I. Review Committee, College of Agricultural Sciences
The Promotion and Tenure Review Committee is one of the standing committees of the College. Membership consists of five senior faculty members (professors, with tenure) elected by the faculty, and two senior faculty members appointed by the Dean of the College. The five elected members shall serve three-year terms.
The College Nominating Committee shall attempt to identify nominees for the five elected positions that represent a balance among extension, research, and resident education. The Dean shall consider this balance when appointing members to the committee. The Nominating Committee and the Dean shall attempt to ensure that all program areas (i.e., biological sciences, social sciences, engineering, etc.) of the College are represented on the Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.
Appointed members shall serve one-year terms and not more than three consecutive one-year terms. Faculty members who have assigned any percentage of their time to an academic administrator position are not eligible for an appointment.
The Dean of the College annually shall appoint a chairperson from among the five elected members.
When an elected member cannot serve, the vacancy will be filled by one of the non-elected candidates in the most recent election. The individual of this group having received the highest number of votes will serve the remainder of the three-year term.
Faculty members on leave of absence, including sabbatical leave, are prohibited from participating in promotion and tenure committees.
In regard to committee voting, members must recuse in advance of any discussion if there is a declared conflict of interest and they are ineligible to vote on that candidate. In circumstances where a review committee may have an even number of members eligible to vote, a tie vote is considered to be a negative recommendation, and the "Not Recommended" block is to be checked on the Promotion and Tenure Form.
II. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Tenure shall be based on the potential for further achievement in the several areas enumerated below as indicated by performance during the provisional appointment.
The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor is sufficient to warrant promotion to associate professor. In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; however, the burden would be on the committee(s) or administrator(s) who wish to separate promotion from a positive tenure decision to show why promotion is not warranted.
All candidates for the rank of assistant professor or higher must have a doctoral degree or terminal degree in their respective profession.
In addition to the University's general criteria (AC-23), the College of Agricultural Sciences Promotion and Tenure Review Committee considers the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty with Extension Appointments in the College of Agricultural Sciences (located in IV of this document); and the following;
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Assistant Professor
Resident Education
The candidate should have potential or demonstrated ability to: (1) use classroom techniques and strategies that foster learning by students, (2) stimulate student interest and creativity, (3) construct fair instruments for evaluation of student academic performance, (4) maintain high academic standards, and (5) impartially and effectively counsel and advise students.
Extension Education
The candidate should have potential or demonstrated creative ability to plan and implement an effective extension education program in his/her field of competency as shown by the candidate's ability to: (1) interpret research and conduct related educational programs including conferences, short courses, winter courses, and correspondence courses, (2) evaluate and analyze problems and program needs of clientele, (3) develop appropriate educational materials, and (4) conduct effective in- service training programs for county-based extension staff.
Associate Professor
Resident Education
In addition to possessing the qualifications for assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated acceptable ability to effectively help students learn as evidenced by teaching experience and performance ratings by students and colleagues. The associate professor ordinarily will have taught graduate courses, advised graduate students, and critiqued student research.
Extension Education
In addition to possessing the qualifications for assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated acceptable ability to (1) exhibit originality and creative ability in designing new extension programs and (2) assess program effectiveness and make modifications as changing needs and/or priorities arise.
Professor
Resident Education
In addition to the established criteria for members of the lower ranks, the candidate must have a proven record of effectiveness in teaching. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (1) the development of instructional techniques and/or educational materials, (2) publications in educational journals, (3) being the recipient of professional and/or honorary awards for teaching excellence, (4) being capable of directing graduate students of all levels, and (5) having teaching accomplishments that have been recognized by colleagues outside the College.
Extension Education (see Appendix A)
In addition to the established criteria for members of the lower ranks, the candidate must have a proven record of effectiveness in extension education programs. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (1) a documented impact of the candidate's educational programs on the clientele, (2) an established outstanding recognition and reputation for an effective education program among regional and national colleagues, and (3) other evidence of the development and production of distinguished achievements in creative program development and delivery.
The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments
Assistant Professor
The candidate should have demonstrated ability to (a) develop scientific hypotheses, (b) properly design and conduct research in acceptable areas, and (c) interpret and publish results within an appropriate time period.
In addition, the candidate should have demonstrated evidence of a thorough under- standing of the basic knowledge of his/her discipline and should be a member of and participate in appropriate professional, technical, industrial, or honorary organizations.
Associate Professor
In addition to possessing the qualifications of the assistant professor, the candidate must have demonstrated ability to effectively organize and direct a productive research program. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) the conduct of independent and cooperative research, (b) research results published in scientific journals and semi-technical or popular articles in other media, (c) financial support obtained for the research program, (d) guidance of independent student study and research, (e) growth in professional competence, and (f) the emergence of a regional and national reputation among peers.
The candidate must have demonstrated continuous growth in scholarship and mastery of the subject matter. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) participation in and presenting papers at professional meetings and workshops, (b) a growing recognition by students, peers, and clientele of his/her above-average academic performance (recipient of special awards and honors, student performance records, patents, consultant record, etc.), and (c) special academic or administrative assignments.
Professor
In addition to the established criteria for members of the lower ranks, the candidate must have established an excellent research program. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) documented evidence of outstanding contributions in research (publications, variety releases, patents, etc.), (b) an outstanding national reputation within the candidate's field of specialization, (c) established outstanding ability to stimulate independent student study and research, and (d) demonstrated effectiveness in acquiring financial support necessary to sustain a viable and productive research program consistent with recognized standards in the discipline.
The candidate must have attained outstanding recognition as an authority in his/her field of specialization. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, such items as (a) presenting invited papers at national and international workshops, symposia and professional meetings, (b) presenting invited seminars at other colleges, universities or learned groups, (c) professional improvement through fellowships, sabbatical study, visiting professorships, (d) membership on regional, national or international professional organization or society committees concerned with policies and priorities, and (e) editorships, lectureships, awards, and honors.
Service and The Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and The Profession
A University is often defined as a community of scholars sharing their collective and individual knowledge with enrolled students as well as with society at large.
The College of Agricultural Sciences acknowledges the need of its members to be involved in service to the University, public outreach service as a representative of the University (especially when it pertains to expertise associated with their field of specialization), and service to their professions.
The College of Agricultural Sciences considers the following criteria in evaluating performance as a service to the University, the public, and the profession:
Service to the University
Candidates for tenure or promotion must have given service to the University community. Service to the University may be shown by but is not limited to, evidence of (a) participation in departmental, College, and University committees and bodies pertaining to governance and function, (b) special academic and/or administrative service assignments, and (c) performance of other services to the University community.
Candidates for tenure or promotion to associate professor should present evidence to show modest service on departmental committees and activities. Candidates for promotion to professor shall present evidence of leadership in departmental and College committees and activities or service in University committees, task forces, or activities.
Outreach Service as a Representative of the University
Candidates for tenure or advancement in rank are encouraged to provide outreach services to the public. This service may be shown by but is not limited to, evidence of (a) professional assistance and consultation to agricultural groups, public organizations, government, and private citizens and (b) service on state, national, or international committees through which the faculty member contributes knowledge, ideas, and leadership.
Service to the Profession
Candidates for tenure or advancement in rank are encouraged to provide service to their professions. This service may be shown by, but is not limited to, evidence of active participation in professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities).
III. College Guidelines for the Review of Teaching
Peer Review of Teaching
The following College Peer Review of Teaching guidelines are meant to be a baseline for developing or refining existing Departmental guidelines for credit and non-credit education. Departmental guidelines must not conflict with college guidelines. In addition, these college guidelines and subsequent Departmental guidelines must be consistently applied across the department and within ranks and clearly communicated to faculty with formal teaching and/or extension appointments. Departments will determine which sources of evidence will be used and how these sources will be reviewed in keeping with the guidelines below.
Departments should make clear what constitutes a course/program peer review observation taking into consideration the mode of delivery. Multiple resources of peer review delivery modes and materials may be used in reviews, as indicated below.
Numerous resources are available to assist departments with developing or refining their peer-review guidelines. For example, Penn State's research-based Elements of Effective Teaching could serve as a foundation for the peer review of teaching for formal and nonformal instruction. In addition, peer reviews should reflect the following recommendations and utilize resources as found on the Schreyer Institute of Teaching Excellence website. Also, Appendix A: Extension Appointments of the College of Agricultural Sciences P&T guidelines provides additional recommendations for faculty with extension appointments.
Frequency of Peer Review
- At a minimum, untenured and unpromoted tenure- and non-tenure-line faculty with a formal teaching or extension appointment will receive a peer review annually for at least one course or extension program.
- Tenured and non-tenure-line faculty who are not fully promoted will receive peer review for at least one course or extension program every two years.
- Fully promoted faculty will receive a peer review for at least one course or extension program every five years.
- In all cases, departments may choose to conduct peer reviews on a more frequent
Selection of Peer Reviewers
- The relevant administrator or designee and the faculty member being reviewed should collaborate to choose reviewers.
- Faculty under review should have the opportunity to submit the names of potential
- Reviewers may be internal or external to the department or College and can serve regardless of rank. Departmental unit guidelines should outline the need for expertise across reviewers. This would include disciplinary or programmatic expertise. Reviewers for extension faculty, holding disciplinary expertise, can be external to the university.
- The faculty member under review may reject a proposed reviewer after consultation with their administrator.
Content of Peer Review
- A summative course/program observation must include in-person peer visitation (for in-person lectures, labs, or presentations) and/or virtual observation for hybrid or synchronous online learning.
- Peer reviews should consider multiple sources of materials for review, including but not limited to access to the course syllabus and/or course/program schedule, lecture notes, slides/videos, and lab instructions used for the class/program, and direct interviews with the faculty member being reviewed. For example, adding peer reviewers to the instructor's CANVAS site or providing access to a "Learn Now video" or a non-credit online course may address many of these multiple sources available for review.
- The content of each peer evaluation should include only evidence-based observations and ideally consist of more than one source of assessment as described That is, the assessment (i.e., evaluations and conclusions) should be tied to corresponding evidence.
- The summative peer review should be promptly shared with the faculty
Review of student feedback
Beginning July 1, 2025, the university established a new mechanism to review student feedback. This replaces the summary of quantitative and qualitative student feedback on teaching effectiveness in formal promotion and/or tenure review materials. See Changes to the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness | Faculty Affairs for details.
Extension appointments do not have their separate evaluation protocols in university level systems and policies. Thus, for the purposes of promotion, the College of Agricultural Sciences recognizes extension effort as either teaching or research, based on the specific activity.
Extension activities that are listed in the teaching section of the dossier are considered teaching for this review purpose. Since SRTE/SEEQ protocols do not apply when evaluating extension activities, faculty must provide appropriate evaluations for these so that the feedback could be summarized. The word "student" in this section refers to clients when it comes to activities in extension teaching scholarship.
For reviews starting AY 2025-26, units at the first level of review (henceforth units) identify two individuals to serve as student feedback reviewers, consistent with the following criteria.
Faculty with any teaching assignment during the evaluation period going up for promotion will provide the unit leader with a list of two or more Penn State faculty members to serve as a reviewer. The unit leader will select one of these individuals and one member of the departmental promotion and tenure committee to serve as student feedback reviewers.
Unit level staff will generate the raw SRTE/SEEQ reports to be used in this process. Reviewers will receive raw SRTE/SEEQ responses for courses taught during the review period and will conduct a review of student feedback considering quantitative and qualitative data. Only responses A1 through A4, from SEEQ evaluations, are to be provided and used in the analysis. All SRTE responses from the review period, both quantitative and qualitative, must be included as part of the review.
The review committee will develop a report of no more than 750 words (about one single-space page) evaluating the candidate's teaching effectiveness derived from the student feedback across the courses taught during the review period. All reviewers must sign the final report. This report will be sent to the unit leader 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 to address the perceived discrepancy.
SRTE/SEEQ quantitative scores will be included in an appendix to the dossier. The delivery mode of the course and the distribution, mode, and median for SRTE/SEEQ items will be provided for each course. All candidates have the option of including raw student data and feedback from
SRTE/SEEQ reports in their supplemental material.
IV. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty Members with Extension Appointments
This statement is provided to assist Unit, College and University Promotion and Tenure Committees in evaluating College of Agricultural Sciences faculty members with total or partial extension appointments. It does not supersede or contradict AC-23 in any way. Those faculty members who have research and/or resident instruction appointments in addition to their extension appointments should also be evaluated on their demonstrated accomplishments appropriate to those functions.
The University promotion and tenure procedures and regulations (AC-23) specify that "the general criteria or principles (outlined here) must be applied (to promotion and tenure decisions) in light of a detailed knowledge of the specific goals of an academic program or organizational unit and the specific qualities and competencies of the individual."
Furthermore, it provides that the three evaluative criteria "must be applied in light of the mission of the academic unit and the professional responsibilities carried out by the faculty member."
Mission of the College of Agricultural Sciences
As an academic college of The Pennsylvania State University, it is the mission of the College of Agricultural Sciences to offer programs in undergraduate, graduate, and extension education, in basic and applied research, and in public service that address:
- Efficient, safe, and profitable production, processing, manufacturing, and marketing of food, agricultural, and forest products;
- Environmentally sustainable management, conservation, and restoration of land, water, air, and renewable natural resources; and
- Improvement in the quality of life for individuals and their families and
Penn State, through its College of Agricultural Sciences, is the only institution in the Commonwealth that provides comprehensive agriculture programs in basic and applied research and undergraduate, graduate, and extension education.
The College is unique to Penn State in that it is part of the federal system of Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension Services with legal authorization and funding under the Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and Smith-Lever Acts.
Mission of Extension
Penn State Extension is a modern educational organization dedicated to delivering science- based information to people, businesses, and communities. We provide access to face-to-face and online education to our customers—when they want it, where they want it, and how they want it—to help them address problems and take advantage of opportunities for improvement and innovation. Partnering with and funded by federal, state, and county governments, we have a long tradition of bringing unbiased support and education to the citizens of Pennsylvania. We make a difference locally through focused engagement and more widely to customers connecting in the digital landscape.
Evaluation of Faculty Members with Extension Appointments
AC-23 emphasizes that "the University's complex organization and multiple missions make these academic judgments (of faculty and academic administrators) vital since no one part of the criteria can apply equally to all faculty members in all programs. Likewise, such diversity within the University entails promotion and tenure arrangements specifically tailored to the mission and organizational structure of its various academic units."
The evaluation of faculty members with extension appointments must reflect the mission of extension; that is, the development and delivery of non-formal and non-degree educational programs to groups and individuals in Pennsylvania and beyond.
Thus, the emphasis in tenure and promotion decisions relative to the extension component of a faculty member's appointment should be on demonstrated abilities in the preparation and delivery of evidence-informed educational materials (such as outreach publications, popular press articles, fact sheets, online guides and resources, web-articles, and videos), non-formal/non-classroom teaching (such as online non-credit courses, webinars, face-to- face meetings, on-farm/site troubleshooting visits, and seminars), scholarship (such as applied research, literature reviews, or investigations on educational methods and effectiveness), collaborative work and activities (among state, regional, national or international collaborators), and service (to the public, university, professional associations, and affiliated industries).
The following defines the relationship between the criteria for evaluation of faculty specified in AC-23 and the faculty member's responsibilities pursuant to his/her extension appointment.
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Teaching by faculty members that fulfills extension responsibilities is generally of a non- formal nature and is usually conducted in the clientele's community, business, home, or property. The audiences are diverse in age, educational background, and interest.
Attendance is voluntary and seldom carries academic credit but may provide continuing education credit.
Training county or regional extension educators through formal train-the-trainer activities (as well as other similar individuals such as business personnel or agency staff) who in turn are teachers of extension clientele or providing extension educators with current best available knowledge on a less formal basis, is encouraged for faculty members with extension appointments.
Faculty members with extension appointments develop educational materials and programs based on the identified needs and problems of their clientele. Materials include a variety of media such as extension publications, PowerPoint presentations, instructional videos, web- based articles, on-demand/short-form videos, virtual tours, computer software, newsletters, and news releases.
Program delivery includes activities such as meetings, demonstrations, webinars, podcasts, online sessions, radio and television interviews, and providing content for news/trade media or other written materials. Presentations may be either one-on-one or to larger audiences.
Programs may be research-based, interdisciplinary, and/or draw upon the expertise of other Penn State colleges as well as resources outside the University. Both formal and non-formal teaching mentorship of graduate, honors, and undergraduate students is encouraged for extension faculty.
Peer and clientele review of extension activities is required to document scholarship of teaching, programs, materials, and methods. Faculty should use the College Guidelines for Peer Review of Teaching to document quality, creativity, and impact of materials developed and programs delivered. This may be accomplished using a variety of evaluation techniques, such as pre- and post-workshop questionnaires for online courses and face-to-face events and peer review of presentations, workshops, or specific extension educational materials (e.g., online products, growers' guides, manuals, workbooks, publications, etc.). Evaluations should emphasize goals, objectives, methods, products, results, and impacts. Regional and county extension staff and extension clientele can be important sources of information to be consulted in the evaluation of faculty members having extension appointments.
Faculty should seek out and facilitate opportunities for diverse and underrepresented stakeholders in their programs.
The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments
Faculty with extension appointments are expected to produce outputs that reflect their scholarly and creative abilities. This includes publication in peer-reviewed journals with authorship and co-authorship clearly defined (as required by AC-23). While this is especially important for faculty with research and extension splits, all extension faculty should share their experience and expertise in this way. AC-23 provides numerous examples of research and creative accomplishments.
It is also expected that they will publish in trade journals, newsletters, extension articles, bulletins, manuals, and other media forms that are read by their clientele.
Faculty members are expected to be members of the graduate faculty, participate in the mentoring and training of graduate students, and guide undergraduate and/or Honors student research projects.
Service and The Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and The Profession
Faculty members with extension responsibilities are intimately involved "in extending specialized knowledge to the University and to the public" (from AC-23).
In addition, they are expected to participate in service to the University, College, and their academic unit. Examples of this at all levels include committee work, guest lecturing, leadership roles, task force involvement, and community service on behalf of the University. It is essential that faculty with extension appointments engage in service activities consistent with their assignment. This includes participation and leadership roles in discipline-oriented and/or extension education professional associations and organizations.
V. Review Procedures
The academic units shall present their candidates' credentials for promotion and tenure to the Dean 90 days prior to the date the materials are due in the Office of Human Resources. The Dean shall inform all faculty in writing immediately after learning this date from the Executive Vice President and Provost.
The College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee and the Dean are charged with the responsibility to adhere to the most recent University Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations (AC-23) and the most recent Administrative Guidelines for AC-23. In addition, the Committee and the Dean will use the criteria specific to the College in arriving at their independent decisions. The Committee's recommendations will be presented to the Dean.
University Administrative Guidelines for AC-23 include several aspects of consultation in the review process. One of those key aspects is below:
"When an administrator differs with the committee at the same level of review -- e.g., the department head and the department committee -- or a committee differs with the administrator at the previous review level--e.g., the college committee and the department 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., a department head would initiate consultation with the departmental review committee and the Dean with the college committee; the college committee would initiate consultation with the department head; and the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee with the Dean). Consultation should be initiated after the previous review has been completed and a recommendation has been made in writing."
Positive recommendations by the Dean for promotion and/or for the granting of tenure shall be forwarded to the Executive Vice President and Provost through the Office of Human Resources for transmittal to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee by the announced date. In a case where the Dean has a negative recommendation, the dossier will go forward to the Executive Vice President and Provost if all other administrative and committee letters in the review process are positive. At the same time, a summary of the general processes followed in the reviews shall be forwarded, as specified in the policy, along with the number of recommendations reviewed and the appropriate supporting information regarding significant instances of differences in judgment.
Negative promotion decisions will be sent to the representative head of the academic unit. If the decision is made not to award tenure, the Dean shall notify the faculty member accordingly in writing.
Associate Professors and Academic Unit Leaders should be discussing and developing a plan for promotion to Professor, ideally on an annual basis and at least every five years. These conversations may occur during annual evaluations and/or in the development of the extended 5-year review (AC 40).
It is recommended that the faculty member prepare relevant materials (could be a draft dossier) for review with the Academic Unit Leader. After review, the Academic Unit Leader will meet with the candidate and discuss the merits of the case for promotion. After the consultation with the unit leader, if the candidate chooses to move forward, a full dossier, including external letters of assessment, may be developed and submitted to the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee for formal review.
In cases where the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee does not recommend promotion and the department head agrees, after consulting with the Dean of the academic unit, the head should discuss with the candidate the advisability of withdrawing the dossier.
Change Log
- Approved by the Faculty November 11, 1992 Revised September 1, 1994*
- Revised September 9, 1998** Revised October 11, 2001 Revised July 3, 2002** Revised September 1, 2005**
- Revised September 3, 2009*** Revised December 17, 2021
- Revised December 16, 2022
- Revised April 6, 2023
- Revised July 1, 2024
- Revised July 1, 2025
