College of Health Professions
Armstrong State University College of Health Professions
Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion
Revised 10/14/97, 09/30/98, 1/31/06, 4/25/07, 4/16/08, 10/2009, 2/2014, 6/2014, 9/2014
I. Policies and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure
A. Each application for promotion and/or tenure will be considered on its own merits consistent with the USG Board of Regents policies and without prejudice from prior applications.
B. Each department will develop evaluation criteria, aligned with the strategic planning goals for the department, the college, and the university for the interpretation of faculty service, scholarship, teaching, and professional development on an annual basis. The results of these annual evaluations will be used as part of the process for evaluating faculty applications for tenure and promotion.
C. A faculty member making application for promotion and/or tenure who believes that he/she has met all of the criteria of the department, the college, and the university, should submit a letter of intent and portfolio to the department head or dean by the following deadlines:
September 15: Written request from the candidate for promotion or tenure is due to the department head.
October 15: Portfolio due to the department head for purpose of departmental Peer Review process.
November 15: Portfolio and recommendation of the department head due to the dean’s office.
D. A faculty member who is in the third year of a tenure track position must submit a portfolio for the "Third Year Review" by March 15.
E. The submitted portfolio shall be limited to no more than one three-ring, three inch binder. The candidate must follow the format identified in Appendix A. This includes the use of required sections as identified in Appendix A. Failure to do so will result in the portfolio being returned to the candidate without evaluation.
F. The department head, who must ascertain the reaction of the candidate's departmental colleagues, makes the initial recommendation. The department head’s recommendation to support or not support tenure and/or promotion is in the form of a narrative that summarizes the ballots and reactions of the candidate’s departmental colleagues and his/her own reaction. Integral to this recommendation is an assessment of the worthiness of the candidate’s body of work in teaching, research, scholarship, and personal development. The candidate’s impact to his/her profession may also be highlighted.
G. Each department will develop a mechanism for peer review of processes for tenure and promotion applications. In general, such deliberative bodies should be made up of tenured faculty when considering tenure applications. In larger departments, this may consist of a Tenure and Promotion Committee within the department. In small departments, the mechanism may include faculty members from other departments within the College of Health Professions. These bodies will make a recommendation to the department head.
H. The Dean of Health Professions will make all candidates’ materials available to the College of Health Professions Tenure and Promotion (T&P) Committee. Following a review by the T&P Committee in light of the college’s criteria, recommendations are returned to the Dean, who then evaluates the portfolio independently.
I. Taking into consideration all information and recommendations, the Dean of Health Professions will forward his/her recommendation along with the accumulated materials to the Provost/Dean of the Faculty through the Council of Deans. The final decision will be made by the president.
J. To be considered for tenure, faculty must have completed a satisfactory probationary period of at least five years of full-time service at the rank of assistant professor or higher. Typically, candidates apply for tenure during their “sixth year” during fall semester (defined as years at ASU + probationary credit granted towards tenure). Requests for “tenure in the fifth year” require strong justification. The intent of the university is that the maximum amount of time a tenure-track faculty member may serve full-time without the granting of tenure is seven (7) years.
K. Candidates whose application(s) for tenure and/or promotion are rejected may appeal through the appropriate procedures of the university.
L. Faculty may apply for tenure and promotion using the same portfolio in the same academic year if they meet the criteria for each.
II. General Guidelines
The College of Health Professions has adopted the following definitions and guidelines for the assessment of teaching, scholarship and service as they apply to tenure and promotion.
Criteria related to the evaluation of teaching effectiveness should illustrate excellence and diversity in instructional styles, methods, and creative approaches. They should also reflect the strategic goals of the candidate’s department, the college, and the university.
The following guidelines offer general considerations for reviewing teaching effectiveness. Each department should use and interpret these categories in ways that best meet the department's teaching mission and goals. In general, evaluation should highlight the strengths of each faculty member, noting particularly how the strengths contribute to the specific teaching needs of the department.
1. eFACE. Assessment of teaching should include the use of FACE data with reporting of the percentage and raw data of responses at all levels.
2. Productivity (Load). The College of Health Professions serves two primary teaching missions within the university: 1) didactic and 2) clinical. Because of the diversity of the Health Professions disciplines, consideration should be given to the types of courses that the faculty member teaches, how that instructional load meets the needs of the department, and whether any overload was taught in service of the department/program. Each department head assigns contact/credit hour(s) to faculty on an individual basis.
3. Command of subject matter. The evaluation should consider academic degrees, course preparation, and/or other experience the faculty member has as appropriate preparation for teaching in the areas carried. Teaching responsibilities are often the focus of faculty development activities.
4. Teaching and testing methods. The basic teaching responsibility involves being prepared for classes and meeting classes as scheduled, or as approved by the department head. The College of Health Professions particularly stresses the development of skills in critical thinking, problem-solving, effective communication, updating of course material, teamwork and utilization of appropriate technologies. Other skills may be distinct to particular disciplines or courses (e.g. laboratory and clinical skills). In general, the methods of teaching, testing, and grading used by a particular faculty member should be appropriate to the department, discipline and to the level of instruction. Such methods may include service learning and undergraduate research.
5. Relationship with students. This relationship can be documented by FACE comments as well as other evidence but also includes being available to students for conferences or academic advisement. It may also include supervision of individual student work such as independent study, directed readings, or student research. Perhaps most importantly, the relationship involves a genuine interest in teaching and working with students.
Involvement in scholarship is an expectation for faculty in the College of Health Professions wishing to be tenured or promoted. The term scholarship is used in a broad sense, encompassing professional achievements that include, yet also extend beyond, research and publication.
All scholarship implies creativity. The products of all scholarship must be in a format that can be evaluated, which would normally mean a written format, but could include video or computer formats. The college will recognize the following four types of scholarship as adapted and modified from concepts developed by Ernest Boyer.
Boyer’s Model of Scholarship
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
1. The scholarship of teaching – the development of new teaching methods; studies on teaching approaches.
2. The scholarship of application – building bridges between theory and practice; applying knowledge to practical problems. Examples include development of a new health care treatment modality, or shaping public policy on health care.
3. The scholarship of integration – creative synthesis or analysis; looking for connections across disciplines; bringing new insights to bear on original research; horizontal scholarship. The scholarship of integration seeks to interpret, analyze and draw together the results of the original research.
4. The scholarship of discovery – the traditional, disciplined pursuit of phenomena that results in the generation of new knowledge; vertical scholarship.
Departments in the College of Health Professions are responsible for establishing criteria to be used in the annual evaluation of faculty scholarly activities and achievements, consistent with the strategic goals of the department, college, and university, the regulations of the university, and the definition of scholarship as adopted by the college. Departments are responsible for informing their faculty members of the criteria used by the department in the annual evaluation of scholarship. Such criteria are reviewed at least every five years by the college and respective departments as part of the strategic planning process.
1. Doctoral Degree: The doctoral degree should be in the academic area of specialization or a related field, including education.
2. Expectations: Expectations for scholarship may differ from department to department within the college but should reflect an equivalent breadth and depth of scholarly activities.
3. Acceptable Scholarly Activities: Scholarship includes activities that have a finished product upon completion of the process, add to the subject matter of the discipline, and are disseminated to a larger audience within and/or outside of the university.
Service is a core ideal in the College of Health Professions. Service includes all work that involves the use of a faculty member's professional expertise to benefit the university, the college, the department, the community, or the profession. Each department head should communicate clearly with each faculty member the importance of service in the evaluation process and provide guidelines for appropriate forms of service. Each faculty member's Annual Professional Activities Report will include an appropriate description of all service activities engaged in during the evaluation period in question.
In order to be considered for tenure, a faculty member must have completed a satisfactory probationary period of at least five years of full-time service at the rank of assistant professor or higher and hold a doctoral degree. The five-year period must be continuous except that a maximum of two years’ interruption because of leave of absence or of part-time service may be permitted; provided, however, that no probationary credit for the period of an interruption shall be allowed. A maximum of three years' credit toward the minimum probationary period may be allowed for service at other institutions in tenure track positions or for full time service at the rank of instructor at Armstrong State University (ASU). Such credit for prior service shall be requested by the individual and shall be defined in writing by the President at the time of the initial appointment at the rank of assistant professor or higher or at the time of promotion from instructor to assistant professor.
B. Evaluation Criteria
A candidate for tenure must not only meet the designated minimum period of service, but also must meet what are, at that time, seen as the long range needs of the university and must show a history of evaluations that merits the award of tenure. Retention throughout a probationary period of service is by itself insufficient to guarantee the success of a candidacy for tenure.
Candidates for tenure will be evaluated in areas of teaching, scholarship, service, and professional growth and development. A recommendation for the award or denial of tenure should take into account the candidate's cumulative performance in the sense that the candidate should not automatically be denied tenure because of isolated or anomalous unsatisfactory evaluations in any one of these areas. However, no faculty member shall be awarded tenure without demonstrating at least satisfactory performance in all of these areas.
Although the boundaries of teaching, scholarship, service and professional growth and development are not sharply defined, and the relative importance of each may vary both between and within departments, there should be some general guidelines, consistent with the strategic goals and priorities of the university, the college, and the department, regarding the relative weighting of each of these areas in any overall evaluation upon which a tenure recommendation is based.
The following are appropriate considerations for tenure reviews:
1. Demonstrate evidence of meeting the long-range needs of the department, college and university.
2. A reasonable level of support among the faculty as evidenced by tenure balloting.
3. All of the following must meet at least satisfactory levels of performance, however, two must show evidence of noteworthy achievement:
a. Superior teaching; demonstrating excellence in instruction
b. Academic achievement, as appropriate to the mission
c. Outstanding service to the institution, profession, or community
d. Professional growth and development
e. Earned doctorate or its equivalent in training, ability, and/or experience.
C. Third Year Pre-Tenure Review
In an effort to maximize the opportunity for faculty to earn tenure, the university has a 'pre-tenure review'. The purpose of this review is informational only and no official action is taken based on this review. The T&P Committee will not make any decisions or official recommendations. The committee's role is to act as an advisor and make recommendations to the dean. The dean will evaluate those recommendations and develop a report to the candidate. This report is used to assure that when the faculty applies for tenure, they have the information necessary to meet the tenure requirements.
The following are the criteria for the pre-tenure review.
1. All tenure-track faculty members in their third year of the tenure track will submit a Pre-Tenure portfolio for review by the Tenure & Promotion Committee and the Dean of Health Professions by March 15th.
2. The portfolio submitted follows the same layout as portfolios for tenure or promotion including appropriately tabbed dividers (see Appendix A for details). There are two differences:
a. The Letters of Support section is omitted.
b. In order to assure that the T&P Committee can make appropriate suggestions relative to the scholarly activates of the faculty it is essential that this narrative include any 'in process' scholarly activities and the faculty member's planned scholarly activities for the remainder of the pre-tenure time frame.
D. Post-Tenure Review (from the ASU Faculty Handbook) SECTION C.6.b. Procedures Relating to Post-Tenure Review
By September 15 of each year, the provost and dean of faculty will provide each academic dean with a list of faculty who must undergo post-tenure review during the current academic year. By December 1, the faculty member shall prepare a portfolio containing, at the very least, all annual evaluations (including the relevant APARs) since the last post-tenure review or promotion/tenure review, and an assessment from the faculty member being reviewed as to his or her role in the institution and examples of specific measures that faculty member is taking to fulfill that role. Individual departments may specify other materials that should be included in the portfolio, and the candidate may provide additional materials relevant to his or her discipline.
2. Peer Review
Each department/program has developed a peer evaluation system (see Regulations, Article II, Section A.2.c.) for post-tenure review. Each department shall have on file with the college dean and the provost and dean of faculty, a Faculty Peer Evaluation (FPE) process, specific to post-tenure review, but consistent with Article II, Section A.2.c which involves consideration of the post-tenure review portfolio. In departments/programs where the number of tenured faculty is three or fewer, the dean may involve a limited number of tenured faculty from a department/program having a similar mission in the peer review process. However, in such cases, the candidate will be informed as to the identity of these extra-departmental reviewers. No faculty member may participate in the post-tenure peer review process unless he or she is willing to certify that he or she has reviewed the portfolio. The peer review process must be completed by no later than February 15.
Candidates for promotion will be judged according to the following guidelines and by the merits of the candidate's entire professional history at the university as reflected in the individual's accumulated evaluations.
Promotion needs to take into account activities in addition to teaching in order to promote the best possible faculty and further the mission of the institution.
1. The following criteria will be used to assess all candidates for promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer and for instructor to assistant professor:
a. There must be a reasonable level of support among the faculty as evidenced by promotion balloting.
b. Candidates must meet the requirements as outlined in Armstrong Faculty Handbook Sections 107.4.4 and 107.4.5.
2. Promotion to senior lecturer requires a minimum of:
a. Six consecutive years of service at the rank of lecturer at ASU.
b. Master's degree in the academic area of specialization or a related field.
There is no promotion for the lecturer beyond senior lecturer in this non-tenure track.
3. Promotion to assistant professor requires a minimum of:
a. Four years total teaching and/or related experience
b. Three years at the rank of instructor at ASU
c. Doctoral degree in the academic area of specialization or a related field.
There is no promotion for instructor beyond assistant professor in this non-tenure track.
The following criteria will be used to assess all candidates for promotion for all tenure track ranks:
1. There must be a reasonable level of support among the faculty as evidenced by promotion balloting.
2. All of the following must meet at least satisfactory levels of performance, however, two must show evidence of noteworthy achievement:
b. Service to the Department, College, University, and/or community appropriate to the faculty rank
c. Scholarship appropriate to the faculty rank;
d. Professional growth and development.
3. There must be evidence of progressive growth in scholarly activities.
The following criteria will be used to assess candidates for the specified rank below.
1. Promotion to associate professor requires a minimum of:
a. Six years of University level teaching, or eight years total teaching and/or related experience.
b. Five years at the rank of assistant professor (with four years at the rank of assistant professor at ASU).
c. Doctoral degree in the academic area of specialization or a related field, including education.
2. Promotion to professor requires a minimum of:
a. Twelve years of University level teaching, or fourteen years total teaching and/or related experience.
b. Five years at the rank of associate professor at ASU.
c. Doctoral degree in the academic area of specialization or a related field, including education.
While securing tenure and promotion to the associate professor level are considered to be normal avenues of career progression for faculty, promotion to professor should be reserved for those who exemplify only the highest standards in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service. In particular, promotion to full professor should be indicative of the faculty member's demonstrated impact on the profession well beyond the confines of ASU, and of the regard in which they are held by members of the ASU community and by members of their discipline at large. At the discretion of the faculty member's department, or the Dean of the College of Health Professions, external reviews of candidates for promotion to full professor may be solicited.
V. College of Health Professions Tenure and Promotion Committee
A. Composition of the Tenure and Promotion Committee
1. The committee will be composed of one faculty member from each department in the College of Health Professions.
2. Term of service is two years.
3. A department head may serve on the committee only if no other department member is eligible. If a candidate from the department head's area is under consideration, the department head must recuse themselves from voting.
B. Appointment to the Tenure and Promotion Committee.
1. Appointed faculty must hold tenure in their respective department. A non-tenured member may sit on the committee only if no tenured faculty from that department is eligible.
2. A maximum of two department heads can serve on the committee at one time, unless otherwise approved by the Dean of Health Professions.
3. The department faculty, with the approval of the department head, will determine the method of selection.
C. Functions of the Committee
1. The committee will review the guidelines and make recommendations to the Dean of Health Professions regarding suggested revisions to College of Health Professions’ Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure.
2. The committee will review the application materials of candidates for tenure and for promotion and make its recommendation to the Dean of Health Professions.
3. The committee will utilize established department and college criteria for tenure and promotion recommendations.
D. Chair of the Committee
1. The committee will elect a chairperson who will serve for a term of one academic year. The chair may be re-elected for a second one-year term.
2 The chair will be responsible for:
a. Ensuring receipt of application materials for tenure and promotion
b. Distributing information concerning applications to committee members
c. Ensuring the smooth transition of committees from year to year
d. Scheduling and overseeing meetings of the committee
e. Maintaining accurate records of all proceedings
f. Forwarding all recommendations of the committee to the Dean of Health Professions
E. Vote of the Committee
1. Votes should be by secret ballot.
2. The results of each vote, along with any comments describing suggestions for the candidate, will be included in the recommendation of the committee to the Dean.
APPENDIX A - FORMAT FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PORTFOLIOS
Note: The Portfolio must have major (larger) and minor (smaller) tabs for each of the sections below if data are provided in that section. Tabs should be labeled as below. It is not necessary to number tabs.
I. Title Page
"A portfolio presented to the Tenure and Promotion Committee for consideration for [promotion to the rank of …] [tenure.]
II. Personal Narrative
Provide an overview of your perceived effectiveness and fit as a faculty member in your department. How do your personal goals/philosophy relate to the goals of the department, college, and university?
III. Curriculum Vitae (Current)
IV. Letters of Support (if any)
Examples are letters from the fellow faculty and other professional colleagues.
(Individuals going up for promotion to Senior Lecturer must demonstrate that their teaching is “noteworthy”. This is the single most important category for this type of promotion.)
A. List of courses/labs/clinicals taught for the evaluation period. (Summarize from first page of APARs)
B. eFACE yearly summaries for evaluation period. Report the percentage and raw data of responses at all levels
C. Student comments for evaluation period. (Must include all signed comments and may include unsigned comments. Omit 'thank you notes'.)
D. Student outcome information. Might include:
• Board/licensure scores/subscores for areas taught
• Outcome assessments
• Learning outcomes
• 'Scholarship of teaching research' finding
• Grade distributions
E. Other documents that demonstrate the quality of teaching such as:
• Peer reviews
• Reviews of teaching materials
• Letters from former students evaluating teaching
• Examples of innovative teaching materials
• Self-administered course evaluation instruments including clinical and lab assessments
F. A statement of teaching philosophy.
G. Self-assessment statement showing improvement or changes based on feedback and how faculty member has met personal and departmental goals in this area. Include teaching innovations, continuing education and professional growth and development activities that support teaching. Also identify strengths and weaknesses.
VI. Scholarship (This area is not required for promotion request to Senior Lecturer)
(Note: For publications, a copy of the full article must be attached. For presentations, abstracts and others, include copy of the program, letter of offer, or other evidence showing type of activity and level such as regional or national.)
1. Peer Reviewed National/International Publications
2. Peer Reviewed Regional Publications
3. Peer Reviewed State/local Publications
4. Non-peer Reviewed National/International Publications
5. Non-peer Reviewed State/local Publications
6. 'In Press' Publications
7. Book Reviews
8. Book Chapters
1. Peer Reviewed or Invited National/International Presentations
2. Peer Reviewed or Invited Regional Presentations
3. Peer Reviewed or Invited State Presentations
4. Peer Reviewed or Invited Local Presentations
5. Non-Peer Reviewed or Non-invited Presentations
C. Accepted Poster Presentations
D. Grants and your role in securing/submitting them (Author, PI, co-PI, or significant contributor only)
E. Contractor and Consulting Activities (these activities may be appropriately listed as scholarship or service, but not both)
F. Self-assessment statement showing summary of scholarly activities, how the work shows systematic growth in scholarly activities, improvement or changes based on feedback, how the activities added to professional growth and development, and how faculty member has met personal and departmental goals in this area. If a pre-tenure review, also include any projected scholarly activities to be completed prior to the tenure application.
A. Departmental committees
B. College committees
C. University committees
D. System-wide committees
E. Elected university offices
F. Committees chaired
G. Professional organization memberships
H. List all service rendered to those professional organizations such as committee, elected offices, etc.
I. Community Service (Must be associated with expertise needed for faculty appointment.)
J. Other service not related to above.
K. Self-assessment statement showing improvement or changes based on feedback and how faculty member has met personal and departmental goals in this area. Also identify improvement or changes based on feedback, how the activities added to professional growth and development, improvement or changes based on feedback, strengths and weaknesses, and any unusual circumstances that impact activity level in this area.