Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research
Policies, Standards and Procedures for Annual Review, Third-year Review, and Tenure and Promotion
Adopted by the department, April, 1996
INTRODUCTION
The professional activities of the faculty of the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research support and advance the principal missions of the department.
These are:
To provide high quality teaching, advising and supervision to students enrolled in department programs.
To produce and disseminate research based knowledge. Such knowledge encompasses original research focusing on new empirical facts, ideas, and theories; scholarship that synthesizes and integrates; the application of knowledge and methods to problems, especially in by not restricted to the public domain; and scholarship that leas to improved teaching and advising.
To provide quality professional service to appropriate units in the university; to the respective disciplines within the unit and relevant cognate fields; to appropriate professional organizations; and to various communities from the local to the global.
The Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research faculty present a great variety of profiles as a function of the roles they play in different contexts and the constituencies they address. To fulfill the functions expected, we deliberately cultivate a complementary of knowledge, skills, and dispositions across our diverse faculty. Teaching, research, and service contributions, therefore, may vary dramatically among faculty within the unit, yet be considered similarly meritorious. Among untenured and tenured professors alike, some may exhibit a profile that prioritizes basic and/or applied research over teaching and service. Others may balance efforts relatively evenly across the three categories. Still others with heavy commitments to professional training programs and/or outreach activities may be expected to allocate proportionately less time to research, because of the labor intensive nature of these activities -- work that can be a precursor to research in these areas. However, all faculty are expected to teach and advise student, provide professional service, and produce scholarly accomplishments; the quantity expected in each area will differ according to the nature and extent of other responsibilities.
Accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service are the principal bases for the allocation of rewards to department faculty, and collegiality is considered within each of these three domains.
Definitions
COLLEGIALITY
The Tennessee Board of Regents defines collegiality as:
Demonstrated willingness and ability to work effectively with colleagues to support the mission of the institution and the common goals both of the institution and academic organizational unit.
While evidence relating to collegiality will be most evident in the category of service, collegiality (or the lack of it) can also affect performance in research and teaching. Collegiality is not separate; collegiality enhances performance in each of these areas. Because the department values teamwork, evidence of collegiality plays a role in faculty evaluation. Given TBR and college guidelines and taking into account the unique mission and demands of the department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research, considerations of collegiality should be made under each of the categories of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.
TEACHING
Teaching encompasses classroom instruction, testing, grading, course development, and mentoring students in academic projects including dissertations. Teaching is central to the purposes and objectives of The University of Memphis, and it should be evaluated, rewarded, and encouraged. The evaluation of teaching should be adaptable to differences among disciplines and should be both formative (to improve teaching skills) and summative (to judge teaching skills.) Since the evaluation of teaching is primarily a qualitative process, multiple sources of evidence should be employed to increase the validity of the evaluation. One source of evidence will be student evaluations, to be obtained for all classes in all program areas for all semesters, including summer sessions. The student evaluation instrument should include a standardized questionnaire with a substantial narrative portion. Sections may be added to address the special nature of the disciplines and the mode of instruction in different classes. Since mentoring students at all levels is important aspect of teaching activities, it should be taken into account in faculty evaluations. Creative and effective use of innovative teaching methods and curricular innovations should be encouraged and constructively evaluated.
The areas appropriate for the evaluation of teaching include, but are not limited to, the following:
Evidence of collegiality in teaching includes:
SCHOLARSHIP
Scholarship is a discipline-based or multi-disciplinary activity that advances the fund of knowledge and learning through production of new ideas and understanding. In the course of advancing scholarship, faculty members demonstrate their scholarly contributions as per the guidelines of the University Task Force on Faculty Roles and Rewards, through products that are appropriate to the discipline and published or presented in a peer-reviewed forum. The principal objectives in the evaluation of research work (as broadly conceived) are to determine the quality and quantity of research activity, its significance, and the extent of its dissemination. Scholarship includes the following four subcategories. There is some overlap in the meaning of the subcategories, and a particular scholarly contribution may fall under more that one subcategory.
Application: The scholarship of application adds to existing knowledge in the process of applying intellectual expertise to the solution of practical problems, and its results in a written product that is shared with other people in the discipline or field of study. The scholarship of application could include activities of the following kind, when such activities result in products open to peer review:
The development of content-based seminars and workshops
The provision of technical assistance
The evaluation of public and private sector institutions, and policies
Inquiry: The scholarship of inquiry involves rigorous investigation aimed at the discovery of new knowledge within one's own discipline or area of study. In many ways, inquiry serves as the basis for other forms of scholarship. Evidence of activity in this area includes peer-reviewed:
Scholarly publications
Funded research
Presentations at professional meetings
Integration: he scholarship of integration makes meaningful connections between previously unrelated topics, facts, or observations. Activity in this area should result in peer-reviewed presentations or publications. Examples are:
Cross-disciplinary synthesis
The conceptualization of an integrative framework within a discipline
Teaching: The scholarship of teaching focuses on transforming and extending knowledge about pedagogy in one's discipline. Innovative contributions to teaching, insofar as they are published or presented in a peer-reviewed forum would also constitute scholarship of teaching. The "scholarship of teaching" is not equivalent to teaching. Classrooms teaching and staying current in one's field are not relevant criteria for evaluating faculty on the "scholarship of teaching." Examples include:
Writing an appropriate textbook or educational article in one's discipline.
Presentations at professional meetings on innovative approaches to teaching in one's discipline.
The forms of scholarly accomplishments appropriate for evaluation of any of the four types of scholarship, include, but are not limited to, the following:
Major accomplishments include original products that have been externally reviewed and are at the national/international level of recognition:
Secondary accomplishments include original products that have been externally reviewed and are at least at the regional level of recognition:
Other accomplishments include:
Evidence of collegiality in research includes:
SERVICE
Service is undertaking activities in the department, college and university, in the profession, or in the community that support the mission of the university. These functions may overlap in some instances. All faculty will perform basic citizenship activities with the department, college, or university. Some faculty may accept more extensive citizenship functions such as a leadership role in the Faculty Senate. Effective and substantial citizenship service should be rewarded. Faculty members are encouraged to perform outreach and professional service in addition to basic citizenship activities, and such service should be rewarded. Service to the profession is manifested by involvement in and service to regional, national, or international professional associations and organizations. Outreach referees primarily to sharing professional expertise with parties outside the university but, under very rare circumstances, may include non-professionally related activities outside the university. Outreach should directly support the goals and mission of the university. Such service needs to be visible, evaluatable, and improvable. Therefore, it is important that when tangible products result from outreach service activities, they can be evaluated by others. Writing up outreach service as a form of scholarship is one way to permit evaluation of the work.
The forms of service appropriate for evaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
Department, college, and university
Professional service
:Outreach service
:Evidence of collegiality in service includes:
Process and Criteria for Evaluation
ANNUAL REVIEW
The basis for annual review is faculty planning. Faculty planning, both short and long term, should begin in the spring during the annual review process, although a formal planning report still will be finalized and submitted at the beginning of the fall semester. This is a joint endeavor carried out by the faculty member and the department chair, and takes into account the departmental mission and needs and academic freedom. Annual planning and report/evaluation should also be part of a cumulative process that culminates in a tenure and promotion file for untenured faculty and a promotion file for those who will be candidates for Professor. This, the consultation between the faculty member and the department chair during the annual review should be focused on assisting the faculty member in planning his or her personal distribution of effort among teaching, scholarship, and service in order to help fulfill the department's mission and goals and also to maximize the likelihood of promotion. However, planning need not be for specific activities or outcomes but for broad objectives and allocation of time. The chair's signature on the planning form indicates the appropriateness of the faculty member's plan. Faculty should keep these materials in a file containing evidence of contributions and accomplishments so that the necessary work to develop a dossier for third-year review and tenure and promotion reviews can be expedited.
It is the faculty member's responsibility to document activities and accomplishments over the previous year when preparing the annual report and submitting it to the department chair. Portfolios prepared for the annual review should include not only a listing of activities and accomplishments but supportive materials as well. Subsequent sections describe required and optional materials to be included.
Peer evaluation will also be a part of the annual review process. For each untenured faculty member, the chair will solicit one or more tenured faculty members to review the untenured member's annual report relative to progress toward tenure. The chair should also seek input, as needed, from qualified faculty to better evaluate the contribution of any faculty member's work. Most typically that input would be from program coordinators but may come from other senior faculty.
The department chair will respond to each annual report with a narrative evaluation as well as a rating of teaching, scholarship, and service and then overall performance. Collegiality as previously defined under the definitions of teaching, scholarship, and service will be considered by the chair when evaluating each component of a faculty member's work. This evaluation is based on the initial planning record in each performance area, areas of emphasis of the faculty member, and specific accomplishments over the year. However, the initial plan is not to be considered a rigid contract. Unforeseen circumstances and opportunities may arise that result in activities, outcomes, or products that differ from those in the original plan. It is this summary of work that is evaluated. The overall rating is not necessarily an average of the performance in the three areas, but should be a holistic evaluation with explicit reference to the relative contribution of each of the three areas. It is important and a matter of fairness that untenured faculty receive clear and consistent communication relative to their annual reports as to their progress towards tenure. The faculty member will review the chair's evaluation and sign the evaluation form if there is agreement with the evaluation. If any faculty member feels that they have been treated unfairly, or that their evaluation was done in an arbitrary fashion, or that the evaluation process was improper, a review by the Dean may be requested.
In years when there are available funds to support merit increases, an overall rating of good or excellent in each performance area would qualify a faculty member to be considered for a merit increase. If no merit increases have been available over preceding years, a faculty member's accomplishments over a multi-year context should be considered.
Evidence of Quality of Teaching: The evaluation of a faculty member's teaching will not be made solely on the basis of material provided in the faculty portfolio. The chairperson may use a variety of sources for evaluation purposes, such as classroom observations, responding to unsolicited complaints and compliments, use of a committee of peers to make judgments about teaching. However, faculty portfolios submitted for the annual evaluation of teaching must include each of the following formal components: student evaluations, and supportive materials for coursework and dissertation and thesis work.
Student evaluations must be obtained in an approved format for each course taught and for each dissertation or thesis committee on which the faculty member serves. Evaluation of dissertation and thesis work is only done after the thesis or dissertation defense.
Supportive materials must be submitted for each course taught and for each dissertation committee chaired. A list of courses taught each semester with the number and level of students enrolled is required (this includes directed readings, practicum, supervised research, special problems, etc.), and an accounting of each student's dissertation progress should be provided. Syllabi for each course taught must also be provided.
In addition, the faculty member may submit the following optional materials:
Formal Courses
Mentoring
Evaluation categories for annual review of teaching: The following four descriptive categories should be used as a guide to evaluate the teaching of faculty members. It is expected that relatively few faculty would receive a rating of excellent and that a rating of unsatisfactory would be given only in circumstances in which the faculty member has demonstrated little or no receptiveness to or demonstrated improvement from feedback. Interpretation of student course evaluations should consider the nature of the course (e.g., a required course versus an elective course).
Excellent: Excellence in teaching is demonstrated by having excellent ratings for the type or course on the approved evaluation form, consistently positive student remarks on the evaluation form, and supportive evidence demonstrating both excellence and commitment to teaching over and above up-to-date syllabi and evidence of remaining current in the teaching area. Syllabi should be of high quality and supported by materials linked to course goals and objectives. Other evidence of excellence in teaching may be excellent peer evaluations of teaching, if peer reviewed; student accomplishments in the form of presentations or publications; or excellent student evaluations of dissertation guidance or other mentoring activities.
Good: Good performance in teaching is manifested by above average ratings for the type of course on the approved evaluation form, positive student remarks on the evaluation form, up-to-date syllabi, evidence of keeping current in the teaching area, and evidence of good mentoring of students. Other evidence may include good peer evaluations of teaching, if peer reviewed; student accomplishments in the form of presentations or publications; or good student evaluations of dissertation guidance or other mentoring activities.
Satisfactory: Satisfactory performance in teaching is evidenced through average evaluations for the type of course on the approved evaluation form, few negative remarks by students on the evaluation form, up-to-date syllabi, and adequate mentoring of students. Other evidence may include average peer evaluations of teaching, if peer reviewed, or average student evaluations of dissertation guidance or other mentoring activities.
Unsatisfactory: Unsatisfactory performance in teaching is manifested by below average evaluations for the type of course on the approved evaluation form, consistent negative remarks by students on the evaluation form, and problems with course syllabi (e.g., not correct, incomplete, not regularly revised.) Other evidence may be poor peer evaluations, if peer reviewed; poor student evaluations of dissertation guidance or other mentoring activities; or little or no regard for student complaints.
Evidence of Quality of Scholarship: As specified by the University Task Force on Faculty Roles and Rewards, normally only peer-reviewed items should qualify as scholarly contributions. Faculty portfolios submitted for the annual evaluation of scholarly accomplishments must include:
Evaluation categories for annual review of scholarship: The following four descriptive categories should be used as a guide to evaluate the annual scholarly accomplishments of faculty members. However, the chair and the faculty member should consider the general pattern of scholarship, the quality of the product, the time assigned, tenure status, and rank. Comparisons should be made not relative to the entire department but to those similarly situated.
Excellent: Excellence in scholarly accomplishments over the preceding year would be evident through a combination of major, secondary, and other accomplishments with supporting evidence indicating a high quality of work. The emphasis is on first authorship and national or international exposure in high quality journals. One example of this combination might be more than one article published in a nations or international journal of high quality, a refereed paper presentation at a national conference, a manuscript under review in a journal of high quality, and other evidence of accomplishments.
Good: Good service exceeds the normal expected level. It typically will be similar to the characterized as excellent, but of somewhat lesser importance, or it may involve fewer activities or activities requiring less time.
Satisfactory: A satisfactory level of service is evidenced by some combination of moderate participation on departmental, college, or university committees, by some outreach, and some level of professional service involvement.
THIRD-YEAR REVIEW
The third-year review is a major midterm evaluation of untenured faculty in tenure-track positions and is conducted at the end of the faculty member's third year of appointment. The purpose of this review is to provide faculty with information about the status of their progress toward promotion and tenure. While this review is required of all untenured tenure-track faculty, exceptions could be made as needed for those faculty who come into the university with years of credit toward tenure. The department chair will initiate the third-year review processor eligible faculty by appointing a Department Third-Year Review Committee during the spring semester After receiving the recommendations of this committee, the department chair will make his/her own recommendations and forward both to the Dean of the College. The department chair will meet with the faculty member to share the recommendations made by the committee and chair and to provide guidance in directing future work. At all levels, the review process should be supportive to the faculty member and focused on enhancing the likelihood of promotion and tenure.
Departmental Third-Year Review Committee: The make-up, function, and processes to be followed by this committee are as follows:
1. This committee will consist of five tenured faculty with the chair appointed by the department chair. It is recommended that the committee membership include recently tenured faculty.
2. The committee chair will assist each faculty member undergoing the third-year review with the preparation of the dossier to be submitted for the review.
3. When all dossiers are complete, the committee chair will notify committee members that they are ready for review and set the date for the first committee deliberations.
4. Deliberations and discussions of dossiers will take place in committee meetings. All discussions will be held in strict confidence and no records will be made of the discussions. If additional information is required by the committee, the committee chair will so request the faculty member to provide it.
5. Discussions should be objective and should adhere to the consideration of the established criteria. Each candidate's accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service should be evaluated with the respect to the quality of accomplishments, not merely quantity, and within the context of the candidate's role and responsibilities.
6. The committee chair will prepare a report, approved by other committee members, that is submitted to the department chair. This report should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member's accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. It should also provide meaningful feedback and direction to the faculty member to assist in planning and organizing subsequent work activities in order to maximize the likelihood of promotion to Associate Professor with tenure.
Dossier for Third-Year Review: The materials prepared and presented for the third-year review should be the same as for promotion consideration with the exception of letters from external peer reviewers. Each faculty member undergoing a third-year review must present a dossier of materials prepared according to the requirements of The University of Memphis Summary Vita and appropriate supporting materials such as the documented evidence of quality in teaching, scholarship, and service listed under Annual Review. Supporting materials must include copies of all publications and summary student evaluations of courses. The inclusion of non-essential documents is discouraged.
Evaluation for Third Year Review: The criteria for the evaluation of the quality of a faculty member's accomplishments over the first three years of appointment should be the same as those for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure although the quantity of work expected is necessarily less. Consideration should also be given to the faculty member's roles and responsibilities. The expectation for scholarship in the first three years of an appointment is for publications in refereed national or international journals and paper presentations at refereed national societies, and there should be evidence of the development of a coherent line of research. While the principal emphasis is on quality, it is recognized that different products and types of research require different time investments; this should be taken into consideration. The quality of the work will be evident in publications, in either leading refereed journals or well-received books. Authorship of books will reduce the number of articles expected. It is expected that quality in teaching should be manifested by at least good evaluation according to the criteria for teaching used in the annual review. While a level of service to various constituencies is expected, given only three years in rank, it must be recognized that newer faculty have not had the length of service necessary to exhibit the levels of involvement and service to the university and professional organizations expected for promotion. The candidate should have demonstrated collegiality and a willingness to work with colleagues in supporting the goals and missions of the department, college, and university.
PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE
The department chair has the responsibility of initiating the promotion to Associate Professor with tenure for eligible faculty in the department, although a faculty member may submit his or her name to the chair. Faculty members must meet the minimum eligibility requirements for Associate Professor with tenure as delineated in the most recent University of Memphis Faculty Handbook. At the beginning of each fall semester, faculty eligible for promotion should be notified by the chair and supplied with copies of the department, college and university guidelines and review forms for promotion and tenure, as well as deadlines for submitting dossiers for promotion. The names of faculty members to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure will be forwarded to the Departmental Advisory Committee for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure. After receiving the recommendations of the Departmental Advisory Committee, the chair will make his/her own recommendation and forward both to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee.
Departmental Advisory Committee for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure: The make-up, function, and processes to be followed by this committee are as follows:
1. This committee is composed of all full-time, tenured department faculty holding the rank of at least Associate Professor with the exception of the department chair and the department representative to the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee
2. The first meeting of this committee will be called each fall by the department chair who will conduct the election of the chair of the committee. Subsequent meetings will be called by the committee chair. It is the responsibility of the committee chair to verify that each candidate's dossier is complete. When all dossiers are complete, the committee chair will notify committee members that they are ready for review and set the date for the first committee deliberations.
3. Committee members will review candidates' dossiers by requesting them from the department chair or secretary. Dossiers may not be removed from the department.
4. Deliberations and discussions of candidate's dossiers will take place in committee meetings. All discussions will be held in strict confidence and no records will be made of the discussions. If additional information is required by the committee, the committee chair will so advise the department chair first and subsequently the candidate.
5. Discussions should be objective and should adhere to the consideration of the established criteria. Each candidate's accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service should be evaluated with respect to the quality of accomplishments, not merely quantity, and within the context of the candidate's role and responsibilities.
6. Voting will be by secret ballot. Three-fourths of the committee membership constitutes a quorum and absent members may vote by proxy. The results of the voting together with a short narrative conveying the major considerations will be given to the chair of the department.
Dossier for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure: Each candidate must present a dossier of materials in support of the promotion prepared according to the requirements of The University of Memphis Summary Vita and appropriate supporting materials such as the documented evidence of quality in teaching, scholarship, and service listed under Annual Review. Supporting materials must include copies of all publications and summary student evaluations of courses. The inclusion of non-essential documents is discouraged.
Letters from external peer reviewers evaluating the candidate's scholarly record must be solicited by the department chair and included with the candidate's dossier when forwarded to the departmental advisory committee and the college committee. Letters from at least six external reviewers must be requested; three from a list provided by the candidate and three selected by the chair in consultation with the Advisory Committee. Such reviewers should be recognized scholars in the candidate's area of research and should not be former mentors, professors, or close colleagues. Every effort should be made to eliminate biases for or against the candidate.
Evaluation for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure: While in rank as Assistant Professor the candidate may have established a pattern of differential effort in teaching, scholarship, and service. This will be taken into account by the department chair and the advisory committee in making a deliberation. To be recommended for promotion to this rank, the candidate must have an established record of high quality research, a record which also suggests that the candidate will have a high probability of being promoted to Professor based on subsequent work done while in this rank. There should also be evidence of having gained regional and/or national recognition for one's scholarship. While the principal emphasis is on quality, it is recognized that different products and types of research require different time investments and should be taken into consideration. The quality of the work will require different time investments and should be taken into consideration. The quality of the work will be evident in publications, in either leading refereed journals or well-received books. Authorship of books will reduce the number of articles expected. The quality of the work is judged by internal faculty assessments and statements from external peer referees. It is also expected that a faculty member promoted to Associate Professor with tenure has demonstrated at least good performance in teaching as described in the annual review criteria. A record of quality of service to the department, college and/or university, professional associations and appropriate communities is also expected. The candidate should have demonstrated collegiality and a willingness to work with colleagues in supporting the goals and missions of the department, college, and university.
PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR
The department chair has the responsibility of initiating the promotion to Professor for eligible faculty in the department although a faculty member may submit his or her name to the chair. Faculty members must meet the minimum eligibility requirements for Professor as delineated in the most recent University of Memphis Faculty Handbook. At the beginning of each fall semester, faculty going forward for promotion should be supplied with copies of the department, college, and university guidelines and review forms for promotion and tenure and deadlines for submitting dossiers for promotion. The names of faculty members to be considered for promotion to Professor will be forwarded to the Departmental Advisory Committee for Promotion to Professor. After receiving the recommendations of the Departmental Advisory Committee, the chair will make his/her own recommendation and forward both to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee.
Departmental Advisory Committee for Promotion to Professor: The make-up, function, and processes to be followed by this committee are as follows:
1. This committee is composed of all full-time, tenured department faculty holding the rank of Professor with the exception of the department chair and the department representative to the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee.
2. The first meeting of this committee will be called each fall by the department chair who will conduct the election of the chair of the committee. Subsequent meetings will be called by the committee chair. It is the responsibility of the committee chair to verify that each candidate's dossier is complete. When all dossiers are complete, the committee chair will notify committee members that they are ready for review and set the date for the first committee deliberations.
3. Committee members will review candidates' dossiers prior to deliberations by requesting them from the department chair or secretary. Dossiers may not be removed from the department.
4. Deliberations and discussions of candidate's dossiers will take place in committee meetings only. All discussions will be held in strict confidence and no records will be made of the discussions. If additional information is required by the committee, the committee chair will so advise the department chair first and subsequently the candidate.
5. Discussions should be objective and should adhere to the consideration of the established criteria. Each candidate's accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service should be evaluated with respect to the quality of accomplishments, not merely quantity, and within the context of the candidate's role and responsibilities.
6. Voting will be by secret ballot. Three-fourths of the committee membership constitutes a quorum and absent members may vote by proxy. The results of the voting together with a short narrative conveying the major considerations will be given to the chair of the department.
Dossier for Promotion to Professor: Each candidate must present a dossier of materials in support of the promotion prepared according to the requirements of The University of Memphis Summary Vita and appropriate supporting materials such as the documented evidence of quality in teaching, scholarship, and service listed under Annual Review. Supporting materials should emphasize accomplishments since the last promotion, and the inclusion of non-essential documents is discouraged. The candidate, in close consultation with the (or department member appointed by the chair), prepares the appropriate review forms and the dossier to be submitted.
Letters from external peer reviews evaluating the candidate's scholarly record must be solicited by the department chair and included with the candidate's dossier before it is forwarded to the departmental advisory committee and the college committee. Letters from at least six external reviewers should be requested; three from a list provided by the candidate and three selected by the chair in consultation with the Advisory Committee. Such reviewers should be recognized scholars in the candidate's area of research and should not be former mentors, professors, or close colleagues. Every effort should be made to eliminate biases for or against the candidate.
Evaluation for Promotion to Professor: While in rank as Associate Professor the candidate may have established a pattern of differential effort in teaching, scholarship, and service. This will be taken into account by the department chair and the advisory committee in making a deliberation. However, for promotion to Professor, distinguished accomplishments and national recognition, as a scholar is required. These accomplishments will have earned the candidate a national or international reputation as attested to in external letters of assessment from expert referees in the discipline. It is also expected that a faculty member promoted to Professor has manifested at least good performance in teaching as described in the annual review criteria. A record of quality of service to the department, college, and/or university, professional associations and appropriate communities is also expected. The candidate should have demonstrated collegiality and a willingness to work with colleagues in supporting the goals and missions of the department, college, and university.