance on interpreting student feedback.

This report will be submitted to the School Director and will be included in the candidate’s dossier or promotion materials. If a candidate perceives that the report inadequately represents their teaching effectiveness based on student feedback, they may revise their narratives to address the discrepancy.

SEEQ/SRTE Data Inclusion:

  • SEEQ/SRTE scores will be included in an appendix to the dossier. The delivery mode of the course and the distribution, mode, and median for SEEQ/SRTE items will be provided for each course.
  • Candidates have the option to include raw student feedback data from the SEEQ/SRTE in their supplemental materials.

[BACK TO TOP]

Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Summarizing Student Feedback

AI must not be used to generate evaluative statements about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. These judgments, opinions, and perceptions must rely solely on the human insight and discernment of reviewers.

AI should only be used to summarize large volumes of qualitative data (e.g., student comments) to inform the overall assessment of a candidate’s teaching effectiveness. Reviewers who encounter extensive qualitative student comments may choose to use AI for an initial summary. Reviewers can independently determine if the volume (e.g., number of student comments) and/or quality (e.g., detailed nature of the student comments) justifies the use of AI to manage the review workload

Procedure:

Reviewers who choose to use AI for the purposes of summarizing qualitative student feedback must:

  • Disclose the use of AI in summarizing qualitative SEEQ/SRTE student feedback via a footnote in the final report. The disclosure must include the AI platform used, the exact prompt, and the number of qualitative comments analyzed (see additional guidance below). The word count for this disclosure will not be included as part of the 750-word limit for the final report.
  • Use only the following prompt to generate the summary: “Please take on the role of a university professor. Please provide an overall summary of the student evaluations that I will provide to you, including key themes, sentiment analysis, and any notable trends or patterns. Do you understand?” Reviewers should not perform any additional AI analysis of the student comments beyond this prompt or those suggested by AI as a result of this prompt
  • Use only Microsoft Copilot as the platform to run the summary analysis. Penn State has contracted with Microsoft to ensure Copilot maintains security and confidentiality and does not use entered data for training. Access is restricted to Penn State-authenticated users.
  • Include only the open-ended SEEQ responses A1 and A4 in the AI analysis. Quantitative data A2 and A3 should not be included in the AI analysis. Reviewers may not request candidates to share student feedback intended for only the instructor, which includes results from the MSEEQ and items A5, A6, and A7 of the SEEQ (see SEEQ Items). All SRTE student comments from the review period must be included.
  • Remove any personally identifiable information (e.g., any text that identifies a specific individual) found in the comments prior to entering the student comments into the AI (note that Penn State’s contracted Microsoft Copilot covers level 1 and 2 information classifications).
  • Review the AI summary of qualitative student comments, along with other sources of student feedback, and write the required 750-word report of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. This is not a summary. The report must describe the candidate’s teaching effectiveness, must be written with the discernment and judgment of the reviewers, and must be based on the holistic review of both the quantitative and qualitative SEEQ/SRTE student feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality. All reviewed materials and notes, including the AI output, should be destroyed immediately after the final report is submitted.

If a candidate believes the final report does not accurately reflect their teaching effectiveness, they may revise their narrative to address the discrepancy.

Again, under no circumstances should AI be used to provide an evaluation of the student comments, an evaluation of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness, or a final report.

Revised January 2018
Revised June 2020
Revised August 2020
Revised June 2022
Revised June 2024
Revised April 2025