Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology
The Altoona College of The Pennsylvania State University

Procedures for implementing the University’s policy on promotion of non-tenure-line  faculty are described in the Non-Tenure-Line Administrative Guidelines for AC21: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations. Specific procedures for the Altoona College are described in Guidelines for the Promotion of Non-tenure-line Faculty to the Second Rank and Guidelines for the Promotion of Non-tenure-line Faculty to the Third Rank of the Altoona College, The Pennsylvania State University. The following further specifies procedures for the division level of review in the Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology of the Altoona College of the Pennsylvania State University, but does not supersede University-wide guidelines or Altoona College guidelines. Much of what follows repeats general University and Altoona College guidelines as the context for describing Division procedures, but Division faculty members should inform themselves about all three documents.

Preparation for the Review Process

Promotion reviews. Faculty at the first rank become eligible for review in their sixth year of full-time service and may compile and submit their dossiers during that year. Exceptions in instances of particular merit are permitted. There is no fixed time-period for promotion to the third rank. Faculty who have com-pleted the requisite years of service and are interested in being considered for promotion should meet with their respective Division Head during the spring semester to discuss their potential candidacy. If there is a consensus that the faculty member is ready to move forward with a case for promotion, the fac-ulty member would then work with the Division Head to prepare a dossier documenting the candidate’s credentials and evaluative evidence with respect to teaching; innovation, professional growth, subject matter mastery, and/or scholarship/creative achievement; and service to the College, University, public, and the profession. The Division Head has the responsibility for preparing the dossier in consultation with the candidate. The dossier will be submitted to the Division Non-Tenure-Line Promotion Review Committee at the start of the fall semester promotion cycle.

If there is a disagreement between the faculty and the Division Head about the presented case for promo-tion, the faculty member may solicit a letter from a non-tenure-line faculty member of higher rank, or from a tenured Associate Professor, or Professor in the same discipline to support the promotion request. If a member of the discipline is not available, a faculty member from the same division should be sought. This letter, together with other supporting documentation, should be submitted to the chair of the corre-sponding Division Non-Tenure-Line Promotion Review Committee. The committee will then review the supporting materials and write an independent recommendation letter by the end of the spring semester. If the faculty member is not recommended for nomination at that time, formative feedback will be provided in writing from the Division Non-Tenure-Line Promotion Review Committee. If the recommendation is to move forward with a case for promotion, the faculty would then prepare a dossier for submission to the Division Non-Tenure-Line Promotion Review Committee at the start of the fall semester promotion cycle.

Preparation of the dossier. For all Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology non-tenure-line faculty members seeking promotion the Division Head has the responsibility for preparing, in consulta-tion with the candidate, the dossier documenting the candidate’s performance in teaching; innovation, professional growth, subject matter mastery, and/or scholarship/creative achievement; and service. The dossier will include the candidate’s written narrative statement of no more than 2000 words (10pt font) identifying their Penn State career accomplishments and/or contributions that support the promotion. Candidates shall assist in supplying relevant information for their dossiers.

Position descriptions are also required in each dossier. The Division Head must draft a position descrip-tion for each faculty member and obtain input on that description from the faculty member no later than the conclusion of the academic year prior to the individual’s promotion review year. Job descriptions should be revisited by the Division Head and the faculty member as needed or when job duties change. The job description should outline duties and expectations, if applicable, in the areas of teaching, re-search, and service. Note that job-descriptions are required for promotions occurring in Academic Year 2024-25 and beyond.

Evaluation of teaching effectiveness shall be based on both student and peer rating information about the quality of the teaching. Student ratings shall be obtained from the Student Rating of Teaching Effec-tiveness (SRTE) for courses delivered prior to Fall 2023 and the Student Educational Experience Ques-tionnaire (SEEQ) thereafter in accordance with the University Administrative Guidelines for AC-23. The Division Head, in consultation with the candidate, will supplement this survey by other forms of student evaluation such as student comments on course evaluation questionnaires and letters solicited by the Di-vision Head from former students (see Appendix, Section 2). One alternative assessment documenting teaching effectiveness shall be included for each academic year, beginning with 2020-2021. For promo-tion, the peer evaluation shall be performed by the members of the candidate’s Peer Review of Teaching committee, including those appointed by the Division Head to ensure appropriate disciplinary representa-tion, as described in the Appendix.

Evidence of innovation, professional growth, subject matter mastery, and/or scholarship/creative achievement, and service to the College, University, public, and the profession will be provided through information about these activities from the candidate and from previous annual letters of evaluation.

The Division Level or Review for Non-Tenure-Line Faculty Seeking Promotion in the Altoona College

For Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology faculty members seeking promotion to the second or third ranks in the Altoona College, the first-level review for promotion takes place in the Division. The Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology Promotion Policy for Non-tenure-line Faculty. outlines the criteria, expectations, and standards for promotion by which candidates will be evaluated. The Division Non-tenure-line Promotion Review Committees will conduct promotion reviews for faculty in the Division based on the dossiers prepared by the candidates’ division heads.

Division Non-Tenure-Line Promotion and Peer Review Committees

Groups and Disciplines

The division shall be divided into four groups, each containing multiple disciplines, as listed alphabetically below:

  • The Engineering and Information Sciences Group (ES)
    • Electrical Engineering Discipline (EE)
    • Mechanical Engineering Discipline (ME)
    • Information and Computer Science Discipline (ICS)
    • Rail and Civil Engineering Discipline (RCE)
  • The Life Sciences Group (LS)
    • Biochemistry and Microbiology Discipline (BC)
    • Biology Discipline (BIO)
  • The Mathematics and Statistics Group (MS)
    • Mathematics Discipline (MATH)
    • Statistics Discipline (STAT)
  • The Physical Sciences Group (PS)
    • Chemistry Discipline (CHEM)
    • Geography Discipline (GEOG)
    • Geoscience Discipline (GEOS)
    • Physics Discipline (PHYS)

Each faculty member takes on a discipline when appointed, and changes are possible but require written dispensation from the Chancellor.

In accordance with the rules below, the non-tenure-line faculty of the division will elect a core representative from each group.

Candidates for second level and third level promotions shall be reviewed by a committee of three eligible non-tenure-line faculty members. The promotion committees shall be composed of three Core representatives, one from the candidates’ group who will serve as chair, and the other two Core representatives from one of the other Core groups.

Eligibility for serving on the committees. Division non-tenure-line promotions and peer reviews shall be conducted by faculty members in the Division whenever possible. No faculty member may serve on more than one level of review of any given candidate during a particular review cycle, and faculty members on leave of absence are prohibited from participating in promotion committees.

Size and composition of the committees. The group committees shall be formed as follows

  • ES Committee
    • Chair: ES Core Representative
    • Two additional members who are the LS Core Representative, MS Core Representative or PS Core Representative
  • LS Committee
    • Chair: LS Core Representative
    • Two additional members who are the ES Core Representative, MS Core Representative or PS Core Representative
  • MS Committee
    • Chair: MS Core Representative
    • Two additional members who are the ES Core Representative, LS Core Representative or PS Core Representative
  • PS Committee
    • Chair: PS Core Representative
    • Two additional members who are the ES Core Representative, LS Core Representative or MS Core Representative

Core Representatives. From each group the non- tenure-line faculty of the entire Division shall elect a Core Representative, who shall chair the committee reviewing candidates from that group. The Core Representative shall serve for a term of two years.

Each Core Representative should be of higher rank than candidates due to be reviewed during this term. They are likely to be among the highest-ranking representatives on a given committee, and because they serve as Chair, they should have good knowledge of policy and procedure surrounding the promotion process.

The core representative from the group of the candidate will automatically be on the committee. The remaining two committee members will be determined by the four promotion committee members in consultation with the candidate and the division head.

Procedure for Electing Representatives

Step 1: Electing the core representatives. For each of those Groups for which there is no continuing Core Representative there will be a ballot of all non-tenure-line faculty in the division to elect a core member from the Group. The term of service for elected core members shall be two years. Elected core members should hold rank higher than that of all the candidates under review for the core member’s term of service.

The Division Head shall construct a ballot by soliciting all non-tenure-line faculty in the Division to nominate core representatives. From those nominations, the ballot shall list all eligible representatives by their unique Group (ES, LS, PS, and MS).

The Division Head will then conduct a secret ballot. All non-tenure-line faculty in the Division except for the Division Head are eligible to vote. Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may vote for as few or as many nominees in each Group as they want. The nominee in each Group who receives the greatest number of votes will be the core member from that Group. The Division Head shall resolve ties by a tie-break election. If a tie-break election results in a second tie, then the Division Head will cast the deciding vote.

Step 2: Conclusion of the election. The Division Head must complete the election and appointment of Committee members and report the results to the Division and to the Dean of the Altoona College by the end of March each Spring Semester.

Evaluation of the dossier by the committees. The Division Head will make completed dossiers available to the committees and will call the initial meeting of each committee to review policies and procedures. The Division Head shall consult with the committees to ensure that all members are well informed about each candidate’s dossier and about the criteria and policies of the Division, the Altoona College, and the University. The Division Head shall serve as a resource person to the committees; however, the Division Head and the committees shall render independent judgments of the candidates being reviewed. The Division Head, along with any committee member with a conflict of interest in this particular case, shall not be present during peer review discussions or when votes are being taken.

After due deliberation and a vote, the committee will submit to the Division Head a letter of evaluation for each candidate addressing each criterion based on the evidence in the dossier. In particular, the Administrative Guidelines for AC21 require the committees to make a judgment of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness based on both peer and student reviews in terms of the following classification: excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. When there is dissenting opinion among the voting committee members, the reasons for the dissent must be addressed in the letter. The letter must list the voting committee members and must report the vote count of the committee. The chairs of the committees must sign the letters. Promotion committee members should not retain any personal notes about promotion and tenure cases once the work of the committee has concluded.

Evaluation of the dossier by the Division Head. After receiving the letter of evaluation of the Division Non-tenure-line Promotion and Peer Review Committee and placing it in the candidate’s dossier, the Division Head shall prepare a letter of evaluation also addressing each criterion based on the evidence in the dossier and place it in the dossier. The Division Head shall submit the dossier to the Chancellor of the Altoona College for review by the Altoona College Non-tenure-line Promotion Review Committee.

Consultation in the review process. In accordance with University guidelines for AC 23, consultation must occur when the Division Head’s recommendation differs from that of the Non-tenure-line Promotion and Peer Review Committee. Consultation should be initiated after the Committee review has been completed and its recommendation has been made in writing.

Appendix A: Peer Review of Teaching Procedures

These procedures govern the formation and responsibilities of peer review committees within The Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology (or simply The Division) to review the teaching performance of an individual faculty member as a part of their regular performance review and as a part of promotion or tenure reviews.

Responsibilities of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee

Peer review of teaching is a process in which an individual’s disciplinary peers evaluate a full range of teaching activities including, but not limited to, the development of course materials, class assignments, grading, student research, and student mentoring. A peer review committee is tasked with the review of a single faculty member.

For promotion-related reviews, each member of the peer review of teaching committee will observe at least one class period and one lab period (if applicable) taught by the faculty member under review, and especially for those with asynchronous teaching assignments, every effort should be made to plan these visits so a committee member observes each different type of class taught. In addition, committee members will review course materials such as class syllabi, examples of graded student work, and whatever additional information (including possibly a teaching portfolio) the faculty member makes available to the committee. The peer review of teaching committee will write one letter signed by all members of the committee. In the event of disagreement within the committee, the letter will include separate majority and minority opinions.

For promotion-related reviews, the peer review of teaching committee will also write a separate Assessment of Student Feedback Letter. Student comments will be collected using the procedures outlined in Section 5. Every effort should be made to have student comments available to the committee prior to their observations of the candidate.

For post-promotion reviews, at least one committee member will observe at least one class period and one lab period (if applicable) taught by the faculty member under review. All committee members will review course materials and additional information as discussed above, and will provide evaluative comments to the division head in writing.

Formation of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee for Promotion-Related Reviews

Nomination of Committee Members

For promotion-related reviews, the division head will ask each faculty member under review for a list of at least five peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable for the formation of a peer review of teaching committee that will review that faculty member. The list of acceptable faculty members can include any full-time Penn State Altoona faculty members. However, the list should include faculty whose teaching assignment is similar to that of the faculty member under review, and if the faculty member under review teaches a significant number of credits/courses in a certain discipline, then at least one faculty member familiar with that discipline should be included on the list whenever possible.

If the faculty member under review would like to include one member of the committee who is not a member of the Division, then the faculty member can nominate at most two such options, and the division head may choose at most one of those when forming the three-person committee. In these cases, it is highly recommended that the remaining two members be in closely related disciplines whenever possible

The committee will also include one member of the divisional Promotion and Tenure Committee that will serve on the P&T Committee that evaluates the candidate.

Selection of the Committee

The division head will form a three-person peer review of teaching committee from people on the list supplied by the faculty member under review. Every effort should be made to include a committee member familiar with each discipline where the faculty member under review teaches a significant number of credits/courses. If the division head is unable to form a three-person committee as described above based on this list, then the division head will ask the faculty member under review to extend the list, or if no extension is provided, will appoint additional members to the committee as necessary.

It is acceptable for peer review committee members to serve on multiple peer review committees simultaneously. Faculty members may not self-review but are free to serve on other peer review committees while under review.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee representative will, by default, be the core member of the committee from the same group as the candidate unless there is a conflict of interest, in which case, the Division Head will select another P&T Committee member for the role. The P&T Committee member on the Peer Review Committee will only aid in the Assessment of Student Feedback report and will review the report and provide feedback to the rest of the committee.

Selection of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee for Extended or Post-Promotion Reviews

Nomination of Committee Members

For post-promotion reviews, the division head will ask each faculty member under review for a list of at least five peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable to serve on a peer review of teaching committee for that faculty member. The list of acceptable faculty can include any full-time faculty in the Division and/or full-time Penn State faculty from outside the Division/College who teach courses similar to those that the faculty member under review teaches.

Selection of the Committee

The division head will choose a peer review of teaching committee from the list supplied by the faculty member under review. Every effort should be made to include a committee member familiar with each discipline where the faculty member under review teaches a significant number of credits/courses. If the division head is unable to form a three-person committee as described above based on this list, then the division head will ask the faculty member under review to extend the list, or if no extension is provided, will appoint additional members to the committee as necessary.

It is acceptable for peer reviewers to participate in multiple peer reviews simultaneously. Faculty members may not self-review but are free to serve as peer reviewers for others while under review.

The teaching evaluation committee for extended or post-promotion reviews is responsible for a peer-review of teaching evaluation letter. The committee is not required to provide an Assessment of Student Feedback report.

Additional Reviews of Teaching Effectiveness

In consultation with the candidate, the division head may optionally arrange for additional evaluators to observe and provide written assessments of a candidate's teaching effectiveness. These written reviews will be submitted to the division head separately from the peer review committee’s letter. If solicited as part of a tenure review process, they will be included in the candidate’s dossier separately from the committee’s letter.

Collection of Student Feedback

Student comments may be collected using any combination of the following.

  1. Written student comments collected through regular evaluations.
    Regular written evaluations are collected from students through the SEEQ form, except for courses delivered prior to fall 2023, which used the SRTE form. These may be supplemented by any combination of division-approved forms for written student comments (see Section 7). Any supplementary forms with written student comments will be collected separately from the regular evaluation forms and will be delivered to the office of the division head. Supplemental forms will be scanned electronically and forwarded to the faculty member’s peer review of teaching committee.
  2. Letters from students who have completed a course taught by the faculty member.
    At the request of the faculty member under review, the division head will solicit letters from a random sample of students who have completed courses taught by the faculty member during the previous two years. To ensure that student letters reflect the courses in their entirety, students who dropped, withdrew, or received a failing grade without completing the entire course may not be solicited for a letter. The number of students solicited should be sufficient to ensure a diverse sampling. The student letters will be forwarded to the faculty member's peer review of teaching committee together with the grades of the students who wrote the letters.

Timeline for Peer Review of Teaching Effectiveness

Fall Review (non-tenure-line faculty reviews)

Before the end of the 8th week of the previous spring semester the division head will solicit the names of those peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable for the peer review committee. At this time, the division head will also ask the faculty member to choose the procedure for collecting student comments.

The division head will form the peer review committee by the end of the 10th week of the spring semester. The committee will complete its work and submit its evaluation letter and summary of student comments within 4 weeks of the end of the fall semester.

Division-Approved Forms for Collecting Student Comments

The faculty member under review should leave before students fill out the forms, and a student or colleague should deliver the forms directly to the division office. The first example below has been approved along with the ability of candidates to include additional questions, as in the second.

Adopted: 9/26/25

Student Evaluation of Learning Experience
Division of Engineering Science and Technology

  • Professor
  • Course/s
    • Course
    • Semester

In answering the questions below, please discuss specific aspects of the course with this professor, such as the syllabus, assignments, teaching style, classroom environment, etc. Feel free to use the back of this sheet.

  1. Why did you take this course? (e.g. required for major, elective, etc.)
  2. What was effective about the way the course was taught?
  3. What was not effective about the way the course was taught?
  4. Include any additional comments. (You may use the back of this sheet if necessary.)

Student Evaluation of Learning Experience
Division of Engineering Science and Technology

  • Professor
  • Course/s
    • Course
    • Semester

In answering the questions below, please discuss specific aspects of the course with this professor, such as the syllabus, assignments, teaching style, classroom environment, etc. Feel free to use the back of this sheet.

  1. Why did you take this course? (e.g. required for major, elective, etc.)
  2. What was effective about the way the course was taught?
  3. What was not effective about the way the course was taught?
  4. [Additional questions may be inserted by the faculty member here.]
  5. Include any additional comments. (You may use the back of this sheet if necessary)