Purpose
The Pennsylvania State University Policy AC23 Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations states 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 and tenure recommendations. The purpose of this document is to delineate the expectations and standards for promotion and tenure 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.
Preamble
The promotion and tenure policies 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 select graduate programs.
Behrend College faculty resemble 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.
As its name suggests, The Pennsylvania State University at Erie, The Behrend College, provides a Penn State university degree in a campus college setting. The Behrend College combines the teaching and service standards of a college with the research and scholarship activities of a university. An understanding of this dual role is essential to the promotion and tenure process at The Behrend College. Innovative solutions to the challenges inherent in this two-fold mission are encouraged.
Levels of Review
Each Behrend College faculty member holds an appointment in one of the schools of the college: the Sam and Irene Black School of Business; the School of Engineering; the School of Humanities and Social Sciences; and the School of Science. Specific criteria are given and evaluated at the school level. The initial review for a candidate for promotion and/or tenure takes place at the school level. The college level of review will bring broader faculty and administrative judgment to bear and will monitor general standards of quality and equity of school policies and procedures.
Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
Faculty members of The Behrend College become eligible for promotion and tenure when they fulfill the norms specified in Policy AC23. The criteria for this evaluation 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 applauded, it does not compensate for unsatisfactory performance in another area. As with all decisions involving people, reason and professional judgment must prevail in the evaluation of each candidate for promotion and tenure. 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.
Elaboration of the Three Basic Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
1. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
The primary mission of The Behrend College is to provide a quality education. In accordance with this mission, the college highly values the teaching role of its faculty. This role includes academic advising, supervising undergraduate and graduate research, and professional development in the area of pedagogy. Faculty members must possess an ongoing commitment to teaching and, in particular, must demonstrate success in communicating their specialized knowledge to students. This commitment and communication are essential to the educational process. Candidates for promotion and/or tenure bear the responsibility to offer documentation of their scholarship of teaching and learning that will be persuasive to those who will review their credentials. 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.
2. The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments.
The vitality of the faculty, both collectively and individually, depends upon ongoing research or creative accomplishments. Such accomplishments usually are demonstrated through publication, exhibition, or performance. At its inception, college was charged to seek innovative and interdisciplinary ways of achieving its mission. In meeting this charge, the college considers both interdisciplinary and traditional discipline-based research and pedagogical achievements as acceptable forms of research or creative accomplishments. 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, and the development of new courses. Such demonstration should ultimately produce a recognized reputation of a faculty member's expertise that increases in scope or reach as the candidate progresses through the professorial ranks.
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, University, colleagues, and the community at large. 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 and to, scholarly and professional organizations. The Behrend College expects that this record of service will reflect leadership as the candidate progresses through the professorial ranks.
Second and Fourth Year Tenure Reviews
Final decisions for continuance prior to the sixth-year review rest with the chancellor and dean, not with the University Promotion and Tenure committee or the provost/president.
Promotion to Full Professor
A request for nomination for promotion to full professor is initiated by the faculty member in consultation with the school director. Candidates who have been in the associate rank for less than ten years require nomination by the school director or a peer-review committee to move forward. Peer review committees may be the school’s Promotion and Tenure Committee or an ad hoc committee comprising full professors appointed by the school director. Faculty members who have been in rank for ten or more years may self-nominate.
To ensure that sufficient time exists for necessary teaching reviews, external letters, 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.
If the school Promotion and Tenure Committee does not recommend promotion to full professor and the school director agrees, the school director should consult with the dean. If the dean agrees, the school director should discuss with the candidate the advisability of withdrawing the dossier.
Faculty members may request nomination for promotion more than once, and no jeopardy is associated with a negative decision. Faculty members are advised to wait one year after an unsuccessful bid for promotion before making another attempt.
Constitution of the College Promotion and Tenure Committee
Per the Behrend College Faculty Senate Constitution, two tenured faculty members from each school serve on the College Promotion and Tenure Committee. These representatives are elected annually by the tenured and tenure-line faculty of the school they represent and serve alternating two-year terms. The chairperson of the college Promotion and Tenure Committee is a professor who is appointed by the chancellor for a one-year term.
Reviews related to promotion to full professor are made by an ad hoc College Promotion Committee, which comprises the chairperson and two full professors currently serving on the College Promotion and Tenure Committee. Additional members needed to meet requirements for school/disciplinary representation or to fill the required number of seats are appointed after consultation between the unit head, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, and the committee chairperson.
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, including sabbatical leave, are prohibited from participating in promotion and tenure committees.
Operational Requirements
Committee members may not abstain from voting. If a committee member has a conflict of interest with a candidate, they must recuse in advance of any discussion. Committee members may not vote on a candidate if they were not part of the deliberations for that candidate.
Faculty members on leave of absence, including sabbatical leave, may not participate on promotion and tenure committees.
Student Feedback Review Process for Promotion and Tenure 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 promotion and tenure 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.
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.
RELATED POLICIES OR DOCUMENTS
- BCF10 - Promotion Policy for No-Term and Term Non-Tenure-Line Faculty
- BCF25 - Behrend College Guidelines, Faculty Peer Review
- AC21 - Definition of Academic Ranks (formerly HR21)
- AC23 - Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations
January 2014
Revised April 2018
Revised September 2022
Revised June 2024
Revised April 2025