Policy Status: Active
Policy Steward: Dean, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
Policy’s Initial Date: January 1, 2005
This Version Effective: May 18, 2026

CONTENTS

PURPOSE

I. ROLE OF THE NON-TENURE-LINE FACULTY

II. TITLES AND CATEGORIES OF NON-TENURE-LINE FACULTY

III. APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION

• TABLE 1. APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION AUTHORITY

IV. PROMOTION OF NON-TENURE-LINE ELIGIBLE RANKS

• FIGURE 1. PROMOTION PATHWAYS

V. INFORMATION ABOUT PENN STATE EMPLOYEE POLICIES

APPENDIX A: NON-TENURE-LINE FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROMOTION GUIDELINES

• FIGURE 2. NON-TENURE-LINE FACULTY ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
• FIGURE 3. ANNUAL REVIEW
• FIGURE 4. SAMPLE PROMOTION DOSSIER
• TABLE 2: IMPACT AND NTL LEVELS

APPENDIX B: NTL PROMOTION EXPECTATIONS AND CRITERIA

APPENDIX C: CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE PROMOTION PROCESS

APPENDIX D: LETTERS OF EVALUATION

APPENDIX E: GUIDANCE ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

PURPOSE

For the conditions of appointment, evaluation, and promotion for research and instructional faculty members who are not subject to the provisions of tenure.

I. ROLE OF THE NON-TENURE-LINE (NTL) FACULTY

The College of Earth and Mineral Sciences is committed to developing integrated, high-quality programs that address missions in teaching, research, and service. Over the last several decades, the context in which the college operates to build such programs has evolved significantly. Faculty activities and talents are now directed at a substantially expanded set of roles, rights and responsibilities. One outcome of this evolution is the need to hire talented faculty that can focus directly on specific elements of the three-part mission of the University.  In this manner, the Non-Tenure-Line Faculty complements the Tenure-Line Faculty to achieve the mission of the university on a balanced and continuous basis, in a dynamic and ever-changing academic landscape.

II. TITLES AND CATEGORIES OF NON-TENURE-LINE FACULTY

The categories for ranks in the college reflect the definitions found in AC21.

1. Ranks for Non-Tenure-Line Teaching Faculty
   1. Lecturer
   2. Assistant Teaching Professor
   3. Associate Teaching Professor
   4. Teaching Professor
2. Ranks for Non-Tenure-Line Research Faculty
   1. Researcher
   2. Assistant Research Professor
   3. Associate Research Professor
   4. Research Professor
3. Professor of Practice

III. APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION

Appointments of Non-Tenure-Line Faculty will be made by the hiring subunit in accordance with definitions found in AC21 and this guideline (see Table 1), and written subunit standards.

Research ranks and instructional ranks are intended for individuals who are engaged primarily in research or teaching respectively and are always Non-Tenure-Line in nature. A secondary administrative title is feasible.

* DH – Department Head; ID – Institute Director

IV. PROMOTION OF NON-TENURE-LINE ELIGIBLE RANKS

Promotion of Non-Tenure-Line faculty should be made in accordance with the Non-Tenure-Line Faculty Advisory Committee Promotion Guidelines Document, in the Appendix. Promotions are expected to involve a salary adjustment. Figure 1 (below) provides the promotion pathways for each rank category. Although there can be exceptions, positions above the first level ranks are designed to be promotion opportunities, with a recommended period of at least five years in the first level ranks before consideration for promotion. There should be no fixed time period for promotion to the third rank. Reviews for promotions should be conducted solely with regard to the merit of the candidate. Faculty at the second rank who have not been recommended for consideration to the third rank seven years after their promotion to the second rank will have the ability to self-nominate in the spring of their seventh year. This will activate the standard promotion process in the coming academic year as described in the current guidelines. If unsuccessful, faculty at the second rank may self-nominate every two years thereafter.

Documentation of the candidate’s performance is necessary to support a recommendation for promotion. Department heads and/or institute directors (hereafter “subunit heads”), in accordance with AC40, “Evaluation of Faculty Performance,” should ensure that all Non-Tenure-Line faculty members receive an annual performance evaluation. Success in meeting/attaining the conditions of appointment, evaluation and promotion for research and instructional faculty members who are not subject to the provisions of tenure, as presented herein, will be predicated on the institution of a rigorous, comprehensive, and meaningful evaluation process.  Such a process would recognize the career status of NTL faculty members, and their unique set of responsibilities. NTL faculty with appointments in more than one subunit should be considered for promotion by their primary appointment subunit, with documented consultation with the other units.

In all cases for promotion of Non-Tenure-Line faculty members with terminal degrees or exceptional experience as defined in these guidelines for faculty, promotion will involve:

1. Review and a recommendation by the subunit head (informed, when possible, by review and recommendation from an internal committee of 3 senior NTL faculty),
2. Review and recommendation by a college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee, and
3. Review and approval by the dean.

EMS will have a college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee to assess non-tenure-line promotions. Only full-time non-tenure-line faculty members are eligible to serve on and to vote for the members of the review committee in their unit. Only faculty of higher rank than the candidate can make recommendations about promotions. The Committee will be elected/appointed each August and will consist of six members. In unusual circumstances, the dean may appoint committee members (i.e., member must be removed, member’s contract is not renewed, member elected declines, etc.)

Exceptions to the college procedures and guidelines are allowed with the approval of the subunit head, the dean, and the vice provost for faculty affairs.

V. INFORMATION ABOUT PENN STATE EMPLOYEE POLICIES

Note especially the administrative guidelines at https://facultyaffairs.psu.edu/promotion-and-tenure/ under ‘Non-Tenure-Line Policies and Guidelines.’

And the following policies:

AC21 – Definition of Academic Ranks
AC23 – Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations
AC40 – Annual Evaluation of Faculty Performance
AC61 – Faculty Contracts
AC76 – Faculty Rights and Responsibilities 
AD85 – Title IX Sexual Harassment
HR36 – Tuition Discount for Full-Time Employees, Retirees, and those with Emeritus Status
HR37 – Tuition Discount for Dependents

APPENDIX A: Non-Tenure-Line Faculty Advisory Committee Promotion Guidelines

1. INTRODUCTION
   1. MOTIVATION FOR THESE GUIDELINES
   2. GOALS OF THE NTL ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND PROMOTION PROCESS
   3. USE OF THESE GUIDELINES
2. ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
   1. OVERVIEW AND TIMELINE FOR ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
      FIGURE 2. NON-TENURE-LINE FACULTY ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
      FIGURE 3. ANNUAL REVIEW
      FIGURE 4. SAMPLE PROMOTION DOSSIER
   2. GUIDANCE FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEW
3. THE PROCESS FOR DOCUMENTING A CASE FOR PROMOTION
   1. THE PROMOTION DOSSIER
   2. PROMOTION PATHWAYS, CRITERIA, AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE
      FIGURE 1. PROMOTION PATHWAYS
      TABLE 2. IMPACT AND NTL LEVELS

A.I. Introduction

The College of Earth and Mineral Sciences acknowledges that Non-Tenure-Line faculty members (NTL faculty) play a different role within the college than tenure-line faculty. As a result, NTL faculty members have different career paths and should be evaluated differently than tenure-line faculty. It is important that NTL faculty evaluation be based upon each NTL faculty's unique career context, and in accordance with relevant Academic policies, specifically AC21 and AC40.

The College of Earth and Mineral Sciences has specified that the role of the NTL faculty is to augment the extent and range of activities performed by tenure-line faculty. NTL faculty currently make up a significant percentage of the total faculty, are found within each unit, and perform a wide variety of functions. While NTL faculty duties and responsibilities can be categorized into the areas of teaching, research, service, and administration, NTL faculty job descriptions rarely require that these individuals be responsible for demonstrating evidence of accomplishment in EACH of these areas as are tenure-line faculty. Most often, NTL faculty members' duties and positions are determined by their funding sources and therefore are focused in only one functional area, i.e., teaching, research, service, or administration. This requirement to focus or “specialize” has led to uncertainty concerning NTL faculty promotion.

The following guidelines describe two interrelated parts of the promotion process: documentation procedures and the evidence for evaluating an individual for promotion.

A.I.A. Motivation for these guidelines

In the fall of 2008, the dean sent a letter to the NTL (formerly FT & Research) Faculty Promotion Review Committee expressing concern that promotion dossiers for NTL faculty often lacked uniformity. Consequently, members of the NTL Faculty Advisory Committee discussed possible strategies for facilitating an egalitarian promotion process that would do the following:

• Improve understanding across all units of the role of Non-Tenure-Line faculty
• Clarify the evaluation criteria for promotion
• Clarify the differences in the emphasis areas and/or role expertise, (teaching, research, administration, or service) that NTL faculty bring to the work they do

The committee identified several issues concerning how the current process is implemented. Some of these include:

• Confusion regarding the differentiation between Tenure-Line and Non-Tenure-Line faculty
• Lack of clarity surrounding expectations of performance for NTL faculty positions
• Lack of understanding of the diverse and evolving role of NTL faculty
• Lack of guidelines for what evidence promotion dossiers should contain
• Lack of guidelines for how promotion dossiers are evaluated
• The fact that the evaluation process is not always in line with budgetary calendars and reappointment
• Lack of guidelines for handling evaluation/promotion for faculty who change tracks, i.e., from a research emphasis to a teaching emphasis

In this context, it was the goal of the NTL Faculty Advisory Committee to:

• Understand existing evaluation and promotion practices
• Recognize the unique challenges that EMS NTL faculty face
• Recommend revisions that more closely support the mission of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences

A.I.B. Goals of the NTL faculty annual performance review and promotion process

The NTL faculty performance review and promotion process should:

• Be easy to understand and accomplish
• Recognize that the NTL faculty’s activities are determined by the individual's funding source which should be reflected in their job description
• Meet the diversity of the entire EMS NTL faculty scope of responsibilities
• Support long-term professional development and enhance the annual review process
• Encourage supervisor/unit leader involvement
• Recognize the changing nature of the role of the NTL faculty in the college, University and higher education
• Provide clear yet flexible guidance regarding the types of evidence and the criteria used to evaluate this evidence

A.I.C. Use of these guidelines

The following requirements have been identified as foundational to the NTL faculty promotion process:

• Every NTL faculty member must have a current and accurate job description. The job description must be co-created by the faculty member together with their subunit head and/or supervisor.
• Expectations of NTL faculty shall be clearly communicated and agreed to by both parties.
• The accumulated NTL faculty performance evaluations, henceforth referred to as “faculty activity summaries,” are to serve as the basis for the promotion dossier.

These guidelines are intended for the following audiences:

• Candidate NTL faculty who are in the process of putting together a case for promotion. These guidelines should help candidates to document their own case in terms of the job descriptions that have previously guided their work and the collection of evidence that supports accomplishments over time.
• Supervisors and subunit heads of NTL faculty, for whom these can serve as promotion guidelines, and perhaps more importantly, as a model for mentoring their NTL faculty.
• NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee members, for whom these guidelines would help to clarify how NTL faculty promotion cases should be evaluated with more consistency across cases and over time.

A.II. Annual Performance Review Process

Candidates making a case for promotion should document the work they have undertaken with evidence that supports their job descriptions over time. A key component of this documentation, or promotion dossier, is the annual performance review. The promotion dossier should highlight those areas where the candidate believes their work is of a standard that would warrant promotion. In this context, candidates should aim to incrementally build a record of achievement sustained over time. The level of achievement will be commensurate with the expectations of performance at the level to which promotion is sought. The candidate's case should be based on the work they are required to undertake as part of their role in the college. For example, a research-only NTL faculty member would not be expected to teach and accordingly would not be expected to present evidence of teaching accomplishments. A mix of teaching and research evidence is expected for those that both teach and perform research.

A.II.A. Overview and Timeline of the Annual Review Process

The NTL faculty promotion process is built upon the annual performance review process. Simply put, the promotion dossier is an incrementally created assemblage of annual reviews. Preparing the annual review is a shared responsibility of the NTL faculty member and his/her supervisor and/or subunit head. The applicable year’s job description, the annual summary, and a candidate's evidence become the NTL faculty’s “annual review.” An annual meeting between the candidate and his/her supervisor and subunit head provides a basis for further revision of the job description for the following year. The process is cyclic and summarized below:

• Faculty Activity Summary (February - March): The NTL faculty member prepares the Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation (including job description), utilizing the format supplied by the college.
• Annual Review (due April 1): The NTL faculty member discusses the performance evaluation, including job description, prior year activities, and future goals with their supervisor. If the NTL faculty member is in his/her first year, the job description only is discussed. The NTL faculty member and the supervisor and subunit head ensure that a copy is kept with the subunit head.
• Evidence Compilation: Throughout the prior year, the NTL faculty member compiles the evidence relevant to the job description.
• Prepare Faculty Activity Summary (February - March of subsequent year): The NTL faculty prepares or revises their job description in consultation with the supervisor and subunit head and prepares the faculty annual performance evaluation.
• Annual Performance Review (due April 1 of subsequent year): The NTL faculty member discusses the annual performance evaluation, including job description, prior year activities, and future goals with their supervisor. If the NTL faculty member is in his/her first year, the job description only is discussed.

Note: All new NTL Faculty should have a job description for their first year. This job description can be included as part of the offer letter or composed as a separate document.

A.II.B. Guidance for the Annual Review

The annual review consists of subunit guidance and the annual performance evaluation, which includes the job description and evidence. Only evidence applicable to the prior year’s job description is required. However, should the NTL faculty member wish to include activities in areas that go beyond the current job description, they are encouraged to do so. Should the NTL faculty member need to reflect mid-year changes in the job description, the evidence is an appropriate place to reflect the change.

For example, if the annual job description does not support the NTL faculty member providing evidence in the area of “research,” none is required, though evidence of research may be shared as something additional to be considered for the upcoming year’s job description. In this manner, the annual review serves as a “build-as-you-go” promotion dossier that reflects the activities of the NTL faculty member for that specific evaluation year. These annual documents are retained by the individual and make up the backbone of the portfolio for promotion.

A.III. The process of documenting a case for promotion

To initiate the promotion process, the candidate should solicit support from their supervisor and/or subunit head during the annual review. After this discussion, if the supervisor supports the candidate’s promotion, the promotion dossier should be submitted to the appropriate subunit NTL Faculty Promotion Committee for consideration no later than October 1st (*if such a committee exists). If the supervisor does not support the candidate’s promotion, goals and a timeline should be established for the candidate to strive for promotion. In accordance with Section IV above, candidates with seven or more years at the second rank can self-nominate for promotion, and the subunit head will forward their dossier to the appropriate subunit NTL Faculty Promotion Committee (*) without a favorable recommendation from their supervisor. The final dossier should then be forwarded to the dean’s office to be distributed to the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee no later than January 2nd (or the first workday after the holiday break).

The promotion procedure itself should include recommendations by the appropriate subunit NTL Faculty Promotion Committee (*), the subunit head, the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee, and the approval of the dean. The college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee consists of six members, composed of full-time NTL Faculty. The subunit head forwards their recommendations to the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee. Only faculty members of higher rank than the candidate should make recommendations about promotions. Their final recommendation is then forwarded to the dean for a final promotion decision.

When an administrator differs with the committee at the same level of review—e.g., the dean and the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee—or the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee differs with the administrator at the previous review level—e.g., the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee and the subunit head—consultation must occur about reasons for divergence. Consultation should be initiated by the committee or administrator differing with or seeking clarification concerning the previous recommendation (e.g., the dean would initiate consultation with the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee and the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee would initiate consultation with the subunit head). Consultation should be initiated after the previous review has been completed and a recommendation has been made in writing. The letter from the previous review level cannot be revised after the consultation.

A.III.A. The Promotion Dossier

Evidence for consideration for promotion by the dean (and review by the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee) consists of the most recent annual review and preceding reviews. These will be packaged into the “Promotion Dossier.” The Promotion Dossier includes a précis that the NTL faculty member and their subunit head develops. The précis includes a brief summary of the past five (or as appropriate) years of contributions, the supervisor’s and/or subunit head’s recommendation, letters of evaluation, and reviews of teaching effectiveness for teaching faculty. The NTL faculty member is responsible for maintaining their individual reviews, which will be compiled into the promotion dossier.

The dossier should also include a call out of the type of work performed during the period of time under consideration. Candidates should include the following text, with their appropriate percentages noted: “Teaching – W%, Research – X%, Service – Y%, Administration – Z%.” This information can be taken from Section B of the NTL Annual Activity Summary. While this section captures the candidate’s efforts from the past academic year and may vary from year to year over the course of their career, when compiling the promotion dossier, an average or range of these percentages should be used. This information should be added above the first sentence in the candidate’s personal statement. This will ensure the promotion committees know where to look for this information across all dossiers and help the committee know which promotion criteria (from Appendix B) they should be assessing the dossier against.

In the event that a faculty member either chooses not to undergo review for promotion or is deemed to be not ready to proceed through promotion, a waiting period is suggested prior to initiating a new review. The length of this waiting period should be decided in conjunction with the faculty member, his or her supervisor, and the subunit head.

The intent of these guidelines is not to prescribe exactly how each candidate should construct their own case for promotion. However, candidates are expected to document and share evidence of accomplishment related to the work and responsibility areas that their previous job descriptions have charged them with in a manner that advances their particular case. In this way, candidates having collected, shared, and stored year review materials can easily assemble a summative report or dossier that demonstrates a sustained record of accomplishment.

The dossier should include:

• Part A
  • Personal Statement, limited to 2,000 words (The argued case for promotion and the specific plans for continued development)
  • Current Job Description – no more than 500 words (must be co-created by the faculty member together with their subunit head and/or supervisor)
• Part B – Curriculum vitae
• Part C – Subunit head statement
• Part D – Letters of Evaluation from individuals in areas relevant to the position. The subunit head will solicit these letters from a list provided by the candidate. Evaluators may also be selected from other sources. Letters may be internal to EMS or external, depending on the scope of the candidate’s work. Three to four letters are recommended. See Appendix D for guidelines for letters of evaluation.
• Part E – Peer reviews for teaching effectiveness for teaching faculty
• Part F - Other summative evidence from previous years’ reviews (annual self-evaluations and supervisor evaluations)
• Part G – Review of student feedback (see Appendix E)

The candidate's dossier should focus the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee's attention at the appropriate level on:

• Quality and Productivity
• Recognition and Significance
• Sustainability

A.III.B. Promotion Pathways, Criteria, and Types of Evidence

Doing a good evaluation is like doing good research. In both cases, answering key questions is essential. The key to doing both activities well is identifying the right questions to ask and then collecting the proper evidence to answer them. Documenting and evaluating the contributions a NTL faculty member makes is critical since the promotion process will ultimately reflect overall program quality and impact. Three areas that indicate the overall quality and impact of NTL faculty include:

• Quality/Productivity. Excellence and/or level of accomplishment in the discovery aspect of one's mission; the generation, production, and/or transmission associated with that discovery. This criterion recognizes that clear goals, adequate preparation, and the use of well-defined and appropriate procedures are necessary elements of successful discovery.
• Recognition/Significance. Acknowledgement, internal and/or external, of the successful achievement of a NTL faculty member’s goals, and effective presentation of that faculty member’s work to the appropriate forums with clarity and integrity. Significance includes integration of one's work into a larger pattern, and the application of it to achieve relevance.
• Sustainability. The constant pursuit of an effective and long-term ability to produce, function, and yield within a mission. This criterion recognizes that the advancement of scholarship is dependent upon periodic self-reflection that involves looking back, defining strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately moving forward to a higher level of performance. This criterion also recognizes the application of one's work to a higher purpose than individual achievement, which is central to the evolution of institutions and fields of endeavor.

The following table illustrates the relationship between impact, evidence of the impact, and NTL ranks.

These criteria come directly from Bacastow, T., Ma, X., et. al. (2011, January 28). Report of the Panel to Inform Performance Criteria for Non-Tenure-Line & Research Faculty in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, p. 4.

APPENDIX B: NTL Promotion Expectations and Criteria

1. PURPOSE
2. TEACHING AND LEARNING
   1. GENERAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
   2. EVIDENCE TO HELP DEMONSTRATE CRITERIA LEVELS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
3. RESEARCH
   1. GENERAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION IN RESEARCH
   2. EVIDENCE TO HELP DEMONSTRATE CRITERIA LEVELS IN RESEARCH
4. SERVICE
   1. GENERAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION IN SERVICE
   2. EVIDENCE TO HELP DEMONSTRATE CRITERIA LEVELS IN SERVICE
5. ADMINISTRATION
   1. GENERAL CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION IN ADMINISTRATION
   2. EVIDENCE TO HELP DEMONSTRATE CRITERIA LEVELS IN ADMINISTRATION

B.I. PURPOSE

What follows are four identified functional areas that may be germane to NTL faculty (Teaching and Learning, Research, Service, and Administration). Within each functional area, example criteria that suggest appropriate standards for promotion at each level are presented. We refer to the above-mentioned promotion pathways table where rank levels are specified.

Individuals should check with their subunit head to see if there is any specific evidence recommended by them. In addition, individuals should provide evidence as relevant to their specific job description. While an individual may primarily be engaged in teaching or research, they may also perform aspects of service and/or administration, as specified in their job descriptions.

In addition, examples of evidence are provided which NTL faculty might present within their annual reviews and that may later be selected as evidence to include in their promotion dossier.

B.II. Teaching and Learning

For those NTL faculty whose work is entirely focused within the area of teaching and learning, promotion among the ranks of lecturer, assistant teaching professor, associate teaching professor, and teaching professor are advised by this section of the document, which intends to provide guidelines for evaluation by the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee.

Although there can be exceptions, positions above the first level ranks are designed to be promotion opportunities, with a recommended period of at least five years in the first level ranks before consideration for promotion. Promotions should be accompanied by a promotion raise, in addition to a merit raise, to be determined and funded by the college. There is no set time limit for promotion to the third level rank. Reviews for promotion to this rank should be conducted solely with regard to the merit of the candidate.

In general, the types of evidence that must be accumulated and presented for promotion for these teaching and learning ranks include a record of courses taught or developed, input from others evaluating this teaching, a record of mentoring and the development of an area of expertise in the field of teaching and learning. The guideline for evaluating evidence presented for promotion through these ranks should demonstrate notable transitions from "positively influencing learning within their own classes" to "having an impact on the actions of other teachers," to "establishing themselves as a role model for other programs.” 

Observations of teaching assist in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness and are expected as part of the promotion process (See AC23 Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations – Appendix A and EMS’s Peer Teaching Evaluation Guidelines for Tenure and/or Promotion). Non-Tenure Line teaching faculty in EMS shall have teaching observations conducted by other instructors in their subunit once per academic year. They should work with their supervisor to ensure peer observations are conducted. Processes and templates for peer reviews of teaching observations can be found at: 

• online teaching (https://facdev.e-education.psu.edu/evaluate-revise/peerreviewonline)
• face-to-face and hybrid teaching (https://facdev.e-education.psu.edu/evaluate-revise/peerreviewhybrid)

The promotion dossier should include other evidence of teaching effectiveness including a summary of SRTE/SEEQ scores; placement of students advised; mentored student publications; impact of students’ projects on professional practice; and agency or company responses to the program/course. The candidate should describe each course developed, and substantial revisions should have an explanation. The candidate should describe curriculum changes initiated/conducted as required by professional practice. If a subunit does not have their faculty include any of the above items in their annual reviews, please add these items after the applicable annual review in the dossier. (i.e.: for a 2019 SRTE score sheet, include after the 2019 annual review in the dossier; for a 2021 curriculum change, include after the 2021 annual review; for a summary of SRTE student comments, include behind the last annual review, as it cuts across academic and calendar years.)

B.II.A. General Criteria Guidelines for Promotion in Teaching and Learning:

B.II.B. Evidence to help demonstrate criteria levels in Teaching and Learning may include:

Course/Teaching-Related:

• List of courses taught in resident instruction at Penn State for each semester with enrollments for each course
• List of non-credit courses and workshops taught in support of outreach-based instruction, including continuing in distance education, service learning courses, international programs, cooperative extension programs, and clinical assignments at Penn State
• List of new courses authored or courses re-designed for offering either in resident or online instruction
• List of online courses taught in distance education programs at Penn State for each semester with enrollments
• Faculty input concerning evaluation of teaching effectiveness, including any statements from colleagues who have visited the candidate's classroom and evaluated his or her teaching, or who are in a good position to evaluate outreach-based instructional advising
• Peer review shall consider a range of teaching activities including, but not limited to, the development of materials such as case studies, class assignments, coursework teaching portfolios, advising, research collaboration, and graduate student mentoring. Internal letters about teaching effectiveness should be included in this section
• Any statements from administrators that attest to the candidate’s teaching and advising effectiveness

Student/Mentor-Related:

• List of advising responsibilities
• Supervision of graduate and undergraduate dissertations, theses, projects, autographs, performances, productions and exhibitions required for degrees; types of degrees and years granted
• Supervision of other undergraduate research
• Membership on undergraduate degree candidates' committees
• Involvement in faculty development experiences related to teaching and learning, i.e., mentoring, seminars taught or internships led

Materials-Related:

• Teaching materials available as supplementary materials, including such items as case studies and teaching portfolios
• List of materials, animations, tools, assessments, videos, podcasts or other instruction materials developed for courses, seminars or other educational experiences offered at Penn State

Other Evidence:

• Other evidence of resident and/or outreach-based teaching and advising effectiveness (e.g., performance of students and subsequent courses; tangible results and benefits derived by clientele; recipient of teaching awards)
• Research in teaching and learning related to program, courses, concepts or skills taught
• List of courses and workshops taken in supporting professional development efforts to stay up to date with best practices founded in current research

B.III. Research

For those NTL faculty whose work is entirely focused within the research area, promotion among the ranks of researcher, assistant research professor, associate research professor, and research professor are advised by this section of the document, which intends to provide guidelines for evaluation by the college-wide NTL Faculty Promotion Review Committee.

Although there can be exceptions, positions above the first level ranks are designed to be promotion opportunities, with a recommended period of at least five years in the first level ranks before consideration for promotion. Promotions should be accompanied by a promotion raise, in addition to a merit raise, to be determined and funded by the college. There is no set time limit for promotion to the third level rank. Reviews for promotion to this rank should be conducted solely with regard to the merit of the candidate.

In general, the types of evidence that must be accumulated and presented for promotion for these research ranks include a record of funded projects, scholarly publications, creative accomplishments and/or technical assistance that demonstrates growth and development of an expert in the particular field(s) of endeavor. NTL faculty typically concentrate on one field of study but circumstances do change, thus a diversity of experience must also be taken into account during consideration for promotion. In addition, it is important to consider that many NTL faculty's positions have been financially supported entirely by grants. In general, a guideline for evaluating evidence presented for promotion through these ranks should demonstrate notable transitions from “working for someone” to “working with someone,” to “directing the work of others.”

B.III.A. General Criteria Guidelines for Promotion in Research:

B.III.B. Evidence to help demonstrate criteria levels in Research

Evidence to help demonstrate criteria levels in Research may include the following. This evidence should be listed in standard bibliographic form with the most recent data first:

Research and/or Scholarly Publications

Publications should be listed as follows:

1. Articles published in refereed (or peer reviewed) journals
2. Books
3. Parts of books
4. Book reviews
5. Articles published in non-refereed journals
6. Articles published in in-house publications
7. Research reports to sponsor
8. Manuscripts accepted for publication (substantiated by letter of acceptance) - indicate if peer reviewed and number of pages of manuscript
9. Manuscripts submitted for publication, with an indication of where submitted and when - indicate if peer reviewed and number of pages of manuscript
10. Manuscripts in progress
11. Cooperative extension bulletins and circulars
12. Patented materials and intellectual property, patent submissions

Creative Accomplishments

• Exhibition, installation, production or publication of original works of architecture, design, electronic media, journalism, literature
• Papers presented at technical and professional meetings (include meeting and paper titles); indicate if you were the presenter
• Record of participation in, and description of, seminars and workshops (short description of activity, with titles, dates and sponsors, etc.); indication of role in the seminar or workshop, e.g., student, invited participant, etc.
• Description of outreach or other activities in which there was significant use of candidate's expertise (consulting, journal editor, reviewer for referred journals or presses, peer reviewer of grants, speaking engagements, services to government agencies, professional and industrial associations, education institutions, etc.

Funded projects, grants, commissions and contracts (date, title, where submitted, amount):

1. Awarded
2. Pending
3. Not Funded
4. List of grants and contracts or improvement of instruction, with an indication of the candidate’s role in preparing and administering grants and contracts

Other evidence of research for creative accomplishments as appropriate (patents, intellectual property, new product development, citation index analysis, etc.):

• Record of pursuit of advanced degrees and/or further academic studies
• Record of membership in professional and learned societies
• Description of new computer software programs developed
• Patents and intellectual property
• Description of new methods of teaching established courses and/or programs
• List of honors or awards for scholarship or professional activity
• Applications of research scholarship in the field including new applications developed and tested; new or enhanced systems and procedures demonstrated or evaluated for government agencies, professional and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc.
• Technology transferred or adapted in the field
• Technical assistance provided
• Other evidence of impact and society of research scholarship and creative accomplishments

B.IV. Service

Service describes participation and/or assistance in events and tasks that contribute to the larger communities within the employee's influence. These communities could exist within the subunit/college and the University, within society (engagement/outreach as a University employee), within the societies and professional organizations connected with the expertise of the employee, or within university-based sponsored research activities. In general, a guideline for evaluating evidence presented for promotion through these ranks should demonstrate notable transitions from "serving various communities" to "leading in service to communities", to "initiating or providing direction for new avenues of service".

B.IV.A. General Criteria Guidelines for Promotion in Service:

B.IV.B. Evidence to help demonstrate criteria levels in Service may include:

Service to the University:

1. Record of committee work at subunit, college, and university levels
2. Participation in college and/or university wide governance bodies and related activities
3. Record of academic leadership support work (college representative, faculty mentoring, assessment activities, etc.)
4. Record of contributions to the university's programs to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging
5. Assistance to student organizations
6. Other

Service to Society as a Representative of the University (limit the list to those activities that use the candidate’s professional expertise):

1. Participation in community affairs
2. Service to governmental agencies at the international, federal, state and local levels
3. Service to business and industry
4. Service to public and private organizations
5. Service to citizen/client groups
6. Testifying as an expert witness
7. Service to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging
8. Other (e.g., participation task forces, authorities, meetings, etc. of public, nonprofit or private organizations)

Service to the Disciplines and to the Profession:

1. Organizing conferences, service on conference committees
2. Active in relevant professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities)
3. Service to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging

B.V. Administration

Administration describes a management and leadership role in programs that serve the mission of College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. This role may encompass responsibilities such as the management of personnel and budget, outreach endeavors, the development of new revenue opportunities, strategic planning, and program evaluation. In general, a guideline for evaluating evidence presented for promotion through these ranks should demonstrate notable transitions from “effectively directs a component of a program within a unit” to “serves as a role model in the administration of unit-level programs,” to “provides administrative leadership and mentoring to ‘mission critical’ programs both within the college and university.”

B.V.A. General Criteria Guidelines for Promotion in Administration:

B.V.B. Evidence to help demonstrate criteria levels in Administration may include:

• Involvement in program evaluation procedures either for internal review or external accreditation
• People supervised
• Projects managed
• Project-dollars under management
• Letters from sponsors
• Governmental agencies/organizations with whom the NTL faculty member has routine contact
• Proposals written or reviewed
• Mentoring of supervisees/employees
• Student mentoring (e.g., mentoring of UG, Grads, and Post-DOC, Club or group advisor)
• Service jobs to subunits, college, university, and/or outside the university (e.g., User facilities [AMPL, MTL, MCL], Student Recruiting, etc.)
• Programs developed and/or implemented that meet the goals of the subunit, college and/or University
• Honors and/or awards for service from non-academic and non-research organizations

APPENDIX C: Confidentiality in the Promotion Process

1. The overall promotion process allows for feedback to faculty candidates at appropriate times and through appropriate academic administrators (e.g., subunit heads and deans) as outlined in the EMS NTL Promotion Guidelines. “Subunit heads and the dean shall be responsible for ensuring that all faculty members in their subunits are advised by the appropriate academic administrator of the general results of the evaluation of their performance.” Based on these guidelines, faculty members may inspect and review their dossiers upon completion of the review process each year, except for the documents in the letters of evaluation section which are required for promotion recommendations.
2. All aspects of the promotion process are otherwise confidential, including deliberation in committee and the specific decisions that are made at each review level, which will be revealed at the appropriate times by the dean or subunit head. It is expected that both the candidate and the committees will adhere to the confidentiality of the promotion process. Members of promotion committees participate with the understanding that all matters related to their deliberations remain confidential. In addition, faculty candidates under review are discouraged from approaching committee members at any time concerning the disposition of their review and should understand that inquiries of this type are deemed entirely inappropriate.
3. Confidentiality of the promotion process is to be respected forever, not just during that particular year of review.

APPENDIX D: Letters of Evaluation

Reviewers preparing letters of evaluation should come from lists of names submitted or created by the candidate as well as from sources other than the candidate, although it is not required that the final list of reviewers include recommendations from the candidate. In no case should the candidate solicit directly the letters of evaluation.

1. Letters of evaluation must be obtained for candidates being reviewed for promotion to all ranks. Letters may be internal to the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences or external, depending on the scope of the candidate’s work.
2. Dossiers shall include a minimum of three letters of evaluation.
3. The faculty member’s subunit head is responsible for obtaining letters of evaluation.
4. The process of obtaining letters of evaluation should begin far enough in advance of the review process that letters are in the dossier and available to review committees and administrators at all levels of review. If letters arrive after the review process has begun, individuals involved in those levels of review already completed shall be notified by the subunit head of the receipt of the letters, provided with access to the letters, and provided with an opportunity to reconsider their recommendation.
5. A log shall be inserted in the dossier to document (the log should only include those evaluators who received items detailed in the Letters of Evaluation section):
   1. Date of request to evaluator;
   2. Date of receipt of letter from evaluator;
   3. Date of entry of letter in dossier.
6. The log shall not be made available to the candidate at any time.
7. The subunit head shall be responsible for providing a statement explaining the method by which the evaluators were selected.
8. The subunit head shall be responsible for providing a brief biographical statement about the qualifications of the evaluator; special attention should be given to documenting the evaluator’s standing in their discipline as part of the biographical statement.
9. A copy of the letter requesting the evaluation shall be inserted in the dossier; the request should be for a critical evaluation of the candidate’s achievements and reputation within their discipline, with reference to the mission and assignment of the candidate. Requests should be for letters of evaluation, not for letters of recommendation. (See page 32)
   1. If the same letter is sent to all evaluators, one sample copy of the letter shall be inserted in the dossier. If different letters are used, a copy of each letter shall be inserted in the dossier.
10. Subunit heads are urged to request letters from diverse sources and urged not to request evaluations from the candidate’s former teachers and students, those who have collaborated significantly with the candidate, or others whose relationship to the candidate might make objective assessments difficult. Evaluators should be asked to describe the nature of their association with the candidate. Evaluators should be in a position to make informed judgments about the candidate’s work.
11. Subunit heads should be consistent in what materials of the candidate they send to evaluators. Appropriate materials usually include the candidate’s vita and, depending on the number involved, all or a representative selection of the candidate’s publications. Subunits may, if they wish, prescribe that candidates’ narrative statements be included in the materials sent to evaluators. Under no circumstance should the dossier as a whole be sent to the evaluator. Since the focus of evaluation is to be on the candidate’s teaching or research (depending upon the preponderance of their duties), additional items related to teaching, research, service, or administration should be included in materials that are sent to reviewers. Units should describe their policy in their promotion guidelines (or criteria statements).
12. Subunit heads must request evaluations from individuals who are of higher rank than the candidate.

SAMPLE LETTERS TO EVALUATORS

In the sample letters below, braces indicate wording that should be individualized for the candidate. While academic units may make minor adjustments to the letters below to reflect disciplinary considerations, Penn State’s expectation is that units will utilize the language below when identifying reviewers.

SAMPLE:

Dear _________:

{Dr} _______, {rank, unit}, is being considered for promotion to {Assistant, Associate Teaching/Research} Professor at The Pennsylvania State University during the coming academic year. The informed assessment of recognized experts of a candidate’s {teaching, research, creative practice, administration, and scholarly accomplishments} impact, and stature in their field are important factors in our decision to promote all non-tenure-line faculty members. I am requesting your confidential letter of evaluation of the appropriateness of the promotion of {Dr.} ______.

Enclosed you will find {Dr.} ______’s curriculum vitae, a narrative {teaching/ research/artistic} statement, and {copies of ___ selected publications/examples/evidence of their creative accomplishments or summary of teaching results}.  I would find it most helpful to receive your responses to the following questions:

• In what capacity, if any, do you know {Dr.} _____? If you have had interactions with {Dr.} _____, please briefly describe the context of these interactions.
• Based on your direct knowledge, does {Dr.} ______’s {teaching/research/creative practice} justify promotion?
• Has {Dr.} _____’s {research/creative practice} had an influence on other researchers in the field or the broader discipline or provided significant impact on people and society? [[Penn State recognizes that evidence of influence and impact may not be fully developed for early-career faculty members.  Therefore, the potential for one’s work to have influence and impact is a key factor in the award of promotion.]]

I also encourage you to make your assessment in the context of the disruption the university experienced beginning in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Research facilities, including core and individual laboratories, offices, libraries, as well as studios, museums, theaters, and performance venues were closed or had access significantly limited. Human subject research was suspended. Research administration and editorial activities also were impacted creating unanticipated delays in both the achievement of project milestones and in the peer review of scholarly product. All faculty had to move their courses from an in-person to a remote delivery mode within a week. To comply with physical distancing, most faculty had to work out of their homes, many K-12 students switched to online instruction or homeschooling, and childcare was reduced or unavailable to many faculty members with young children. While all faculty members were affected, the effects of the disruption were not uniform. Candidates were invited to address how the pandemic and other 2020 events of magnitude (e.g., racial/societal unrest) impacted their work into the statement that accompanies their materials. I trust you will keep in mind the effects of these disruptions as you formulate your assessment.

Because confidential external evaluations are a critical component of the promotion and tenure process, we ask that your letter reflect your own independent, expert assessment of the candidate’s work and standing in the field. Please refrain from using generative AI in the evaluation of the provided materials.

It is Penn State’s policy to keep your letter confidential. Your letter will be shared only with the necessary review committees, administrators, and executives responsible for making recommendations on promotion.

While I realize the burden of time and effort my request imposes, I would appreciate a response by ______, although I will also welcome a later response if meeting this due date poses a problem. Please send your letter to me via e-mail at _____@psu.edu with a copy to my administrative staff assistant at ____@psu.edu.  Thank you in advance for your assistance in this important process.

Sincerely,

_____

Subunit Head 

LETTERS OF EVALUATION (FOR PROMOTION REVIEWS)

This section contains:

• Description of how the letters of evaluation were solicited, including a sample letter or request, and a description of the procedure for selecting evaluators. Note: When letters are solicited, the request should be for letters of evaluation rather than “recommendations” or “endorsements,” and evaluators should be encouraged to concentrate on those aspects of the candidate’s record which are most important to the visibility and professional standing of the candidate.
• List of materials sent to evaluators (e.g., copies of publications, vita, narrative statement, SRTE/SEEQ scores, course listings, etc.)
• Identification of those who have written assessments, including a brief statement of the referee’s achievements, and standing in their discipline.

APPENDIX E: Guidance on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness

All colleges are expected to incorporate the overarching principles for the incorporation of student feedback detailed below into promotion and/or tenure guidelines for non-tenure-line faculty members undergoing formal review.

• The goal of this approach is to provide a holistic review of SEEQ/SRTE student feedback that minimizes bias.
• This review of student feedback will replace the current summary of quantitative and qualitative student feedback on teaching effectiveness in formal promotion and/or tenure review materials.
• The unit at the first level of review 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 promotion and tenure committee at the first level of review
• The reviewers are charged with
  • examining 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)
  • writing a report of no more than 750 words (about one single-space page) describing insights about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness derived from quantitative and qualitative student feedback from SEEQ/SRTE responses across the courses taught during the review period
  • as applicable, reviewers should incorporate attention to the elements of teaching: effective course design, effective instruction, inclusive and ethical pedagogy, reflective and evolving practice. NOTE: Reviewers are advised to consult with the Schreyer Institute for Teaching Effectiveness for guidance for how to interpret student feedback
• This report will be sent to the administrator at the first level of review and will be included in the dossier or promotion materials reviewed by the candidate. If a candidate perceives that the report inadequately represents teaching effectiveness based on student feedback, candidates may revise their narrative statement (Part A of the dossier) to address the perceived discrepancy.
• 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.
• All candidates have the option of including raw data student feedback from the SEEQ/SRTE in their supplemental materials.