COPEP | College of Science and Engineering | Western Washington University

College Operating Procedures and Evaluation Plan (COPEP)

College Operations & Evaluation Plan (Formerly UEP) Download the current COPEP here.

If you are looking for archived versions of the COPEP, you can find them on the Dossier SharePoint or please contact the dean's office.

The College Operating Procedures and Evaluation Plan (COPEP) supports individual faculty members and the goals of the departments, the College of Science and Engineering (CSE), and Western Washington University. The purpose of this document is to communicate essential elements of the policies and procedures of all College formal evaluation practices as they are conducted within the policies and procedures of the University. The current faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) takes precedence over the COPEP when there is a conflict between the two.

Each department and program shall have well-defined goals and identified priorities to use as a basis for establishing the expectations for individual faculty members. These goals and priorities are expected to align with the mission and the strategic goals of the College. Departments and programs may include criteria, procedures, and specification of the types of materials faculty members should assemble for evaluation within each domain that go beyond the general University and College recommendations. The department-specific and program-specific recommendations, the Department/Program Addenda to the COPEP, must be approved by the Policy, Planning and Budget Council, the Dean, and the Provost prior to their application and inclusion in this document.

COPEP Contents

A. POLICY, PLANNING, AND BUDGET COUNCIL

Charge

PPBC represents the members of the faculty of the College of Science and Engineering. PPBC is responsible for policy and procedures regarding academic quality in the College and advises the Dean on budget and planning. This charge requires that the PPBC be consulted during the process of decisions, and be kept informed about issues affecting academic quality. PPBC receives support as available from the Dean's office for the administration of these duties.

Responsibilities

Reviews and maintains the document setting policies and procedures for the College (the COPEP) and ensures that it is consistent with the faculty CBA.
Approves and upholds the departmental addenda to the COPEP with standards for Annual Review, Tenure and Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review.
CSE Policy, Planning, and Budget Council will review departmental operating procedures and policies for compliance with WWU's CBA, Faculty Handbook, and CSE's COPEP.
Works with the Dean to develop and revise the CSE Strategic Plan consistent with the University's strategic plan and College initiatives.
Advises the Dean on budgetary matters, including allocation of faculty hires.
Appoints College faculty representatives to University committees.
Oversees activity of the other College governance committees: Curriculum[1]; Personnel; Technical Operations[1]; Diversity, Equity and Inclusion[1].
Communicates issues important for academic quality to the faculty of the College and the University Faculty Senate.

Membership

The faculty of each department and program (see below) in the College selects one member for the council. The member shall be a tenure-track or tenured faculty member and shall not be the departmental chair or program director. A faculty member with a joint appointment may represent multiple departments or programs within the college, with the approval of their departments and/or programs, but may only vote once.

A center or group qualifies as a "program" for the purpose of membership when it meets the following criteria: (1) It includes faculty members from different departments with at least 75% of them housed in departments of the College and (2) it has its own criteria or processes for developing curriculum, for review of faculty performance, and/or for hiring tenure-track or non-tenure-track faculty. The current program in the College is the Science, Math, and Technology Education group (SMATE).

The term of service is two years, with approximately half of the membership selected each year. No member shall serve more than six consecutive years.
The Dean and any members of the Dean's office designated by the Dean may be invited to council meetings, but are not voting members of the council.
The Associated Students senators representing CSE are invited to serve as ex-officio non-voting members of the committee.
A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for all business of the council. The council determines its own procedures and officers, typically designating a chair and a secretary at the start of the academic year.

B. CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Charge

The Curriculum and Assessment Committee is the curricular governing body of the College of Science and Engineering. The committee reports to PPBC and advises the Dean.

Responsibilities

Approves all academic courses, programs, and majors within the College.
Makes recommendations to the Dean on curricular matters, including enhancing quality of programs, student outcomes, and efficiency.
Reviews and coordinates assessment procedures of the College, departments, and SMATE.
Collects assessment data from the College units and includes a summary of the data in the annual activity report.
Reports on annual activities to PPBC before the end of spring quarter each year.

Membership

The faculty of each department and program (see below) in the College selects one member for the committee. The member shall be a tenure-track or tenured faculty member and shall not be the departmental chair or program director. A faculty member with a joint appointment may represent multiple departments or programs within the college, with the approval of their departments and/or programs, but may only vote once.

The term of service is two years, with approximately half of the membership selected each year. No member shall serve more than six consecutive years.
A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for all business of the committee. The committee determines its own procedures and officers, typically designating a chair at the start of the academic year.
As delegated by the Dean, the Associate Dean is an ex-officio non-voting member of the committee and is eligible to serve as chair.

C. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE

Charge

The Personnel Committee considers applications forwarded to it by the Dean and makes recommendations to the Dean regarding the following personnel matters in the College of Science and Engineering:

Professional Leave
Tenure and Promotion
Post Tenure Review
Other personnel matters as needed

Responsibilities

Recommends changes in policy or procedures related to the personnel matters above to the Policy, Planning, and Budget Council.
Verifies that standards set in the COPEP, departmental addenda to the COPEP, and the CBA are applied consistently and correctly and that appropriate procedures are followed.
Requests, through the office of the Dean, additional information and/or consultation to make its recommendations.
Reports on annual activities to PPBC before the end of spring quarter each year.

Membership and Procedures

The faculty of each department and program (see below) in the College selects one member for the committee. The member shall be a tenured faculty member and shall not be the departmental chair or program director. A faculty member with a joint appointment may represent multiple departments or programs within the college, with the approval of their departments and/or programs, but may only vote once.

The term of service is two years, with approximately half of the membership selected each year. No member shall serve more than six consecutive years.
A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for all business of the committee. The committee determines its own procedures and officers, typically designating a chair at the start of the academic year.
Members may not view the materials, participate in the discussion of, nor vote on professional leave applications from their department (primary department if jointly appointed) or program. The committee may request that the department chair revise their letter to provide additional details that could offer context for this and subsequent stages of review.
No member shall serve in any quarter in which they have an application under consideration or have a conflict of interest (CBA Section 12) with an application under consideration by CSE Personnel Committee. The department chair will appoint a temporary replacement.

D. TECHNICAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

Function

The committee advises the Dean on planning issues related to the technical facilities and resources of the College of Science and Engineering. Such matters include scientific instrumentation, equipment, computers, laboratories supported by University-level student fees, and physical facilities.

Responsibilities

Reports on annual activities to PPBC before the end of spring quarter each year.
Reviews and ranks annual Student Technology Fee proposals.
Reviews minor capital improvement proposals.
Plans and oversees regular upgrades of faculty and staff office computers.
Develops process for allocating one-time resources to existing needs.
Appoints two College representatives to the Academic Technology Committee (ATC).
Maintains relationships with other campus entities including: Scientific and Technical Services, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the College of the Environment, the Shannon Point Marine Center, and Academic Technology User Services (ATUS).

Membership

The faculty of each department and program (see below) in the College selects one member for the committee. The member shall be a tenure-track or tenured faculty member and shall not be the departmental chair or program director. A faculty member with a joint appointment may represent multiple departments or programs within the college, with the approval of their departments and/or programs, but may only vote once.

The term of service is two years, with approximately half of the membership selected each year. No member shall serve more than six consecutive years.
A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for all business of the committee. The committee determines its own procedures and officers, typically designating a chair at the start of the academic year.

E. ACCESSIBILITY, DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION COMMITTEE

Charge

The Accessibility, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) Committee works to promote and advocate for accessibility, equity, inclusion, and diversity in the College of Science and Engineering. The committee reports to PPBC and advises the Dean.

Responsibilities

Identifies and examines policies and procedures within CSE that promote accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion related to all members of the University community.
Coordinates and collaborates with relevant groups both within and outside of CSE on developing issues related to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The goal is to communicate and engage with other equity stakeholders on campus.
Supports, encourages, and informs department-level efforts related to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Advisement and evaluation of the CSE strategic goals related to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Membership

The faculty of each department and program selects one faculty member, tenured or tenure-track, for the committee. A faculty member with a joint appointment may represent multiple departments or programs within the college, with the approval of their departments and/or programs, but may only vote once.
The ADEI committee includes the two CSE representatives to the Student Senate, and an attempt will be made to fill two at-large student positions.
The term of service for faculty/staff committee members is two years, with approximately half selected each year. The term for student members is one year.
The Associate Dean will support the ADEI committee to determine open at-large positions and facilitate appointments.
Diverse representation, broadly defined, will be prioritized in the selection of at-large members.
A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for all business of the committee.
As delegated by the Dean, the Associate Dean is an ex-officio non-voting member of the committee.

F. DEAN'S ADVISORY COUNCIL

Membership and Function

The Dean's Advisory Council (DAC) consists of all department chairs and program directors in the College of Science and Engineering. DAC is responsible for implementing College policy and may advise the Dean with respect to all matters of common interest to the College.

G. SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE

Charge

The Scholarship Committee reviews applications and selects recipients for scholarships and awards distributed by the College of Science and Engineering. The committee advises the Dean.

Responsibilities

In consultation with the Associate Dean, establishes an annual timeline for application and award of summer research awards and academic year scholarships.
Reviews applications for summer research awards and academic year scholarships.
Ensures that applicants meet all criteria established by the donors and that applications are evaluated fairly.
Makes recommendations to the Dean on awardees for summer research awards and academic year scholarships.

Membership

The faculty of each department and program in the College selects one member for the committee.
The term of service is two years, with approximately half of the membership selected each year. No member shall serve more than six consecutive years.
A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum for all business of the committee.
As delegated by the Dean, the Associate Dean is an ex-officio non-voting member of the committee.

[1] PPBC will respect the intended composition of each committee as defined below. In extenuating circumstances (e.g. substantial proportion of a unit's faculty on leave), Committee Chairs, Department Chairs and/or Program Directors can make a request to PPBC to temporarily adjust the intended criteria for service on the committee. These requests should indicate and justify the type of committee substitution, the timeline for the substitution, and indicate the suitability and willingness of the individual(s) to serve and their contractually permitted status for service.

FACTORS BEYOND THE CANDIDATE’S CONTROL

Faculty under review are encouraged to identify and describe in their dossier personal statements any factors beyond their control that have substantially affected their teaching, scholarship, or service during the review period. Such factors may include, but are not limited to, disruptions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, shifts in external and internal funding priorities or grant availability, loss or lack of critical infrastructure or key personnel, or other institutional or external challenges. In addition to describing the impacts of such factors, faculty are expected to describe how they are adapting or have adapted their teaching, scholarly, or service activities to the disruptive factors. The goal of acknowledging mitigating factors is not to lower standards, but to allow the review process to reflect the real-world context in which faculty activities take place.

POLICY ON THE USE OF AI IN FACULTY EVALUATION

AI cannot replace human judgment, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and professionalism of their reviews. Reviewers may not upload any of the candidate’s dossier materials to any AI platform. Reviewers may only upload their own original content (notes, draft evaluation letters, etc.), provided that anonymity and confidentiality of the contents of the dossier are ensured.

An example of appropriate use of an AI tool is to edit draft letters to improve clarity, which could include spell checking, grammar checking, or other copyediting.

A. REVIEW OF NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

Review/Evaluation Period.For non-tenure track faculty, the review period begins with the start date of the candidate’s current contract. The review period for the first senior instructor merit review begins with the start of the academic year five years prior to the submission of the dossier. The review period for all following senior instructor merit reviews begins with the submission of the dossier for the previous merit review. For all senior instructor merit reviews, it ends with the submission of the dossier for the current review.

Departmental Standards for Evaluation.As described in Section 7.5.7 in the CBA between WWU and UFWW, all faculty will be reviewed according to standards in place September 16 of the academic year in which the review period begins. As outlined in the Guidelines for Dossier Preparation sections of this COPEP, dossiers must include a copy of the COPEP and addenda under which the candidate is reviewed according to CBA Section 7.5.7. In conducting their review, the reviewer should focus solely on these same COPEP and addenda. For senior instructor merit review the September 16, 2024, COPEP shall be used for any review periods beginning before September 16, 2024. Any merit reviews with review periods starting after this date will use standards according to Section 7.5.7. of the CBA.

Preface

The teaching effectiveness of Non-Tenure-Track faculty is essential for the academic mission of departments, the College, and the University. Non-tenure track faculty shall be evaluated by their departmental chair in a manner established by the departmental addendum and on the basis of expectations and duties defined in the contract letter. The timing and frequency of reviews shall be in accordance with the CBA. The CBA takes precedence over the COPEP when there is a conflict between the two.

Review of Instructors and Senior Instructors for Contract Renewal: Responsibilities

The Faculty Member:

Is evaluated annually, or, in the case of a senior instructor, in the last year of their period of appointment.
Provides access to materials required for review as specified in the department and/or program COPEP addendum, the CBA, and the contract letter. At a minimum, units must require student evaluations of instructional quality for at least one section per year for all courses taught.
Receives a copy of the chair’s summary letter and has the opportunity to respond within five business days before it is submitted to the Dean.

The Department Chair:

Reviews the faculty member in a manner established by the department and/or program COPEP addendum, the CBA, and the contract letter.
Prepares a written review.
Shares the review with the faculty member and allows them five business days to respond. Following the faculty member’s response, the department chair will correct any errors of fact.
Forwards the review to the Dean.

The Dean:

Reviews the letter for compliance with departmental and college standards.
Provides a copy of the final letter to the faculty member and the provost.

Merit Review of Senior Instructors: Responsibilities

In the review during the 6th year following the senior instructor’s promotion to Senior Instructor and every six years following this review, the senior instructor will be considered for an award of merit. For senior instructors teaching in multiple departments, the review will be conducted in the department where the majority of their teaching has occurred. Merit review of senior instructors is a separate process from review for renewal of contract. In the event of a positive recommendation on merit, the senior instructor merit review shall take the place of the standard senior instructor evaluation. In the event of a negative recommendation on merit, the chair will complete the standard senior instructor review and address whether the senior instructor met the expectations for a standard evaluation. A negative recommendation of merit may be accompanied by a positive recommendation for renewal.

The Faculty Member:

Provides a dossier for review as specified in the COPEP and department and/or program COPEP addendum that addresses teaching effectiveness during the review period. The dossier should also include evidence relating to non-instructional duties if such duties are specified in the instructor’s contract.
Receives a copy of the chair’s summary letter and has the opportunity to respond within five business days before it is submitted to the Dean.

The Department Chair:

Appoints the senior instructor merit review committee as specified by the department or program addendum. The committee will consist of three department faculty, one of whom may be a senior instructor. The committee will determine by vote whether the senior instructor met or did not meet the criteria for a merit review and will provide their recommendation to the chair using the senior instructor merit review form.
Summarizes the results of the review by the senior instructor merit review committee in a letter and separately provides their own recommendation regarding whether to grant a merit award.
Shares the review with the faculty member and allows them five business days to respond. Following the faculty member’s response, the department chair will correct any errors of fact.
Forwards the review to the Dean.

The Dean:

Reviews the letter for compliance with departmental and college standards.
Makes a final determination regarding the award of merit.
Provides a copy of the final letter to the faculty member and the provost.

Guidelines for Dossier Preparation for Merit Review of Senior Instructors

The electronic dossier (referred to as the dossier in this document) conveys to colleagues and evaluators one's teaching effectiveness. The dossier should also include evidence relating to non-instructional duties if such duties are specified in the instructor’s contract. The dossier must be accurate, complete, well-organized, and professionally presented.

The dossier should include information regarding all teaching (and non-instructional if applicable) activities and accomplishments pertinent to performance during the review period, with sufficient detail to enable the reviewers to conduct a complete assessment of the faculty member’s performance. The activities must include contributions to and efforts toward creating an accessible, diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning environment.

At a minimum, the dossier must contain the elements listed below. Departmental or program standards govern the details of dossier preparation and may require additional elements.

Copies of contract letters spanning the period of the current review
Departmental Standards

COPEP and addendum/addenda relevant for the review

Previous letters of evaluation from the chair received over the period of the current review, including the letter from the most recent merit review, if applicable
Teaching

Teaching reflection
Student evaluations of instructional quality for at least one section per year for all courses taught

Non-instructional activities that are part of the faculty member’s contract (if applicable)

Document summarizing performance in these activities

B. ANNUAL EVALUATION OF PROBATIONARY FACULTY

Review/Evaluation Period. For probationary faculty, the review period begins with the candidate’s start date in their current position.

Departmental Standards for Evaluation. As described in Section 7.5.7 in the CBA (CBA version 2023-27) between WWU and UFWW, all faculty will be reviewed during any review according to standards in place on September 16 of the academic year in which the review period begins. As outlined in the Guidelines for Dossier Preparation sections of this COPEP, dossiers must include a copy of the COPEP and addenda under which the candidate is reviewed according to CBA Section 7.5.7. In conducting their review, the reviewer should focus solely on these same COPEP and addenda.

Preface

The probationary period is a time when the department chair and faculty focus on providing regular feedback to the probationary faculty member regarding their progress toward tenure and promotion through the probationary faculty evaluation process. Reasonable support and encouragement will be provided to ensure that areas needing further attention to meet departmental, program (if relevant), College, and University requirements for tenure and promotion are identified and addressed.

All probationary tenure-track faculty will be reviewed annually. The chair’s annual letter of evaluation will summarize the faculty and department chair’s assessment of the probationary faculty member’s progress toward meeting expectations and contributions to the department. The timing of the review shall be in accordance with the CBA. The CBA takes precedence over the COPEP when there is a conflict between the two. Probationary faculty will be reviewed according to the COPEP in effect on September 16 of the year of their hire.

Evaluations of probationary faculty indicate success, or failure, in progress on a trajectory leading to meeting requirements for tenure. They do not, directly, indicate whether or not a candidate has already met such requirements.

Responsibilities

The Candidate:

Reviews the CBA, COPEP, departmental COPEP addendum, and program COPEP addendum (if relevant).
Prepares a collection of files for review in the dossier (not required in the first year of appointment) by the end of January; see Guidelines for dossier preparation below.
Meets with the department chair to discuss standards, goals, and the letter summarizing the review. If necessary, the candidate has five working days to respond to errors of fact in a letter addressed to the Dean and submitted to the chair. This letter will be included with the material forwarded to the Dean.

The Tenured Department Faculty:

Required to participate in the review process and complete the review form, including an individual written assessment, by a date set by the department that is no later than February 15. Completed review forms must address the candidate’s progress towards tenure and clearly document any deficiencies. Ratings given on the form must be consistent with the rating scale and the written assessments.

The Department Chair:

Advises the candidate and faculty of the review and upcoming deadlines by December 15.
Writes a letter summarizing the review, including assessment of the dossier and summary of department faculty evaluation and recommendations for or against renewal for candidates beyond the first year of appointment. The chair’s letter to the Dean shall include a complete and substantial assessment of the candidate’s dossier and recommend for or against renewal, as well as evaluate the candidate’s progress towards tenure. The chair’s letter should not directly state the candidate’s preparedness for promotion in the upcoming year. If disparities exist among the individual written faculty evaluations, the chair must include an assessment that reflects the basis of these disparities.

In instances when serious deficiencies arise that could lead to future non-reappointment, the review letter must explain the following: the specific deficiencies, planned measurements that will determine whether the deficiencies have been remedied, and the time frame allowed for correction.

Meets with the tenured faculty of the department, or a subset of tenured faculty as specified in the department addendum, to review a draft of the letter. This meeting will be purely informational and no vote will be taken. The chair may revise the letter based on feedback from the tenured faculty.
Meets with the candidate to discuss standards, goals, and a timeline for applying for tenure.
Shares the letter with the candidate and allows them five working days to correct errors of fact.
Forwards the chair’s letter and the candidate’s response letter (if submitted) to the Dean.

The Dean:

Notifies each department chair of the probationary faculty in the department to be reviewed.
Annually sets dates for the submission of the evaluation letters by the department chairs.
Receives and reviews the department chair’s letter of evaluation to verify compliance with department and college standards.
Provides a copy of the final letter to the candidate and the Provost by March 15.
Works with the department chair to provide support to the candidate toward achieving tenure and promotion.

Guidelines for Dossier Preparation for Annual Review of Probationary Faculty

The electronic dossier (referred to as the dossier in this document) conveys to colleagues and evaluators one's involvement and accomplishments in the varied functions of the University and the profession. It is critical that the dossier be accurate, complete, well organized, and professionally presented.

The dossier should include information regarding all activities and accomplishments pertinent to performance during the review period, with sufficient detail to enable the reviewers to conduct a complete assessment of the faculty member’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. It is recognized that some valued professional activities will not fit neatly into one of the three categories (teaching, scholarship, and service) and that others may involve more than one of the categories.

Within the teaching category, the activities must include contributions to and efforts toward creating an accessible, diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning environment as specified in the department or program addendum.

The dossier materials are organized into the six primary folders described below and consist of a collection of files for review. The faculty member’s name and department should be clearly indicated. The sections of the dossier must be organized in the following manner:

Curriculum Vitae
Departmental Standards

COPEP and addendum/addenda in effect on September 16 of the academic year of their hire in the current position.

Previous letters of evaluation from the chair
Teaching

personal reflection
peer observations
student evaluations
course materials
other materials related to teaching

Scholarship and/or creative activity

personal reflection
copies of published papers
grant proposals (funded and unfunded, including reviews)
other scholarly contributions such as conference proceedings, posters, abstracts, reports, etc.

Service

personal reflection
other materials related to service

Details of Sections:

The Curriculum Vitae should allow readers to become familiar with the candidate’s background and the activities and accomplishments in teaching, scholarship and service, and make clear the period of time for which the candidate is evaluated. The CV should include the following information:

a) Background. Documents the education, employment, and honors or awards of the candidate.

b) Teaching. Documents all relevant teaching activities conducted by the candidate as defined by the department’s COPEP addendum. For instance, it could include classes taught, students advised, and curriculum developed. The candidate should clearly identify the teaching activities conducted during the review period.

c) Scholarship. Documents all relevant scholarly work conducted by the candidate, including scholarly publications, grants, scientific presentations, technical reports, and other documents. The candidate should clearly identify the scholarship activities conducted during the review period.

The publications listed for the review period should identify the following:

Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications.
Unambiguous publication status (accepted, in review, etc.).
Relative contribution from the candidate to each collaborative publication (in parentheses after the publication citation).
Graduate and undergraduate co-authors and contributors.

d) Service. Documents all relevant service activities conducted by the candidate for the institution, the profession, and the community as defined by the department’s COPEP addendum. For instance, the institutional component could include departmental, colleges, and university committees in which the candidate served and efforts taken to advance the department, college, and university's diversity, equity, and inclusion goals; the professional component could include task forces or panel reviews in which the candidate served or reviews of grant proposals and of manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals as well as other committee or editorial work for professional organizations; the community component could include outreach activities in which the candidate engaged. The candidate should clearly identify all the service activities conducted during the review period.

The Departmental Standards section should include a copy of the section of the department’s current COPEP addendum relevant to tenure review and/or promotion review. If the candidate is also a member of a College program, such as SMATE, a copy of the section of the program’s relevant COPEP addendum should be included as well.
Previous letters of evaluation from the chair should be included in a single folder.
Teaching. The teaching folder should include all relevant materials documenting the teaching activities conducted by the candidate as defined by the department’s COPEP addendum. These must include:

a) A teaching reflection supporting the assertion that they are an effective teacher, which may include assessing their growth as teacher, including strengths and areas for improvement, responses to feedback, and describing future teaching goals. Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include students’ gains, teaching methods employed, use of teaching practices, and other contributions to increase equity and inclusion, and teaching innovations and curriculum developed pertinent to the review period. Self-reflections from previous dossiers should not be included.

b) The departmental teaching feedback forms completed by faculty observers during the review period and provided to the candidate after being observed.

c) All student evaluations, including comments, for all classes taught during the review period.

d) Course materials that demonstrate teaching effectiveness. Examples include pre- and post-course test scores and other assessments of student learning, syllabi, course materials, curriculum development and innovation, and samples of student work.

Scholarship and/or creative activity. The scholarship folder should document all relevant scholarly work conducted by the candidate. This must include a scholarship reflection and other materials supporting the candidate's scholarship activity.

a) A scholarship reflection must be included. This reflection should support the assertion that they engaged in productive scholarship or creative activity, assess the achievements and impacts of their scholarship or creative activity, and describe future research directions and goals. Examples in disciplinary research and/or in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion within a specific professional field could include publications, grants, conference presentations, and technical reports. Reflections from previous evaluations should not be included.

b) Other materials that should be included are:

copies of all scholarly publications since the original appointment as defined by the departmental COPEP addendum (do not include entire books or journals),
copies of grant proposals and grant reviews (funded and unfunded)
other scholarly contributions such as conference presentations, posters, abstracts, technical reports, etc. Evidence of these contributions, such as conference proceedings, tables of contents, email confirmation, etc., must be included.

Service. The service folder must include a service reflection. It can also include other materials that document the candidate's service contributions to the department, college, university, profession, and community.

a) A service reflection supporting the assertion that they actively participated in service, assessing their specific contributions to the service activities listed in the curriculum vitae and pertinent to the review period, and describing future service goals. These contributions could include, but are not limited to, participation in workshops or other professional development activities, service to the department, college, university, and/or profession, engaging in outreach, including to underserved communities, and efforts to improve campus and department climate. Reflections from previous evaluations should not be included.

b) Other materials related to service.

C. TENURE AND PROMOTION

Review/Evaluation Period. When applying for promotion to associate professor, the review period begins with the candidate’s start date in their current position. When applying for promotion to (full) professor, the review period begins with the submission of the dossier for the successful promotion to associate professor or date of hire, whichever is more recent. For both cases, it ends with the submission of the dossier for the current promotion.

Departmental Standards for Evaluation. As described in Section 7.5.7 in the CBA between WWU and UFWW, all faculty will be reviewed during any review according to standards in place on September 16 of the academic year in which the review period begins. As outlined in the Guidelines for Dossier Preparation sections of this COPEP, dossiers must include a copy of the COPEP and addenda under which the candidate is reviewed according to CBA Section 7.5.7. In conducting their review, the reviewer should focus solely on these same COPEP and addenda.

Preface

The purpose of tenure is to free the faculty to teach, inquire, create, publish, and serve with intellectual integrity and a commitment to the advancement of knowledge. For this reason, the granting of tenure carefully limits the conditions under which a faculty member can be removed from their position. The granting of tenure must, therefore, be the result of a fair and full evaluation of the candidate’s credentials according to the best judgment of the faculty and administration.

When a candidate applies for promotion, the total professional profile of the individual will be considered. In evaluating these accomplishments, it is recognized that each case is unique and discretion must always be allowed. Decisions shall be based on reasoned judgment rather than set formulas.

The review process and receipt of the President’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees is to be completed by March 15. The timing of the review shall be in accordance with the CBA. The CBA takes precedence over the COPEP when there is a conflict between the two.

Responsibilities

The Candidate:

Reviews the CBA, COPEP, department COPEP addendum, and program COPEP addendum (if relevant).
Prepares a collection of files for review in the dossier; see Guidelines for Dossier Preparation below.
Meets with the department chair to discuss the letter summarizing the review. If necessary, the candidate has five working days to respond to errors of fact in a letter addressed to the Dean and submitted to the chair. This letter will be included with the material forwarded to the Dean.

The Tenured Department Faculty:

Participate in the review process, complete the review form, including an individual written assessment, including the vote for or against tenure. Ratings given on the form must be consistent with the written comments and should be consistent with the annual reviews the tenured faculty member had submitted for the candidate.

The Department Chair:

Begins the process of requesting external review letters during the previous spring quarter if external reviews are required, as specified by the department COPEP addendum.
Writes a letter summarizing the review and completes the “Chair’s Summary of Departmental Evaluation of Candidate for Tenure and/or Promotion” form. The letter must include a summary of department faculty evaluations and any external evaluations, the departmental vote (based upon the review forms), an assessment of the candidate’s file, and a recommendation for or against tenure. The chair’s evaluation must be comprehensive and detailed and should describe the candidate’s performance in the context of the department and the discipline. The criteria for judgments of teaching, scholarship, and service should be clear. Specific evidence—such as quotations, summaries of letters, numerical data, and information about scholarly venues—should be offered for all judgments (see Guidelines for Chair’s Evaluation of Candidates for Tenure and Promotion in the Guidelines for Letters section of the COPEP). If disparities exist among the individual written faculty evaluations, the chair must include an assessment that reflects on the basis of these disparities.
Meets with the tenured faculty of the department, or a subset of tenured faculty as specified in the department addendum, to review a draft of the letter. The chair may revise the letter based on feedback from the tenured faculty.
Shares the letter with the candidate and allows them five working days to correct errors of fact.
Makes available the candidate’s dossier, external review letters (if required by the department addendum), department faculty recommendations, chair’s letter, and the candidate’s response letter (if submitted) to the Dean.

The Dean:

Informs the department chairs and faculty of the deadline dates for the various steps of the tenure and promotion process.
Makes the candidate’s dossier available, as well as evaluations by individual faculty members, the department chair’s letter, and the candidate’s response letter (if submitted) available to the Personnel Committee.
Upon receipt of the committee’s recommendation, reviews the candidate’s dossier and the recommendations in order to make a recommendation to the Provost.
Writes a letter summarizing the review.
Shares the letter and the Personnel Committee’s recommendation with the candidate and the department chair, and allows the candidate five working days to correct errors of fact.
Makes available the candidate’s entire dossier, as well as all recommendations, and the candidate’s response letter (if submitted) to the Provost.
Appoints, in consultation with the department faculty, a tenured faculty member to evaluate/summarize the application when a department chair applies for promotion.

The Personnel Committee:

Receives all materials for its consideration through the office of the Dean and, through the office of the Dean, requests additional information and/or consultation with the department chair if desired. In order to confirm that the department’s evaluation conforms to the standards specified in the addendum, the committee will evaluate the dossier relative to the CBA, COPEP, and departmental addendum to the COPEP.
Deliberates in closed session and makes its judgment as to each candidate’s qualifications for tenure and/or promotion following the criteria for each rank outlined in the COPEP, and the departmental addendum to the COPEP. Following this judgment, the committee forwards its final written recommendations, with copies for the candidate and the departmental chair, the bases for those recommendations in each of the areas of teaching, scholarship and service, and the results of the committee’s vote on the candidate to the Dean. In keeping with the CBA (section 7.7.2.3), any Personnel Committee member who is also a member of the candidate’s department, or holds a joint appointment in the candidate’s department, or has another conflict of interest as defined in the CBA, is recused and shall not participate in any way in the candidate’s review.
Reports any recommendations for changes in the procedures to the Policy, Planning, and Budget Council.

Guidelines for Dossier Preparation for Tenure and Promotion

The electronic dossier (referred to as the dossier in this document) conveys to colleagues and evaluators one’s involvement and accomplishments in the varied functions of the University and the profession. It is critical that the dossier be accurate, complete, well-organized, and professionally presented.

The dossier should include information regarding all activities and accomplishments pertinent to performance during the review period, with sufficient detail to enable the reviewers to conduct a complete assessment of the faculty member’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. It is recognized that some valued professional activities will not fit neatly into one of the three categories and that others may involve more than one of the categories.

Within the teaching category, the activities must include contributions to and efforts toward creating an accessible, inclusive, and equitable learning environment as specified in the department or program addendum.

Curriculum Vitae.
Departmental Standards.

COPEP and addendum/addenda as specified in the preamble to COPEP section III.C

Teaching

personal reflection
peer observations
student evaluations
course materials
other materials related to teaching

Scholarship and/or creative activity

personal reflection
copies of published papers
grant proposals (funded and unfunded, including reviews)
other scholarly contributions such as conference proceedings, posters, abstracts, reports, etc.

Service

personal reflection
other materials related to service

Letters of support (optional)

Details of Sections:

The Curriculum Vitae should allow readers to become familiar with the candidate’s background and the activities and accomplishments in teaching, scholarship and service, and make clear the period of time for which the candidate is evaluated. The CV should include the following information:

a) Background. Documents the education, employment and honors or awards of the candidate.

The publications listed for the review period should identify the following:

Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications.
Unambiguous publication status (accepted, in review, etc.).
Relative contribution from the candidate to each collaborative publication (in parentheses after the publication citation).
Graduate and undergraduate co-authors and contributors.

d) Service. Documents all relevant service activities conducted by the candidate for the institution, the profession, and the community as defined by the department’s current COPEP addendum. For instance, the institutional component could include departmental, colleges, and university committees in which the candidate served and efforts taken to advance the department, college, and university's diversity, equity, and inclusion goals; the professional component could include task forces or panel reviews in which the candidate served or reviews of grant proposals and of manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals as well as other committee or editorial work for professional organizations; the community component could include outreach activities in which the candidate engaged. The candidate should clearly identify all the service activities conducted during the review period.

The Departmental Standards section should include a copy of the section of the department’s current COPEP addendum relevant to tenure review and/or promotion review. If the candidate is also a member of a College program, such as SMATE, a copy of the section of the program’s relevant COPEP addendum should be included as well.
Teaching. The teaching folder should include all relevant materials documenting the teaching activities conducted by the candidate as defined by the department’s COPEP addendum. These must include:

a) A teaching reflection supporting the assertion that they are an effective teacher, which may include assessing their growth as a teacher, including strengths and areas for improvement, responses to feedback, and describing future teaching goals. Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include students’ gains, teaching methods employed, use of teaching practices, and other contributions to increase equity and inclusion, and teaching innovations and curriculum developed pertinent to the review period. Self-reflections from previous dossiers should not be included.

b) The departmental teaching feedback forms completed by faculty observers during the review period and provided to the candidate after being observed.

c) All student evaluations, including comments, for all classes taught during the review period.

Scholarship and/or creative activity. The scholarship folder should document all relevant scholarly work conducted by the candidate. This must include a scholarship reflection and other materials supporting the candidate's scholarship activity.

b) Other materials that should be included are:

copies of all scholarly publications during the review period as defined by the departmental COPEP addendum (do not include entire books or journals),
copies of grant proposals and grant reviews (funded and unfunded)
other scholarly contributions such as conference presentations, posters, abstracts, technical reports, etc. Evidence of these contributions, such as conference proceedings, tables of contents, email confirmation, etc., must be included.

Service. The service folder must include a service reflection. It can also include other materials that document the candidate's service contributions to the department, college, university, profession, and community.

b) Other materials related to service.

The Letters of Support section is optional, but may be used to help describe the value and contribution of the candidate’s activities in teaching, scholarship and/or service. These materials are recognized as useful; however, letters in support of scholarship will not satisfy the requirement for external letters of review, if such a requirement exists in the department.
The requirement of the External Letters section is defined in the candidate’s departmental addendum to the COPEP. If external letters are required, they will be made available to the department faculty for review and included in the dossier by the department’s chair upon forwarding to the College.

D. ANNUAL TENURED FACULTY CONSULTATION

Tenured faculty of the College meet annually with their department chairs for informal consultation. The consultation is designed to facilitate more informed discussions between the chairs and the Dean regarding departmental matters, including ways to contribute to individual faculty growth.

E. POST-TENURE REVIEW

Preface

Review/Evaluation Period. For post-tenure review, the review period begins with the submission of the dossier for the previous successful promotion or post-tenure review; it ends with the submission of the dossier for the current review.

The Post-Tenure Review is based on performance during the review period in the areas of teaching effectiveness, scholarly activity, and service to the institution and profession. Faculty shall be evaluated based on departmental standards for their rank. These departmental standards shall provide for flexibility to allow for fluctuations in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service across the career life cycle of the individual faculty member. The CBA takes precedence over the COPEP when there is a conflict between the two.

Responsibilities

The Candidate:

Reviews the CBA, COPEP, department COPEP addendum, and program COPEP addendum (if relevant).
Prepares a collection of electronic files with materials since the last review or promotion; see Guidelines for Dossier Preparation below.
Meets with the department chair to discuss standards, goals, and the letter summarizing the review. If necessary, the candidate has five working days to respond to errors of fact in a letter addressed to the Dean and submitted to the chair. This letter will be included with the material forwarded to the Dean.

Failure to submit a PTR file, or submitting it after departmental deadlines, constitutes failure of the post tenure review.

The Department Faculty:

Tenured faculty members are required to participate in the review process and complete the review form by a date set by the department. The candidate should be evaluated as meeting department standards, exceeding department standards, or not meeting department standards in areas of teaching, scholarship, and service based on departmental standards.

The Department Chair:

Advises the candidate and faculty of the review and upcoming deadlines.
Writes a letter summarizing the review, including an assessment of the dossier and summary of department faculty evaluations. If disparities exist among the individual written evaluations, the chair must include an assessment that reflects the basis of these disparities.
Meets with the candidate to discuss standards, goals, and the letter summarizing the review.
Shares the letter with the candidate and allows them five working days to correct errors of fact.
Makes available the candidate’s dossier, department faculty recommendations, chair’s letter, and the candidate’s response letter (if submitted) to the Dean.

The Dean:

Makes available to the Personnel Committee the candidate’s dossier, as well as evaluations by individual faculty members, the department chair’s letter, and the candidate’s response letter (if submitted).
Reviews the candidate’s dossier, upon receipt of the committee’s recommendation, and makes a final evaluation. A copy of the evaluation will be sent to the candidate and the department chair.
Makes available the evaluation to the Provost.

Personnel Committee:

Reviews the candidate's dossier, evaluations by individual faculty members, and the chair’s summary letter, and evaluates the candidate’s performance, based on departmental standards, as meeting department standards, exceeding department standards, or not meeting department standards in areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, and forwards its recommendation to the Dean.

Guidelines for Dossier Preparation for Post-Tenure Review

The electronic dossier (referred to as the dossier in this document) conveys to colleagues and evaluators one's involvement and accomplishments in the varied functions of the University and the profession. It is critical that the dossier must be accurate, complete, well-organized, and professionally presented.

It is recognized that some valued professional activities will not fit neatly into one of the three categories and that others may involve more than one of the categories.

Curriculum Vitae.
Departmental Standards.

COPEP and addendum/addenda as specified in the preamble to COPEP section III.E

Teaching

personal reflection
peer observations
student evaluations
course materials
other materials related to teaching

Scholarship and/or creative activity

personal reflection
copies of published papers
grant proposals (funded and unfunded, including reviews)
other scholarly contributions such as conference proceedings, posters, abstracts, reports, etc.

Service

personal reflection
other materials related to service

Letters of support (optional)

Details of Sections:

The Curriculum Vitae should allow readers to become familiar with the candidate’s background and the activities and accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service, and make clear the period of time for which the candidate is evaluated. The CV should include the following information:

a) Background. Documents the education, employment, and honors or awards of the candidate.

The publications listed for the review period should identify the following:

Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications.
Unambiguous publication status (accepted, in review, etc.).
Relative contribution from the candidate to each collaborative publication (in parentheses after the publication citation).
Graduate and undergraduate co-authors and contributors.

The Departmental Standards section should include a copy of the section of the department’s current COPEP addendum relevant to post-tenure review. If the candidate is also a member of a College program, such as SMATE, a copy of the section of the program’s relevant COPEP addendum should be included as well.
Teaching. The teaching folder should include all relevant materials documenting the teaching activities conducted by the candidate as defined by the department’s COPEP addendum. These must include:

a) A teaching reflection supporting the assertion that they are an effective teacher, which may include assessing their growth as teacher, including strengths and areas for improvement, responses to feedback, and describing future teaching goals. Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include students’ gains, teaching methods employed, use of teaching practices and other contributions to increase equity and inclusion, and teaching innovations and curriculum developed pertinent to the review period. Self-reflections from previous dossiers should not be included.

b) The departmental teaching feedback forms completed by faculty observers during the review period and provided to the candidate after being observed.

c) All student evaluations, including comments, for all classes taught during the review period.

d) Course materials that demonstrate teaching effectiveness. Examples include pre- and post-course test scores and other assessment of student learning, syllabi, course materials, curriculum development and innovation, and samples of student work.

Scholarship and/or creative activity. The scholarship folder should document all relevant scholarly work conducted by the candidate. This must include a scholarship reflection and should include other materials supporting the candidate's scholarship activity.

b) Other materials that should be included are:

copies of all scholarly publications since the original appointment as defined by the departmental COPEP addendum (do not include entire books or journals),
copies of grant proposals and grant reviews (funded and unfunded)
other scholarly contributions such as conference presentations, posters, abstracts, technical reports, etc. Evidence of these contributions, such as conference proceedings, tables of contents, email confirmation, etc., must be included.

Service. The service folder must include a service reflection. It can also include other materials that document the candidate's service contributions to the department, college, university, profession, and community.

b) Other materials related to service.

The Letters of Support section is optional and allows colleagues and students to describe the value and contribution of the candidate’s activities in teaching, scholarship and/or service.

F. REVIEW OF TENURE TRACK FACULTY WITH JOINT APPOINTMENTS

For tenure-track faculty with joint appointments, the following additional steps apply to probationary faculty review, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review processes.

After the candidate submits their dossier, as per procedures outlined above:

Faculty in the secondary unit:

Conduct an expedited review of the candidate’s dossier, focusing on courses taught in the secondary department and scholarship and service related to the secondary department’s mission and activities.
Send their feedback to the chair or director of the secondary unit at least 10 working days before individual faculty letters are due to the chair in the home department.

*If there are other faculty jointly appointed between the same home department and secondary unit of the candidate, those faculty members participate ONLY in the process outlined for home department faculty members, not the process outlined here, to ensure their feedback is not double-counted.

The chair/director of the secondary unit:

Conducts their own expedited review as outlined above, except in the case where they are jointly appointed in the same home department as the candidate. In this case, they conduct their review using the same process as all other faculty in that department.
Summarizes the secondary unit faculty members’ feedback, and separately their own feedback. In the case that the chair/director of the secondary unit is jointly appointed in the same home department as the candidate, the chair/director withholds their own feedback on this letter, as it will be represented in the home department’s chair’s letter. In such cases, this must be outlined clearly in the secondary department chair’s/director’s summary letter.
Sends the summary letter to the candidate at least 8 working days before individual faculty letters are due to the chair in the home department, and gives the candidate at least 3 working days to identify any errors of fact.
Corrects any errors of fact, then sends the summary letter to the home department chair.

The home department chair:

Uploads the secondary department’s summary letter to the candidate’s dossier at least 5 working days before individual faculty letters are due to the chair in the home department.
Notifies home department faculty to review the letter and gives faculty members who have already written their reviews a chance to change them to incorporate this new information.
Incorporates information from both units in their summary letter.

A. GUIDELINES FOR INTERNAL FACULTY EVALUATIONS

It is the responsibility of each person conducting an evaluation for any of the purposes described in this document to seek and obtain sufficient evidence upon which to base a judgment, and to describe the bases for their judgment when requested to do so. Where sufficient evidence to make an informed judgment is not available, the evaluator should abstain from making a judgment and state reasons for doing so. Refer to the appropriate section above.

Records of faculty evaluations are closed to the public, meaning that they remain available only to the committee and administrators making the decision until the review is complete. Candidates under review do not have access to the votes or written comments of individual reviewers until the review process is complete. After the completion of the review process, state law allows the candidate to request access to the written review materials submitted by internal faculty members.

B. GUIDELINES FOR EXTERNAL LETTERS

Rationale

External letters can be used to position a candidate’s research and scholarship within the larger world of their discipline or sub-discipline.

External letters provide university-level tenure and promotion review teams—as well as department colleagues whose specialties reflect varying paradigms—with additional, independent assessment of candidates' career contributions. External letters broaden the positions that can be represented in schismatic disciplines. Their use can also enhance the ability of the Personnel Committee to ensure a uniform standard is being applied to candidates from all departments.

In some disciplines, external letters are standard practice among major institutions. Having an option to use these letters may be attractive for some departments.

Recommendation

Individual departments should vote on whether or not to make procuring outside letters standard procedure within that department, recognizing that the process will be more useful in some disciplines than in others. In departments where outside letters are not made part of the standard tenure and promotion dossier, individual candidates may request that the chair obtain outside letters.

If external letters of review are used, departments should follow this procedure:

Outside Reviewers. There should be a minimum of three letters of external review. The candidate will suggest a slate of reviewers, with an associated rationale and relationship to the candidate for each. The department chair will select three reviewers. Two are from the candidate’s list, unless fewer than two are available. The department chair will then follow through on the external review process and is responsible for soliciting the outside letters in a timely fashion.

Reviewers should be selected for their knowledge of the candidate's field and ability to offer an objective analysis of the candidate's position in it. The list of reviewers is not to include mentors or co-authors.

Standard Letters. Each department should develop a standard letter to use in requesting outside reviews; these letters should address criteria for tenure and promotion at Western Washington University should include a copy of the departmental standards for tenure and promotion.

The letter should include a request for the reviewer to provide an abbreviated curriculum vitae and a statement of their relationship to the candidate.

The external review should assess the candidate's impact on the discipline as well as the likelihood of future significant contributions to the discipline. The chair will instruct the external reviewers not to provide an opinion about the likelihood of candidates with similar records being promoted at institutions similar to Western.

Confidentiality. Every effort should be made to keep the outside letters confidential. In particular, they are not to be given to the candidate. The chair will provide the candidate with a written summary of the contents of the letters.
Materials to Submit. The chair will transmit the letters to the Dean along with the following information:

Department’s policy on external review letters.
Copy of the chair's letter requesting external review.
Abbreviated curriculum vitae of each reviewer.
Statement of each reviewer’s relationship to the candidate.

Other Letters. From time to time, candidates for promotion will include reference letters from outside parties, such as publishers, coauthors, grant reviewers, and the like, in their dossier. These materials are recognized as useful and are strongly encouraged. However, they will not satisfy the requirement for external letters of review, if such a requirement exists in the department.

C. GUIDELINES FOR CHAIR’S TENURE/PROMOTION LETTERS

The chair's evaluation of a candidate for tenure and/or promotion is of great importance in the tenure and promotion process. To represent a candidate's credentials and the department's role in the process effectively, the chair's evaluation must be comprehensive and thorough. The following guide indicates tasks that an evaluation should accomplish, and kinds of evidence that might be used in producing an evaluation, adapted as appropriate to a particular department and discipline, and the context of the particular application.

General Expectations

Explain specific expectations that were established for the candidate at the time of the appointment, referring to the letter of appointment if needed.
Discuss the candidate's accomplishments during the review period in the context of expectations for candidates for promotion/tenure in the COPEP and the more specific expectations for candidates in the departmental addenda. This should include the general weighting of teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and service within the department.
In those cases in which there are seriously discrepant opinions concerning the candidate's qualifications, provide a context for the Dean and Personnel Committee to use in reading the faculty evaluations.
If external letters of evaluation are solicited, summarize the essential points of the letters.

Evaluation of Teaching

Overall, the recommendation should accomplish the following:

Make clear the range and nature of the candidate’s teaching activities, kinds and levels of courses taught, any supervision of undergraduate and graduate students on an individual or small group basis, and advising.
Clearly identify the strengths and qualities that characterize the candidate’s teaching both in the classroom (pedagogy) and outside the classroom in such areas as course development, innovations in course design, contributions to equity and inclusion at the departmental level, and other activities in support of department teaching goals.
Summarize and analyze the evidence in order to formulate a judgment as to the quality of the candidate’s teaching accomplishments.

Issues and kinds of evidence may include:

Outcomes, such as assessment data, noteworthy student work, or information from recent graduates, to show that students are prepared for work and more advanced study.
Degree of challenge in courses taught, as evidenced by syllabi and other course materials, and testimony from students and colleagues.
Connections to the candidate’s scholarship.
Recognitions, such as teaching awards.
Recurrent themes in student and peer evaluations. Any quotations should be carefully chosen to be representative or typical.
Analysis of numerical ratings in the student evaluations, which can include patterns over time, relative to course level and class size, in comparison to typical patterns in the department.

Course evaluations provide valuable feedback for the instructor regarding classroom performance, preparedness, and attention to the details of the teaching process. Course evaluations, however, have certain limitations in their use as a tool for assessing teaching effectiveness. Therefore, judgments about the evidentiary value of such evaluations should be exercised with care. In particular, low raw scores, or very high raw scores are not in themselves sufficient to establish poor performance or teaching excellence, respectively. Race, gender, ethnicity, and other attributes of the instructor, irrelevant to teaching performance, can influence evaluations. Course workload, difficulty, and expected grade may also be factors that impact evaluations. Any set of comments might include negative remarks not merited by actual teaching performance.

Evaluation of Scholarly Activity

Overall, the evaluation should accomplish the following:

Describe the scholarly efforts and accomplishments during the review period. As needed, describe prior scholarship to provide a sense of the candidate's scholarly career, making sure to delineate review period accomplishments from prior accomplishments.
Assess the significance of the candidate’s contribution in relation to scholarly activity in the candidate’s field, the level of work done in the department, and departmental expectations.
Summarize and analyze the evidence that supports a judgment on the quality of the candidate’s accomplishments in scholarly activity.

Issues and kinds of evidence may include:

The relationships between the candidate’s scholarship and teaching and contributions to curriculum and program development.
The quality, reputation or significance of venues: conferences, exhibits, etc. in which work has been published/exhibited/presented.
Reception of the work in reviews or citations. Quotations should be carefully chosen to be representative or typical.
Assessments of the contribution by those with particular expertise, members of the department or external reviewers. Quotations should be carefully chosen to be representative or typical.
Time and effort required to develop discipline-based programs that support the curriculum (laboratories, galleries, field work, learning centers, etc.).
Efforts to obtain external funding for scholarly activities if these are important to the candidate’s field.
The status of work in progress and how it fits into the overall accomplishment.
The particular contribution of the candidate to work jointly produced with others.

Evaluation of Service Activities

Overall, the evaluation of service should accomplish the following:

Describe and define the full range and nature of the candidate’s service activity.
Describe the service activities since the appointment or last promotion, as well as prior professional service (if any), to provide a sense of the candidate’s service career.
Assess the significance of the candidate’s service contribution in relation to the level of work done in the department; and in relation to departmental expectations regarding service to the department, the College, the University, the community, and the profession, as well as professional service to the community.
Summarize and analyze the evidence in order to formulate a judgment as to the quality of the candidate’s service.

The chair's letter should also describe and evaluate any cross-cutting activities, particularly those that advance the department and college's equity and inclusion goals.

A. ROLE OF DEPARTMENT CHAIR

The major responsibility of the chair is to advocate and coordinate efforts to improve and support teaching, scholarship, and service to the University, College, department, and discipline. The chair consults with department members concerning matters affecting the department, especially new appointments, curriculum, scheduling, space, budget, utilization of equipment, outreach, and faculty evaluations. The chair normally presides at regular departmental meetings at which these and other relevant issues are discussed or acted upon.

The chair is evaluated on the following criteria:

Effectiveness as a leader.
Success in establishing goals and directions for the department in coordination with all departmental faculty members and with the Dean.
Efforts as a representative, advocate, and spokesperson for the department.
Contributions to faculty and staff development.
Promotion of a collegial atmosphere, including willingness and ability to interact with, consult with, and respond to members of the faculty in matters of importance to the department.
Scheduling of courses to meet enrollment and degree requirements, and appropriateness of faculty course assignments.
Handling of budget resources, including setting priorities for distribution and keeping faculty informed of budget status.
Participation in and coordination of community outreach and fundraising.

The chair of a department is appointed by the Provost on the joint recommendation of the department and the Dean. The chair normally serves a four-year term and may be reappointed for subsequent terms.

B. REVIEW OF CHAIR

New chairs are evaluated informally in the spring quarter of their first year of appointment. The purpose of the first-year evaluation is to provide a guide for mentoring and the development of leadership skills.
The Dean sends the First-Year Chair Evaluation form to the faculty and staff of the department. Evaluation forms are returned directly to the Dean.
The Dean meets with the chair to discuss results of the evaluation and plan a course of action.
After the meeting with the chair to discuss the results of the evaluation, the Dean summarizes the department's comments and rating, adds their assessment, and writes the letter of evaluation.
New Chairs in their second year of appointment are formally reviewed using steps 2 through 4, except that the Chair Evaluation form is used.

C. REVIEW AND REAPPOINTMENT OF INCUMBENT CHAIR

No later than November of the fourth year of a chair’s term, the Dean meets with the chair to determine whether or not the incumbent is willing to serve another term.
In the event the incumbent is willing to serve another term, the Dean sends the chair Evaluation form to the faculty and staff of the department. The form asks the department faculty and staff to evaluate the chair's performance and to indicate whether or not they should be retained. Evaluation forms are returned directly to the Dean.
Prior to voting, the department determines clearly established guidelines for voting eligibility. If two-thirds or more of the eligible voters wish to retain the incumbent, the Dean accepts this judgment unless, in their estimation, there are compelling reasons not to do so.
When the incumbent chair is selected by the department, the Dean again meets with them to review areas of strength and those needing improvement identified in the evaluations, as well as priorities and goals for the department during the next term.
The Dean prepares a letter to the Provost recommending reappointment. The letter includes a summary of the evaluation (without attribution) and specific priorities discussed with the chair.
The Provost notifies the Dean of their decision regarding the recommendation; the Dean then notifies the Chair of the Provost's decision.

D. SEARCH FOR NEW CHAIR

In the event a chair is not willing or able to serve another term, if more than one-third of the department favors change, or if the Provost does not approve the appointment, the Dean initiates the search process for a new chair unless, in their estimation, there are compelling reasons not to do so.
When deemed necessary, the Dean meets with the department to review the chair search procedure and discuss any concerns prior to establishing the Chair Search Committee.
The incumbent chair may serve as an advisor to the Dean during the search.
The Dean selects a Chair Search Committee to conduct the search and election and convey the results to the Dean. The chair of the Search Committee is from another department.
When a majority of the department supports one candidate and the Dean accepts the department's judgment, the Dean meets with the nominee to discuss priorities for the Chair and the department.
The Dean prepares a letter to the Provost recommending the appointment. The letter includes the points discussed at the meeting. Copies of this letter are made available to all department faculty.
The Provost notifies the Dean of their decision regarding the recommendation; the Dean then notifies the nominee of the Provost's decision.
The Dean meets with unsuccessful candidates prior to the announcement of the new chair.

E. CHAIR SEARCH COMMITTEE

The Chair Search Committee for an internal chair consists of at least two department faculty members and one faculty member from outside the department, who serves as chair of the committee.
The Dean solicits recommendations for committee members from the department and normally makes selections from those recommendations. The Dean may use their discretion in selecting the committee, and in some cases, it may consist of more than the usual three members.
The Chair Search Committee's charge is to:

Advertise for and find the most highly qualified candidates available, either from on-campus or off-campus, as determined by the Dean.
Contact each faculty and staff member of the department regarding direction and leadership needed by the department, and distribute a summary of responses to the department and to the Dean.
Provide adequate opportunity for all department faculty to meet with each candidate, usually via a departmental forum.
Conduct an election involving all eligible voters as determined by the department’s operating procedures.
Maintain confidentiality of all matters relating to the election.
Keep the Dean apprised of the progress of the search and report the results of the election to the Dean.

The committee does not select the chair but may make recommendations to the Dean if desired or requested.

A. DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES

Each department shall have a departmental operating procedures and policies (DOPP) document, which shall include:
1. Voting rights and procedures in the department.
2. A description of its standing committees, including provisions for elections to departmental committees if such are conducted.
3. Provisions for calling a departmental meeting.
4. A policy to determine the distribution of the departmental teaching load among its members within the context of the overall teaching workload as specified in the CBA. After review by PPBC, the policy on the distribution of departmental teaching load and any changes in that policy must be approved by the dean and the provost according to the CBA.
5. Each department shall develop a policy governing the assignment of Summer Session classes. Changes to these policies must be approved by a majority of tenured and probationary faculty, CSE PPBC, the dean, and the provost according to CBA 16.8.1 and 16.8.2.
6. Other applicable departmental items.
The DOPP must be compliant with WWU’s CBA, Faculty Handbook, and CSE’s COPEP. These procedures shall be approved by the department and made available to the department and to the public. Initially, the tenured/tenure-track (T/TT) faculty must determine if staff and non-tenure-track (NTT) are eligible to vote to approve the DOPP; this eligibility can subsequently be defined in the DOPP itself. Regardless of whether NTT and staff are eligible to vote, there must be a mechanism for input from NTT and staff. CSE Policy, Planning, and Budget Council will review the DOPP for compliance with WWU’s CBA, Faculty Handbook and CSE’s COPEP.

Each department shall have procedures for the evaluation of faculty members, including evaluation of non-tenure track members, evaluation of probationary faculty, evaluation for promotions to Senior Instructor, evaluation for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, post tenure review, and evaluation for promotion to Full Professor. These procedures shall be published in the addenda to the COPEP and available to departmental faculty members and to the public. The CSE Policy, Planning, and Budget Council also approves and upholds the departmental addenda to the COPEP with standards for Annual Review, Tenure and Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review.

Departmental (and Program) Addenda detail how the broadly defined standards in the COPEP are applied within the context of specific academic disciplines. Departmental Addenda must include, at a minimum, standards, expectations, and procedures for the following:

Evaluation of non-tenure track faculty.
Promotion and tenure evaluation, with explicit guidelines for each rank.
Post-tenure review, with explicit guidelines for evaluating meeting vs. exceeding standards.
Obtaining and using evaluation information from secondary appointment units for faculty with dual appointments.
Clear demarcation of which faculty are required to participate in what types of evaluations and which faculty are allowed to participate in what types of evaluations.

The Policy, Planning, and Budget Council, the Dean, and the Provost must approve these addenda and any subsequent changes.

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – BIOLOGY

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning and
Budget Council, February 19, 2026.

Updates approved by the Biology Department on November 4, 2024. This
document outlines the Biology Department's expectations for faculty
appointments, promotions, and review.

Biology Department Preamble

The department acknowledges that circumstances outside the control of
the university can arise that influence the ability to meet the
requirements of promotion. In these circumstances, the department will
consider evidence for the candidate’s trajectory to meet specific
requirements as evidence of meeting those requirements. Candidates
should provide the evidence for their trajectory and explain how
circumstances prevented them from meeting a requirement. Candidates are
also encouraged to explain how their overall and relative balance among
teaching, research, and service was altered and whether other parts of
their application balance any missing requirements. The department only
intends to consider an exception to the requirements under exceptional
circumstances (e.g., the COVID global pandemic, when teaching and
research loads were severely altered or restricted) and recognizes the
impacts of exceptional circumstances might last well after the
circumstances have returned to “normal.”

Teaching

The Biology Department values high-quality teaching at all levels, from
undergraduate GUR courses, to courses for Biology majors, to graduate
seminars. We emphasize deep biological knowledge, scientific-process
skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, all rooted in
scientific methods. Along with formal courses, we consider research
mentorship of undergraduates and/or graduate students to be an important
aspect of our teaching responsibilities. To be promoted, faculty members
should demonstrate substantial achievement in inclusive teaching of
assigned courses and in mentoring students in research through
individualized instruction. The department also values highly the
development of curricula and courses.

Scholarship

The Biology Department values the generation, application, and/or
synthesis of new scientific and pedagogical knowledge, for its role in
faculty development, for its impact upon training graduate and
undergraduate students as future scientists, and for its value in
informing and guiding the work of a wide variety of professional and
community scientists. The Biology Department strives to cultivate
accessible and inclusive research environments.

Service

The Biology Department values the contribution of the faculty to the
effective functioning of the department, the college, the university,
the profession, and the community.

Participation by Faculty in the Review Processes

The Biology Department has the primary responsibility for the evaluation
of each candidate’s performance, including annual evaluations of
probationary faculty members, evaluations of candidates for tenure
and/or promotion, evaluations of candidates under post-tenure review,
and evaluations of non-tenure track faculty.

All tenured faculty members are expected to participate in the
evaluations of candidates for tenure and/or promotion as well as the
annual review of assistant professors after their first year, submitting
an individual written assessment of the candidate’s performance along
with a completed evaluation form indicating their vote.

By a date indicated by the Department Chair, faculty members
participating in a tenure-track faculty review must complete and sign
the current evaluation form and submit it to the Department Chair. The
faculty members participating in the faculty review process must
evaluate all the materials provided by the candidate, as well as
external letters, when applicable. The Department Chair provides a draft
summary to the candidate for review and correction of errors of fact
prior to submission to the Dean and Review Committee.

A tenured faculty member may be excused from participating in any
faculty review if the review will occur during a quarter in which the
faculty member is on professional leave. Probationary faculty,
non-tenure-track faculty, and staff do not submit formal evaluations,
rankings, or votes.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Qualifications for appointment to probationary faculty:

A Ph.D. in Biology or related science field is required. The candidate
will also show evidence of substantial achievement in teaching (or the
promise of attaining substantial achievement in teaching) and research.
Additional qualifications are to be spelled out in the position
description for each tenure-track faculty search.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Each tenure-track faculty member will be assigned a Mentor Team composed
of tenured faculty members. Structure and Mentor Team processes are
described in the Biology Department’s Operating Policies and Procedures.
The Mentor Team’s mentorship feedback and Department Chair’s annual
evaluation letter for each tenure track faculty member shall be used to
guide and assist the candidate in preparing materials for tenure and
promotion.

Department standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor:

Teaching

A requirement for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is
substantial achievement in teaching or improvement toward that goal
(recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum and course
development). Incorporation of evidence-based teaching practices
into classes and effective mentorship of students in research is
required. Probationary faculty must provide the following evidence
to demonstrate these achievements:

A teaching statement that includes:

teaching goals and a self-assessment of teaching
accomplishments for each course taught during the evaluation
period,

a description of curriculum and course development done by
the candidate,

a description of how the candidate’s teaching activities
have helped advance strategic goals for teaching identified
in the Biology Department Strategic Plan,

a description of research mentorship approaches used and a
reflection on the effectiveness of those approaches.
Evidence and description of inclusive mentorship of students
in research.

a description of efforts to alter course design, materials
discussed in courses, and/or modes of instruction to
incorporate evidence-based teaching practices that actively
engage students and foster equity, accessibility, and
inclusivity and/or to develop course materials or design
curricula that focus on intersections between biology and
topics (e.g., race, sex, gender, scientific ethics) that
relate to issues of equity and inclusion.

Peer observations by tenured faculty members for courses
taught as an Associate Professor. Not all courses must be
observed, and not all tenured faculty members must observe
each candidate, but the primary courses taught by the
candidate should be observed on more than one occasion. The
Biology Personnel Committee will coordinate these
observations.

All student evaluations (numerical summary and all written
comments) from the testing center (or College-approved
evaluation) for all iterations of each course taught during
the evaluation period.

Syllabi and representative course materials (examples of
lecture slides, handouts, exams, etc.) for each course
taught during the evaluation period to illustrate rigor and
effort toward inclusive instruction.

Representative examples of graded student work from each
course, but not all iterations of the course, (at least 2
examples per course; any information that identifies the
student(s) should be redacted) to illustrate the range of
performance on assessments, the typical amount of instructor
feedback, and effort toward inclusive instruction.

Additional evidence of teaching effectiveness may include letters
from alumni, evaluations from other professional peers, and course
climate assessments.

Research

Research in biology and intersecting disciplines generally fits into
one of two broad categories: a) primary research (in which the
researcher gathers new data to address questions), and b) secondary
research (in which the researcher summarizes, synthesizes, and/or
integrates existing data). Intersecting disciplines include, but are
not limited to: biology education research, science communication
research, STEM equity and inclusion research, and biology-inspired
research in disciplines such as math, chemistry, and computer
science.

A requirement for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is
substantial achievement in research as an Assistant Professor.
Evidence of research achievement must include research closely
related to the sub-discipline for which the candidate was hired;
however, it can also include research in other areas of biology and
intersecting disciplines. Probationary faculty must provide the
following evidence to demonstrate these achievements:

A statement providing a clear description of their research
program and evidence that their research program has
contributed to the strategic goals for research as
identified in the Biology Department Strategic Plan.

At least one substantial peer-reviewed publication in
biology and/or an intersecting discipline from primary
research conducted as an Associate Professor at Western in
which the candidate was a major contributor. Such a
publication must be published or accepted for publication
(i.e., in press) at the time of the review. The publication
may be in the format of a peer-reviewed journal article but
alternative peer reviewed formats would also suffice (e.g.,
monograph, book, or website). The publication does not have
to be in the sub-discipline for which the candidate was
hired. The candidate must provide a written explanation of
their contribution to this publication.

Evidence of effective research outcomes from mentorship of
students (e.g., Master’s theses, honors theses, student
co-authored publications or technical reports, publications
and/or curricula stemming from integration of authentic
research into courses, student-authored grant proposals,
grants to students, and student posters at Scholars Week
and/or disciplinary conferences), with a description of what
the students contributed to these outcomes.

Evidence of substantial achievement via a combination of the
following (the necessary amount of evidence will vary
depending on the number and quality of publications as well
as on subdisciplinary differences in the opportunities and
requirements for publications and grants):

Additional publications related to the profession, including
journal articles, monographs, books, technical reports,
conference proceedings, notes, and single-figure
publications. Peer reviewed publications receive greater
weight than non-refereed publications. The quality, scope,
and number of publications, as well as types of coauthors
(student coauthors are especially valued but are not
required) and level of involvement by the candidate, will
also factor into evaluation of the publication record.

Research proposals and grants. Large, funded, external
grants receive the greatest weight for this category, with
lesser weight given to small external grants, internal
grants, and non-funded proposals.

Additional items with lesser weight than peer-reviewed
publications and major external grants include:

Creation of online research tools and resources related to
the candidate’s professional interests.

Presentations at disciplinary conferences (invited
presentations receive greater weight than contributed
presentations, peer-reviewed submissions receive greater
weight than non-refereed submissions, and international and
national conferences receive greater weight than regional
conferences) and invited research seminars at other academic
institution

External faculty fellowships (e.g., at a national
laboratory, research center, or university, and/or via a
foundation).

Activities that support the research infrastructure or
culture of the department, including:

Training undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty
members in instrumentation use, analytical approaches, or
lab/field methods.

Acquiring shared instrumentation through external or
internal funding sources.

Other evidence that the candidate’s research is important to
the larger scientific and educational community, such as
citation statistics.

External review letters of the candidate’s research are required.
The Department Chair shall solicit external reviews of the quality
of scholarship of candidates to be evaluated for tenure and
promotion. The external reviewers must be experts in an area of
research overlapping that of the candidate and must be at least at
the rank of Associate Professor (or equivalent for non-academic
positions). The Department Chair shall provide to the external
reviewers the candidate’s CV and the scholarship section of the
candidate’s tenure and promotion file. In addition, the Department
Chair shall provide to the external reviewers the teaching schedule
of the candidate, a record of the candidate’s service, and an
overview of how teaching and research at Western compare to a
Research-1 university. The Department Chair shall instruct the
external reviewers that their reviews are most useful if they take
into consideration the strong emphasis upon teaching at Western,
including mentoring undergraduate and graduate research students.

To facilitate the identification of a pool of potential external
reviewers, the candidate for tenure and promotion will submit a list
of qualified reviewers to the Department Chair, annotated to
describe how the candidate knows each suggested reviewer and to
detail any potential conflicts of interest. Candidates are
encouraged to submit suggested reviewers from PUIs as well as
Research-1 institutions. Candidates may also submit a list of
unacceptable reviewers and the reasons why those individuals are
unacceptable for inclusion as potential reviewers. The Department
Chair will solicit additional names of qualified reviewers from
experts within the candidate’s sub-discipline. From the combined
pool of potential reviewers, the Department Chair shall select three
reviewers, with the exclusion of the reviewers whom the candidate
considered unacceptable.

Service

A requirement for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is
fulfilling the basic departmental service, as evidenced by each of
the following:

A statement describing how the candidate’s service
activities have helped advance strategic goals identified in
the Biology Department Strategic Plan.

Attendance at and contribution to departmental meetings and
programs.

Submitting mandatory reports by the deadlines.

Effectively participating in assigned department committees.

Effectively attending to academic advising responsibilities.

Other service to the department that is valued, but not required,
includes contributions to department curricula such as lab upgrades,
new course development, preparation of undergraduate and/or graduate
teaching assistants, active engagement with student clubs and
groups, and efforts designed to improve issues relating to
accessibility, equity, inclusion and diversity. In addition, the
department values efforts to accomplish strategic goals outlined in
the Biology Department Strategic Plan. Particularly valued is
substantive work toward strategic goals identified as high priority
by the Biology Department.

Service beyond the department is also valued, but not required for
advancement to tenured Associate Professor status. Such service may
include:

Serving on and participating in College and/or University
committees, including the faculty union.

Serving the profession via work such as reviewing
manuscripts, books, or grants; convening topical sessions at
regional or national conferences; taking leadership in
regional or national organizations; and service on editorial
boards.

Significant involvement in local outreach or community
service related to the profession.

PROFESSOR

Department standards for promotion to Professor:

Teaching

A requirement for promotion to Professor is substantial achievement
in teaching (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum and
course development). Incorporation of evidence-based teaching
practices into classes is highly valued. Effective mentorship of
students in research is required. Candidates must provide the
following evidence to demonstrate these achievements:

A teaching statement that includes

teaching goals and a self-assessment of teaching
accomplishments for each course taught during the evaluation
period,

a description of curriculum and course development done by
the candidate,

a description of how the candidate’s teaching activities
have helped advance strategic goals for teaching identified
in the Biology Department Strategic Plan,

a description of research mentorship approaches used and a
reflection on the effectiveness of those approaches.
Evidence and description of inclusive mentorship of students
in research.

Efforts to alter course design, materials discussed in
courses, and/or modes of instruction to incorporate
evidence-based teaching practices that actively engage
students and foster inclusivity and/or to develop course
materials or design curricula that focus on intersections
between biology and topics (e.g., race, sex, gender,
scientific ethics) that relate to issues of equity and
inclusion.

Peer observations by tenured faculty members for courses
taught as an Associate Professor. Not all courses must be
observed, and not all tenured faculty members must observe
each candidate, but the primary courses taught by the
candidate should be observed on more than one occasion. The
Biology Personnel Committee will coordinate these
observations.

All student evaluations (numerical summary and all written
comments) from the testing center (or College-approved
evaluation) for all iterations of each course taught during
the evaluation period.

Syllabi and representative course materials (examples of
lecture slides, handouts, exams, etc.) for each course
taught during the evaluation period to illustrate rigor and
effort toward inclusive instruction.

Representative examples of graded student work from each
course, but not all iterations of the course, (at least 2
examples per course; any information that identifies the
student(s) should be redacted) to illustrate the range of
performance on assessments, the typical amount of instructor
feedback, and effort toward inclusive instruction.

Additional evidence of teaching effectiveness may include letters
from alumni, evaluations from other professional peers, and course
climate assessments.

Research

A requirement for promotion to Professor is substantial achievement
in research as an Associate Professor. Evidence of research
achievement must include research closely related to the candidate’s
research program; however, it can also include research in other
areas of biology and intersecting disciplines. Candidates must
provide the following evidence to demonstrate these achievements:

A statement providing a clear description of their research
program and evidence that their research program has
contributed to the strategic goals for research as
identified in the Biology Department Strategic Plan.

At least one substantial peer-reviewed publication in
biology and/or an intersecting discipline from primary
research conducted as an Associate Professor at Western in
which the candidate was a major contributor. Such a
publication must be published or accepted for publication
(i.e., in press) at the time of the review. The publication
may be in the format of a peer-reviewed journal article but
alternative peer reviewed formats would also suffice (e.g.,
monograph, book, or website). The publication does not have
to be in the sub-discipline for which the candidate was
hired. The candidate must provide a written explanation of
their contribution to this publication.

Evidence of effective research outcomes from mentorship of
students (e.g., Master’s theses, honors theses, student
co-authored publications or technical reports, publications
and/or curricula stemming from integration of authentic
research into courses, student-authored grant proposals,
grants to students, and student posters at Scholars Week
and/or disciplinary conferences), with a description of what
the students contributed to these outcomes.

Evidence of substantial achievement via a combination of the
following (the necessary amount of evidence will vary
depending on the number and quality of publications as well
as on subdisciplinary differences in the opportunities and
requirements for publications and grants):

Additional publications related to the profession, including
journal articles, monographs, books, technical reports,
conference proceedings, notes, and single-figure
publications. Peer reviewed publications receive greater
weight than non-refereed publications. The quality, scope,
and number of publications, as well as types of coauthors
(student coauthors are especially valued but are not
required) and level of involvement by the candidate, will
also factor into evaluation of the publication record.

Research proposals and grants. Large, funded, external
grants receive the greatest weight for this category, with
lesser weight for small external grants, internal grants,
and non-funded proposals.

Additional items with lesser weight than substantial
peer-reviewed publications and major external grants
include:

Creation of online research tools and resources related to
the candidate’s professional interests.

Presentations at disciplinary conferences (invited
presentations receive greater weight than contributed
presentations, peer-reviewed submissions receive greater
weight than non-refereed submissions, and international and
national conferences receive greater weight than regional
conferences) and invited research seminars at other academic
institutions.

External faculty fellowships (e.g., at a national
laboratory, research center, or university, and/or via a
foundation).

Other evidence that the candidate’s research is important to
the larger scientific and educational community, such as
citation statistics.

Activities that support the research infrastructure or
culture of the department, including:

Training undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty
members in instrumentation use, analytical approaches, or
lab/field methods.

Acquiring shared instrumentation through external or
internal funding sources.

External review letters of the candidate’s research are required.
These letters will be obtained by the same procedure used by
probationary faculty applying for tenure and promotion.

Service

A requirement for tenure and promotion to Professor is fulfilling
the basic departmental service, as evidenced by each of the
following:

A statement describing how the candidate’s service
activities have helped advance strategic goals identified in
the Biology Department Strategic Plan.

Attendance at and contribution to departmental meetings and
programs.

Submitting mandatory reports by the deadlines.

Effectively participating in assigned department committees,
which may include Mentor Teams.

Effectively attending to academic advising responsibilities.

An additional requirement for promotion to Professor is a record of
significant leadership in department committees, program
development, or significant efforts to accomplish strategic goals
outlined in the Biology Department Strategic Plan. Particularly
valued is substantive work toward strategic goals identified as high
priority by the Biology Department.

In addition, at least some of the following is required:

Significant service to the College or University, including
the faculty union, as demonstrated by effective committee
leadership or active participation in committee work.

Leadership in efforts to improve accessibility, equity,
inclusion, and diversity.

Leadership in the profession, including organizing meetings
or symposia for regional, national and international
organizations, editorial duties for scientific journals, and
membership in scientific advisory boards.

Significant involvement in local outreach or community
service related to the profession.

POST TENURE REVIEW

Faculty members will be evaluated based on standards for their rank,
making allowances for fluctuations in the relative emphasis on
teaching, scholarship, and service across the professional
life-cycle of the individual faculty member.

Department standards for post-tenure review:

Teaching

For a rating of “meets department standards” in teaching, evidence
for sustained and effective engagement in teaching and research
mentorship is required during the review period, as evidenced by:

A teaching statement that includes:

teaching goals and a self-assessment of teaching
accomplishments for each course taught during the evaluation
period,

a description of curriculum and course development done by
the candidate,

a description of how the candidate’s teaching activities
have helped advance strategic goals for teaching identified
in the Biology Department Strategic Plan, and

a description of research mentorship approaches used and a
reflection on the effectiveness of those approaches.
Evidence and description of inclusive mentorship of students
in research. .

Efforts to alter course design, materials discussed in
courses, and/or modes of instruction to incorporate
evidence-based teaching practices that actively engage
students and foster inclusivity and/or to develop course
materials or design curricula that focus on intersections
between biology and topics (e.g., race, sex, gender,
scientific ethics) that relate to issues of equity and
inclusion.

Peer observations by tenured faculty members for courses
taught since the candidate’s last evaluation. Not all
courses must be observed, and not all tenured faculty
members must observe each candidate, but the primary courses
taught by the candidate should be observed on more than one
occasion. The Biology Personnel Committee will coordinate
these observations.

All student evaluations (numerical summary and all written
comments) from the testing center (or College-approved
evaluation) for all iterations of each course taught during
the evaluation period.

Syllabi and representative course materials (examples of
lecture slides, handouts, exams, etc.) for each course
taught during the evaluation period to illustrate rigor and
effort toward inclusive instruction.

Representative examples of graded student work from each
course, but not all iterations of the course, (at least 2
examples per course; any information that identifies the
student(s) should be redacted) to illustrate the range of
performance on assessments, the typical amount of instructor
feedback, and effort toward inclusive instruction.

Additional evidence of teaching effectiveness may include letters
from alumni, evaluations from other professional peers, and course
climate assessments.

For a rating of “exceeds department standards” in teaching, in
addition to the requirements for “meets department standards”, there
must be evidence that the candidate has substantively advanced the
teaching mission of the department. Such evidence must include the
evidence required for “meets departmental standards”, in addition to
evidence of some of the following:

Leadership in curricular reform (e.g., developing
evidence-based learning activities, new labs, integrating
quantitative skills and/or writing into courses).

Teaching evaluations that often describe the candidate’s
teaching as effective and of high quality, while considering
information about the course (e.g., level of course, and
requirement vs elective course).

Other significant efforts that enhance the strategic goals
for teaching, as described in the Biology Department
Strategic Plan.

Research

A complete post-tenure review dossier must include a statement
describing how the candidate’s scholarly activities have helped
advance strategic goals for research identified in the Biology
Department Strategic Plan.

For post-tenure review, external review letters of the candidate’s
research are neither required nor expected.

The level of expectation in research is reduced during the later
years of a faculty member’s professional life cycle, provided that
there is commensurate growth in the candidate’s teaching or service
in a manner that substantively advances the strategic goals of the
Department, College, or University. For a rating of “meets
department standards” in research, we expect evidence of continued
engagement in research during the review period, as evidenced by:

A statement providing a clear description of their research
program and evidence that their research program has
contributed to the strategic goals for research as
identified in the Biology Department Strategic Plan.
Publication of primary or secondary research in biology
and/or intersecting disciplines, typically in the form of
journal articles, monographs, books, or websites.
Peer-reviewed publications (including notes and
single-figure publications) receive greater weight than
non-refereed publications. The quality, scope, and number of
publications, as well as types of co-authors (student
coauthors are especially valued but are not required) and
level of involvement by the candidate, will also factor into
evaluation of the publication record.

Evidence of effective research outcomes from mentorship of
students (e.g., Master’s theses, honors theses, student
co-authored publications or technical reports, publications
and/or curricula stemming from integration of authentic
research into courses, student-authored grant proposals,
grants to students, and student posters at Scholars Week
and/or disciplinary conferences), with a description of what
the students contributed to these outcomes.

Research proposals and grants. Large, funded, external
grants receive the greatest weight for this category, with
lesser weight for small external grants, internal grants,
and non-funded proposals.

Additional items with lesser weight than substantial
peer-reviewed publications and major external grants
include:

Creation of online research tools and resources related to
the candidate’s professional interests.

Presentations at disciplinary conferences (invited
presentations receive greater weight than contributed
presentations, peer-reviewed submissions receive greater
weight than non-refereed submissions, and international and
national conferences receive greater weight than regional
conferences) and invited research seminars at other academic
institutions.

External faculty fellowships (for example, at a national
laboratory, research center, or university and/or via a
foundation).

Activities that support the research infrastructure and/or
culture of the department, including:

Training undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty
members in instrumentation use, analytical approaches, or
lab/field methods.

Acquiring shared instrumentation through external or
internal funding sources.

Other evidence that the candidate’s research is important to
the larger scientific and educational community, such as
citation statistics.

For a rating of “exceeds department standards” in research, there
must be evidence of significant research productivity, beyond the
expectations to “meet department standards”. Such evidence must
include the evidence required for “meets departmental standards”, in
addition to evidence of some of the following:

Publication of a paper for which the candidate was a major
contributor in a notable, high impact scientific journal.

Multiple peer-reviewed papers for which the candidate was a
major contributor. Papers with student coauthors are
especially valued.

Contribution as PI or Co-PI to a substantial, funded
external grant.

Substantial books, monographs, or online research
tools/resources relating to the profession.

Service

For a rating of “meets department standards” in service, candidates
must demonstrate a commitment to basic departmental service, as
evidenced by each of the following:

A statement describing how the candidate’s service
activities have helped advance strategic goals identified in
the Biology Department Strategic Plan.

Attendance at and contribution to departmental meetings and
programs.

Submitting mandatory reports in a timely fashion.

Effectively participating in assigned department committees,
which may include Mentor Teams.

Effectively attending to academic advising responsibilities.

For a rating of “exceeds department standards”, there must be a
record of significant commitment to service, beyond the expectations
to “meet department standards”. Such evidence must include evidence
of significant leadership in department committees, program
development, and/or efforts to accomplish strategic goals outlined
in the Biology Department Strategic Plan. Particularly valued is
substantive work toward strategic goals identified as high priority
by the Biology Department. Evidence of significant leadership may
include:

Significant service to the Department, or College or
University, including the faculty union, as demonstrated by
effective committee leadership and/or active participation
in committee work.

Leadership in efforts to improve accessibility, equity,
inclusion, and diversity.

Leadership in the profession, including organizing meetings
and/or symposia for regional, national and international
organizations, editorial duties for scientific journals, and
membership in scientific advisory boards.

Significant involvement in local outreach or community
service related to the profession.

NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

INSTRUCTOR

Instructors will be reviewed annually on the basis of expectations
defined in their contract letter. Biology expects the candidate will
show evidence of substantial achievement in teaching.

SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

Senior Instructors shall be reviewed during the last year of committment
as defined in the offer letter. NTT faculty with a minimum of five years
of experience at 0.5 FTE or greater at the University with satisfactory
annual evaluations in each of those five years shall be appointed Senior
Instructor effective the following September. Biology expects the
candidate will show evidence of substantial achievement in teaching.
Senior Instructor positions may include specific tasks or roles beyond
teaching activities as outlined in their contract. Performance in all
such areas must be satisfactory.

ANNUAL EVALUATION OF NTT FACULTY

Instructors being evaluated annually are required to submit the
materials listed below in a dossier by a date determined by the
department Chair for review by the Biology Personnel Committee. For all
instructors with renewable appointments, the Biology Personnel Committee
Chair will submit a summary evaluation to the department Chair. These
materials will form the basis for the written evaluation letter to be
submitted by the Department Chair to the Dean. Before submitting this
evaluation to the Dean, the non-tenure-track faculty member will have at
least 5 business days to respond to the letter. The department Chair
will correct any errors of fact and a copy of the final version of the
evaluation letter will be submitted to the Dean and provided to the
non-tenure-track faculty member.

THIRD YEAR REVIEW OF SENIOR INSTRUCTORS

Senior instructors being evaluated in their third year are required to
submit the materials listed below in a dossier through WWU Interfolio by
a date determined by the department Chair for review by the Biology
Personnel Committee. The Biology Personnel Committee Chair will submit
a summary evaluation to the department Chair. These materials will form
the basis for the written evaluation letter to be submitted by the
Department Chair to the Dean. Before submitting this evaluation to the
Dean, the non-tenure-track faculty member will have at least 5 business
days to respond to the letter. The department Chair will correct any
errors of fact and a copy of the final version of the evaluation letter
will be submitted to the Dean and provided to the NTT faculty member.

Evidence of effective teaching must include all of the following:

At least one peer observation by a tenured faculty member,
NTT senior instructor, or Biology personnel committee
approved reviewer for each course taught (though not all
iterations of the course) during the review period.

Student evaluations from the WWU office of institutional
effectiveness (both numerical and written comments) or other
approved student evaluation tool for all iterations of
courses taught during the review period. The use of
alternative student evaluation tools must be approved by the
Biology personnel committee prior to their implementation in
a course.

Syllabi from all iterations of courses taught during the
review period providing evidence of student expectations.

At least one example of representative course material from
each course taught during the review period providing
evidence of course rigor. Examples include exams, quizzes,
lecture slides, developed exercises, student-centered
assignments, or study materials.

At least one example of representative course material from
each course taught during the review period providing
evidence of student-centered methods and inclusive teaching
practices. Examples include exams, quizzes, lecture slides,
developed exercises, student-centered assignments, or study
materials.

MERIT BASED COMPENSATION REVIEW of SENIOR INSTRUCTORS

Senior instructor merit reviews will be conducted by a committee
appointed annually by the chair. The committee will consist of three
department faculty members, one of which may be a senior instructor.
The reviewers will determine by vote whether the senior instructor
“met” or “did not meet” the criteria for merit review and will
provide their recommendation to the Chair. The Chair will summarize
the results of the review and separately provide their own
recommendation on merit. The faculty member will receive a copy of
this letter and will have 5 business days to respond to the letter.
The department Chair will correct any errors of fact and a copy of
the final version of the evaluation letter will be submitted to the
Dean and provided to the senior instructor.

Merit evaluations of Senior Instructors take place in the sixth year
following promotion to senior instructor and every 6 years after
that. Senior instructors must provide all of the materials described
above for their third-year review in a teaching dossier that also
includes the following materials for the six years under review. For
a rating of “met department standards”, evidence of sustained
excellence in teaching is required during the review period, as
evidenced by:

A three-page maximum teaching statement that includes:

A description of how their teaching is in line with the
strategic goals of the department.

Recognition of any repeatedly stated feedback from student
evaluations and a clear indication of any actions taken to
address them.

Recognition of any repeated feedback by peer observers and a
clear indication of any actions taken to address them.

At least two representative examples of graded student work
from each course, but not all iterations of each course, to
illustrate the range of performance on exams, papers, and
other work, as well as to illustrate typical instructor
feedback to students. At least two examples per course are
required and any information that identifies a student
should be redacted.

Student teaching evaluations that are consistent with the
candidate’s teaching being effective, inclusive, and of high
quality, while considering information about the course
(e.g., level of course, and requirement vs elective course)

For senior instructors with contracted non-instructional
duties, a maximum one-page summary of those duties and a
description of their effective contributions to those
duties.

A copy of the two previous Chair review letters.

Senior instructors may provide:

Materials from any additional accomplishments that are
directly related to teaching or other contracted activities.

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning and Budget Council, April 30 2009 - updates approved January 7 2010, June 2 2016, June 8 2017, May 26 2022, June 6 2024, February 19 2026

Updates adopted by the Chemistry Department Academic Year 2025-2026

This document outlines the Chemistry Department's expectations for faculty appointments, promotions, and review.

Chemistry Department Expectations

It is expected that all faculty members contribute to the goals of the strategic plans for the department and college. We value efforts to foster inclusive, student-centered classroom, laboratory, and research environments that cultivate lifelong learning. Chemistry students, faculty, and staff contribute to the scientific enterprise and broader community through outreach and a program of student-focused scholarship.

The elements of a successful tenure track faculty career as a member of the chemistry department at WWU are teaching, scholarship, and service. The indicators of success in each of these areas and for tenure and promotion are broadly described below.

The primary element of a successful instructional non-tenure track (NTT) faculty career as a member of the chemistry department at WWU is effective teaching in an environment that supports student engagement, accessibility, diversity, equity, inclusivity, and mastery of chemistry concepts. Other activities may also include scholarship and/or service. These expectations and metrics of success for instructional non-tenure track faculty members are described below.

Effect of Covid19 on Evaluation of Faculty

The evaluation process for faculty should be equitable when considering access to resources, in-person teaching experience and access to research activities. The evaluating faculty acknowledge and will take into account that the Covid19 pandemic and associated quarantine may have had disproportionate negative impacts on individual faculty members. The department encourages the impacted faculty members under review to describe how their efforts in teaching, scholarship and/or service have been impacted by the Covid19 pandemic. The evaluation of faculty for tenure, promotion and PTR will be compliant with Covid-related MOUs between WWU and the UFWW.

Teaching

Faculty in the Chemistry Department are committed to providing high-quality educational experiences that support student learning across a diverse range of backgrounds, preparation levels, and learning needs. Effective teaching is characterized by clear communication of disciplinary content, well-designed assessments aligned with course learning goals, and instructional practices that support student engagement, accessibility, diversity, equity, inclusivity, and mastery of chemistry concepts.

A member of the faculty must be considered by their colleagues to be an effective teacher in core courses as well as electives or specialty courses. Assessment of teaching effectiveness is based on multiple sources of evidence, which may include direct classroom observation by faculty peers, student evaluations, syllabi and course materials, examples of assessments, reflective teaching statements, and other relevant documentation.

Specific and compelling evidence of effective teaching may include, but is not limited to:2

Approaches that facilitate learning that coherently build important understanding and skills while leveraging prior knowledge and setting the foundation for future concepts.
Practices which ensure students know how to succeed, and help students feel a sense of belonging in their classroom and program.
Instructional methods that value student voice, ensuring all students have opportunities to contribute their ideas and thoughts to knowledge construction and learning within the classroom.
Classroom instruction that allows students to know what success looks like, where they are in relation to learning goals, and have support in developing strategies to improve their understanding and skills relative to those goals.

Contributions to the department curriculum are highly valued. Examples may include creating new courses, revising existing courses or adding new content, preparation of teaching assistants, securing grants to support teaching activities, and/or the implementation of inclusive or student-centered practices. The contribution may be made as an individual or as a member of a larger body charged with such responsibility. In the latter case, the contribution of the individual to the group effort will be considered.

Scholarship

Members of the chemistry tenure track faculty are expected to be engaged in scholarship while adhering to safety standards relevant to the discipline, with the following basic purposes:

to advance knowledge in the field
to keep the faculty member up to date in their specialty
to provide inclusive training and mentorship for undergraduate and graduate students
to contribute to the scholarly activity of the department

Scholarly accomplishment may be demonstrated in several ways, but the most specific and compelling evidence is peer-reviewed publications resulting from work undertaken while a member of the faculty of WWU. Primary examples of such publications are original papers in refereed journals, books, and review articles. Activities and publications which involve undergraduate and/or graduate students are especially valued. Delivering research presentations and securing resources to support scholarly activities are also highly valued. Also considered significant are the authorship of textbooks and relevant instructional materials, software, and patents. Scholarly contributions may be made as an individual or as a member of a group. In the latter case, the contribution of the individual to the group effort will be weighed.

Service

Members of the chemistry tenure track faculty are expected to participate in service to the department and the community, and participation should increase with rank. Primary areas of service include the following:

Membership on departmental, college and university committees and active participation in university affairs
Activities on behalf of professional organizations, as officers or members of regional or national committees
Peer review of grant proposals, journal manuscripts, etc.
Community engagement as a scientist-educator before public or professional gatherings
Professional development that supports continued growth as a faculty member

Service of jointly appointed faculty to the Chemistry Department is expected relative to the fraction of their appointment. Some or all extra-departmental service may be on behalf of the secondary appointment.

Participation by Faculty in the Review Process

Unless they are on leave, all tenured faculty members are expected to submit an individual written assessment of each candidate’s dossier and to vote. Tenured faculty on leave may, but are not required to, submit an individual written assessment of the candidate’s dossier and vote. Personnel who participate in the review of candidates and voting on decisions of tenure, promotion and post-tenure review are defined by the UFWW CBA.

For cases involving promotion to Associate or Full Professor, tenured faculty will confidentially assess the qualifications of the candidate. The procedure for the review process is:

The Chair solicits external reviews of the quality of scholarship of faculty members to be evaluated for tenure and/or promotion. The external reviewers must be expert in an area of scholarship overlapping that of the faculty member. The candidate for tenure and promotion will submit a list of qualified reviewers to the Chair. Candidates are encouraged to submit potential reviewers from primarily undergraduate institutions as well as research intensive institutions. Candidates may also submit a list of unacceptable reviewers. The Chair may solicit additional names of qualified reviewers from colleagues within the sub-discipline. From this pool of potential reviewers, the Chair will select three reviewers, with the exclusion of the reviewers whom the candidate considered unacceptable. The Chair will provide to the external reviewers a scholarship summary statement prepared by the candidate of their tenure and promotion dossier. In addition, the Chair will outline for the external reviewers WWU’s teaching, scholarship and service expectations and how these compare to research-intensive universities. This letter will outline some details about the faculty member’s teaching load and other instructional responsibilities, as well as a record of their service, to aid the reviewer in evaluating the faculty member’s scholarship activities.
A minimum of one week before the department summary is due to the candidate, faculty members participating in the review process evaluate the external letters and all the materials provided by the candidate, complete the evaluation form, and turn it in to the Chair.
The Chair tallies the numerical results of the evaluation forms and prepares a draft of the departmental summary evaluation of the candidate based on the narrative section of the completed peer evaluation forms.
The Chair prepares their personal recommendation of the candidate.
Participating faculty individually review the Chair’s draft summary evaluation.
The Chair prepares the final departmental summary evaluation of the candidate, including any changes to the draft arising from the review of the draft by participating faculty.
The Chair discusses the departmental summary evaluation with the candidate.
All candidate materials, external letters, departmental summary evaluation, and Chair’s recommendation are forwarded to the dean.

Assistant Professor

Qualifications for appointment to probationary faculty:

A Ph.D. in Chemistry or related science field is required, and postdoctoral or equivalent industrial experience is highly desirable. The candidate will also show evidence of research and demonstrate the potential for substantial achievement in teaching, research and advancement of the college and department goals in equity and inclusion.

Conditions for annual reappointment:

The chair will draft an annual evaluation letter, informed by reviews from the tenured faculty, of each tenure track faculty member. These letters shall be used to guide and assist the candidate in preparing the materials for tenure and promotion.

Associate Professor

For appointment or promotion to the rank of associate professor, a candidate must be judged to be an effective teacher in courses that they have taught during the review period. The candidate must also demonstrate engagement in service. In addition, substantial scholarly accomplishment is expected; this will generally take the form of peer-reviewed publications resulting from work undertaken while a member of the faculty of Western Washington University and pursuit of resources to support an independent and sustainable research program.

As part of the departmental review for tenure and/or promotion, candidates are required to present an open research seminar to the department. The purpose of this seminar is to provide faculty with an opportunity to consider the candidate’s scholarly accomplishments during the review period, to situate that work within the broader discipline, and to assess the coherence, impact, and future direction of the candidate’s research program.

Department standards for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor:

Teaching

Evidence of effective teaching or improvement towards that goal includes:

A minimum average of one peer evaluation by faculty members per year for the range of courses taught by the faculty member being evaluated, which will be assigned by either the Department Chair or the Chemistry Department Assessment Committee. Peer evaluations should be from multiple tenured faculty members. Candidates may request that the evaluation is based on multiple class sessions and may recommend peer evaluators to include or exclude.
Evidence of efforts toward facilitating student learning and inclusive teaching practices. This should include statement of learning goals/objectives for each class, self-assessment of achievement of those goals, and may include examples of student products.
Student evaluations from the WWU Office of Institutional Effectiveness or other assessment tool approved by the Chemistry Department Assessment Committee (both numerical and narrative responses are required) for all courses taught during the evaluation period (subject to exceptions outlined in memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the UFWW and WWU). Alternative assessment tools must be submitted to the Assessment Committee one month prior to its intended use. The department recognizes the risks inherent in curricular development and innovations as well as the subjective nature of student evaluations for instructors based on identity.
Syllabi and selected course materials (for example: exams, developed lab exercises, student-centered exercises, study materials, etc.) for each course taught during the evaluation period, except for chemistry labs for which the instructor is not the instructor of record.

Scholarship

Evidence of substantial achievement in scholarship includes a combination of:

Peer-reviewed publications in non-predatory scientific or education journals with student co-authors based on work performed at WWU. The scope, number and contributions by the candidate will all factor into evaluation of the publication record.
Collaborative publications are encouraged. Individual contributions to collaborative publications should be clearly explained in the dossier.
Establishment of an active, sustainable research program involving undergraduate students. Sustainable research programs are most often supported by external grants. Pursuit of grants commensurate with the size and scope of a candidate’s research program is expected; securing external grants is encouraged. Other resources that support research productivity may also be considered in lieu of external grants, with examples such as ‘in kind’ support from companies in the form of equipment or funds dedicated to research-related activities, computational resource awards, or access to instrumentation awards (national laboratory facilities or other centralized instrumentation centers).
External grants receive more weight than internal grants
Research grants receive more weight than equipment grants
Collaborative grants are encouraged. For disciplines that require collaborations for grants, these may serve as equivalent to independent grants. Individual contributions to collaborative grants should be clearly explained in the dossier.
External review letters from experts in the respective field of study that address the candidate’s contributions to the field (solicited by the department with input from the candidate).
The required department research seminar must occur prior to the submission of the candidate’s dossier for tenure and/or promotion, and scheduled within one year preceding the dossier submission deadline. Under no circumstances shall the seminar occur after the dossier has been submitted. The slides from the seminar must be included in the dossier.

Evidence of substantial achievement in scholarship may be augmented by some combination of:

Evidence of ongoing research in the form of reviewed grant proposals
Mentorship of undergraduate honors and/or graduate student thesis projects
Publications in discipline-specific preprint servers (such as bioRxiv or chemRxiv) or conference proceedings
Internally funded grants, including the mentorship of student-led fellowship and/or scholarship applications and awards of support for research-related activities
Publication of software, review articles, patents, textbooks and instructional materials
External faculty fellowships (for example, at a national laboratory or research center)
Ongoing research involving undergraduates and/or graduate students resulting in oral or poster presentations at internal and/or external meetings
Collaborative scholarly efforts that support research aims of the broader community

Service

Evidence of effective service contribution includes some combination of:

Basic departmental service is expected, including regular attendance at and contribution to department meetings, committees, activities, and events.
The Chemistry Department values service to college-wide or university-wide committees, including the UFWW.
Advising of students is expected after the second year of appointment.
Supporting the professional development of students is expected, which may include writing letters of recommendation and participating in student-focused panels and workshops.
Some additional service to profession and/or community is encouraged and may include, but is not limited to, reviewing manuscripts, books, or grant proposals; convening topical sessions at regional or national conferences; assuming leadership in regional or national organizations; being active in regional recruitment, mentoring, and community outreach.

Full Professor

Promotion to the rank of professor is recognition that the candidate has demonstrated substantive impact within the academic community. The candidate must provide evidence of excellence in teaching and sustained, productive scholarship. Increased contributions with a leadership emphasis in the area of service to the university and the department are expected as well.

Teaching

Department standards for promotion to Full Professor include the criteria listed under promotion to Associate Professor (except for peer teaching evaluations), plus significant new curricular development and/or demonstrated investment in improving established courses. For peer teaching evaluations, promotion to full professor requires evaluations from multiple tenured faculty members that are representative of the candidate’s teaching repertoire. Peer teaching evaluations may be solicited by the candidate or assigned by the Department Chair or the Chemistry Department Assessment Committee at the candidate’s request.

Scholarship

Department standards for promotion to Full Professor are the criteria listed under promotion to Associate Professor. The candidate should demonstrate sustained scholarly activity during the period of review.

Service

Department standards for promotion to Full Professor include the criteria listed under promotion to Associate Professor, plus some combination of the following:

Increased service to the College and/or University, including the UFWW, as demonstrated by committee leadership and active participation in committee work
Mentorship of probationary faculty and performing peer teaching evaluations
Leadership in departmental activities and program development
Leadership in the profession, including regional, national and international professional organizations
Involvement in local outreach or community service related to faculty professional activities

Post Tenure Review

Post-tenure review is required every five years. Reviews for promotion, as described above, may substitute and resets the PTR timeline. Department standards will provide flexibility in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service across the career life cycle of an individual faculty member.

Teaching

For a rating of “meets standards” in this category, evidence for sustained engagement in and attention to teaching must be included, as evidenced by:

Multiple faculty peer evaluations representative of courses taught are required since the last evaluation. Peer teaching evaluations may be solicited by the candidate or assigned by the Department Chair or the Chemistry Department Assessment Committee.
Evidence of efforts toward facilitating student learning and inclusive teaching practices, which should include statement of learning goals/objectives for each class and self-assessment of achievement of those goals.
Student evaluations from the WWU Office of Institutional Effectiveness or other assessment tool approved by the Chemistry Department Assessment Committee (both numerical and narrative responses are required) for all courses taught since the last evaluation (subject to exceptions outlined in memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the UFWW and WWU). Alternative assessment tools must be submitted to the Assessment Committee one month prior to its intended use.

For a rating of “exceeds standards” in teaching, the candidate should demonstrate substantial initiative in curricular development and/or demonstrated investment in improving established courses.

Scholarship

For a rating of “meets standards” in this category, the candidate must demonstrate evidence of sustained scholarship during the five-year interval. Research mentorship of undergraduate and/or graduate student projects resulting in internal student presentations and/or honors or graduate thesis projects is expected. The candidate must also show evidence of scholarship in the form of faculty- and/or student-led external presentations, such as oral or poster presentations at regional, national and/or international scientific meetings.

For a rating of “exceeds standards” in this category, the candidate must demonstrate some combination of the following:

Published peer-reviewed manuscripts, software, books, patents and review articles
Funded research grant proposals
External grants receive more weight than internal grants
Research grants receive more weight than equipment grants
Collaborative grants are encouraged. For disciplines that require collaborations for grants, these may serve as equivalent to independent grants. Individual contributions to collaborative grants should be clearly explained in the dossier.
Not funded research grant proposals (proposals considered for funding receive more weight than unscored or triaged proposals)

Service

For a rating “meets standards” in this category, evidence for continued engagement with colleagues in the University and beyond must be included, as evidenced by some combination of:

Basic departmental service, including regular attendance at and contribution to department meetings, committees, activities, faculty mentoring, peer teaching evaluations, and events
Service to college-wide or university-wide committees, including the UFWW
Continued advising and supporting the professional development of students
Some additional service to profession and/or community may include reviewing manuscripts, books, or grant proposals; convening topical sessions at regional or national conferences; assuming leadership in regional or national organizations; being active in regional recruitment, mentoring, and community outreach.

For a rating of “exceeds standards” in service, the candidate should demonstrate sustained, effective leadership in one or more service categories described above.

Evaluation of Faculty with Joint Appointments

It is expected that faculty who hold joint appointments in Chemistry and other WWU programs (e.g. SMATE, MACS, IES, AMSEC, etc.) will meet departmental standards for tenure, promotion, and general merit (post-tenure review) with these considerations:

The Chemistry Department will review courses taught for both Chemistry and the jointly appointed program, with the exception of courses that are specific to that program and contain limited Chemistry content. These courses will be reviewed by the relevant program.
Scholarship may be associated with the joint program. Such scholarship will be reviewed by the relevant program as well as by Chemistry.
Service may be on behalf of the candidate’s jointly appointed program. While it is recognized that service contributions will fluctuate between programs year-to-year, service to the Chemistry Department relative to the fraction of their appointment during the evaluation period is expected.

The Chair will request that the joint program director or chair provide a letter summarizing the program’s evaluation of the candidate. This letter should be available to the tenured faculty prior to their evaluation.

Evaluation of Non-Tenure Track Faculty

INSTRUCTOR

Instructors will be reviewed annually on the basis of expectations defined in the letter of offer. For instructors with annual appointments, the department Chair, designee, or committee will provide the review. The department Chair will share the review with the faculty member, who will have five business days to respond. If needed, the department Chair will correct any errors of fact based on the faculty member’s response.

SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

NTT faculty with a minimum of five years of experience at 0.5 FTE or greater at the University with satisfactory evaluations in each of those five years shall be appointed Senior Instructor effective the following September. Senior Instructor positions may include specific tasks or roles beyond teaching activities as outlined in their contract. Performance in all such areas must be satisfactory. Senior Instructors will be evaluated during the final year of their contract following the procedures outlined above for instructors.

Standards for NTT faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) are as follows. Expectations are proportional to the percent FTE of the faculty member.

Teaching

Evidence of effective teaching or improvement towards that goal includes all of the following:

Peer evaluations by a tenured faculty member or an NTT senior instructor at a minimum of one class per evaluation period for representative courses taught by the faculty member being evaluated, which will be assigned by either the Department Chair or the Chemistry Personnel Committee. The NTT instructor may request that the evaluation is based on multiple class sessions and may recommend peer evaluators to include or exclude.
Student evaluations using the process and forms developed and approved by the Faculty Senate for all courses taught during the evaluation period where the faculty member is the instructor of record (subject to exceptions outlined in memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the UFWW and WWU). In assessing student evaluations, the department recognizes the risks inherent in curricular development and innovations as well as the subjective nature of student evaluations for instructors based on identity.
Representative course syllabi and final exams (or equivalent final assessment materials) for each different course taught during the evaluation period, except for chemistry labs for which the instructor is not the instructor of record. Supplementary materials may be optionally provided, such as a self-assessment of teaching, curricular development documents, mid-term exams, lab exercises, student-centered activities, or other relevant materials.

Service

Service efforts are not required for NTT faculty members, but may be performed in areas of critical need, unique expertise, and/or professional interest. Any service expectations are outlined in the NTT faculty member’s contract. Evaluation of any compensated service to the department will occur during the annual review.

Scholarship

Research and/or scholarly activity may be performed by NTT instructional faculty, but is not required unless specified in their contract. Any scholarly efforts that are supported and compensated by WWU will be evaluated during the annual review.

Merit Review of Senior Instructors

In their 6th year following promotion to Senior Instructor and every 6 years thereafter, Senior Instructors will be considered for an award of merit. This evaluation will be completed by a Chair-appointed committee of three Chemistry Department faculty members. At least two committee members must be in a tenured or tenure-track appointment; up to one member may be a Senior Instructor. For jointly appointed Senior Instructors, evaluation criteria are defined in the COPEP by PPBC. To earn a positive recommendation on merit, evidence for sustained and effective engagement in contracted duties is required during the review period, as evidenced by a dossier containing the following:

Curriculum Vitae
Copy of contract letters for the merit review period
Previous evaluation letters from the Chair from the period for merit review
Evidence of effective teaching
Peer evaluations and student evaluations for the period for merit review (the expectations, quantity, and frequency of these evaluations are the same as those outlined above for the evaluation of NTT faculty).
Representative course syllabi and final exams (or equivalent final assessment materials) for each different course taught during the evaluation period, except for chemistry labs for which the Senior Instructor is not the instructor of record. Supplementary materials may be optionally provided, such as curricular development documents, mid-term exams, lab exercises, student-centered activities, or other relevant materials.
Self-assessment of teaching activities. This statement must include a description of how the candidate’s work has supported the ADEI goals of the department, college, and university.
If applicable, self-assessment of non-instructional activities (service and/or scholarship).

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – COMPUTER SCIENCE

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning and Budget Council – last updates approved March 5, 2026.

Purpose

This document specifies the departmental procedures and standards in the evaluation of faculty in the Computer Science Department. These procedures and standards are supplemental to those specified in the College of Science and Engineering (CSE) College Operations and Evaluation Plan (COPEP), which is supplemental to the UFWW Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Qualification for Appointment as Assistant Professor

A doctorate or equivalent degree in computer science or a closely related field is required. The candidate must demonstrate evidence of potential for excellence in teaching and productive scholarship and have professional goals and interests aligned with the wider instructional and professional objectives of the Computer Science Department.

Faculty Participation in Reviews

During a probationary faculty member’s first year, the chair alone performs the review. The chair may visit classes, review student evaluations and course materials, examine works of scholarship, and have discussions with departmental colleagues regarding the candidate. Subsequently, the chair and the candidate meet to discuss overall progress. Then the chair prepares a written evaluation and shares it with the candidate. In subsequent years, all tenured faculty must participate in all professional reviews of their tenured and tenure-track departmental colleagues. A faculty member is excused from participating if the review occurs during a quarter in which the faculty member is on approved leave; in that case the tenured faculty member may choose to participate if suitable arrangements can be made. Tenure-track (probationary) faculty and non-tenure-track faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) do not participate in any reviews or decisions regarding appointment, tenure, or promotion of tenured or tenure-track faculty, but may submit a letter of support at the request of the faculty member under review. Spouses and domestic partners, or other individuals with whom there is an extra-professional conflict of interest, may not participate in decisions that affect each other. The outcome of the annual review shall be a letter, written by the chair, which summarizes the tenured faculty feedback.

Regarding the review of non-tenure-track faculty, merit evaluations for senior instructors will be performed by members of the Personnel Committee. The evaluation committee consists of exactly three members. A senior instructor, other than the one under evaluation, may participate in the review process by substituting for a member of the committee.

For non-tenure-track faculty with annual appointments less than 0.5 FTE, the department chair or designee will conduct the review. For instructors with annual appointments of 0.5 FTE, an annual review by selected member(s) of the department will take place. For senior instructors, the appointment review occurs every three years. The member(s) participating in the review are chosen by the chair or a designee. The outcome of the non-tenure-track faculty review shall be a letter, written by the chair, which summarizes the feedback.

Overall Review Principles and Guidelines

In all aspects of performance and at all levels of professional standing, faculty members are expected to interact in a constructive and cooperative manner with students, fellow faculty, staff members, and the departmental and college leadership regarding all professional matters, and to behave in accordance with relevant professional ethical standards.

It is important that faculty being reviewed provide explicit evidence of accomplishments in teaching, research and service. Failure to supply explicit evidence will have a negative impact on the review process. On a similar note, creating the dossier in such a way as to make it easy to navigate is highly desirable, which allows the reviewers to conduct the review in a timely manner.

The faculty performing a review will fully consider the materials presented by the candidate in the dossier, in the context of guidelines described in the following sections.

Review Process for Probationary and Tenured Faculty

The faculty undergoing review must prepare a dossier and share it with department faculty by the announced date. The dossier must include evidence of achievement in each of the required teaching, scholarship, and service categories. In addition, the dossier must include all documents that are required per the CSE COPEP including this addendum, as well as any available evaluation letters from any academic unit in which the candidate has a joint appointment. The tenured faculty will conduct teaching observations of classroom lectures, and complete the CSE’s Observation of Teaching forms, which will be given to the candidate for inclusion in their dossier.

Each tenured faculty member participating in the review shall present their review of the candidate to the department chair on the designated CSE faculty evaluation form by the announced date.

For probationary faculty, the review period refers to the time since the most recent probationary review or since joining Western Washington University, if no previous review. However, the evidence should be cumulative, and encompass all past review periods, making it clear which materials are new to the review period. For Tenure and Promotion to Associate, the review period encompasses all years since joining the faculty. For Post Tenure Review, review period refers to the time since the most recent successful Post Tenure Review or Tenure and Promotion.

The department chair shall prepare a summary of the evaluations provided by the reviewing faculty. The chair will email the tenured faculty of the department a draft of the letter to review. This step is purely informational, and no vote will be taken. The chair may revise the letter based on feedback from the tenured faculty, which will then be shared with the candidate and the tenured faculty. The candidate shall be permitted five working days to review the letter and submit a response to the chair correcting any factual errors.

Evidence of scholarship, teaching and service

The following lists enumerate teaching, scholarship, and service activities that are referred to in subsequent sections. These lists are non-exhaustive and are being provided to offer examples of evidence that a candidate might include as part of their dossier. Whenever possible, a dossier must provide documents in support of this evidence; for example, copies of manuscripts or grant proposals accepted, rejected, or in review. A dossier should also include relevant context for understanding the significance of this evidence; for example, by citing acceptance rates, if available, for publication venues.

Teaching

Teaching Reflection. Thoughtful reflections on one’s approach to teaching. This document must include a list of the courses taught and a discussion of the teaching activities that were employed, and a reflection on those activities. As described in subsequent sections in this document, for various types of review the reflection may also need to include the following content, although candidates may organize the content however they feel most effective:
Course Improvement. Proposals for potential improvements for at least two courses taught during the review period. At least one of these courses must be a required course from one of the department’s degree programs. This proposal should be a product of self-reflection by the candidate, in consideration of the level of student achievement of course outcomes, and addressing any substantive comments made in the chair’s summary of the formative peer evaluations and faculty observation of teaching forms. For example, a proposal for improving a course might include improvements to course content, assessment items, and/or mode of delivery.
Diversity & Inclusion. A description of the candidate’s work to incorporate activities that contribute to and advance Accessibility, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) efforts through teaching. We refer readers to the CSE ADEI Committee resources for guidance on these activities.
Student-Centered Learning and Risks Taken. If you have used any student-centered learning techniques, or have taken any risks in your teaching in pursuit of excellence, please describe them. Your reflection should provide the context needed for any active-learning activities and other pedagogical techniques to be understood by the reviewers. We value student-centered teaching practices and recognize that excellence in teaching often involves taking risks.
Teaching Goals. A statement of teaching goals.
Teaching Accomplishments. A self-assessment of teaching accomplishments, if not already addressed in other required components.
Course Outcomes Reflection. A self-assessment of the extent to which course outcomes were met for each course taught in the review period. The candidate may include a statement about each instance of a class taught, or a single statement for each course.
Course Content Maintenance. Evidence to show the candidate is engaged in keeping courses and/or the curriculum up to date (e.g. dissemination to, and use by, other faculty of the candidate’s course materials, updates to course topics and materials, contribution to curriculum development, participation in education-focused conferences or workshops, advising students conducting independent study).
Student Evaluations. Student evaluations, including both numerical ratings and student comments, for all courses taught in the review period (unless unusual circumstances exist, which should be explained in the reflection). Comments on student evaluations should be generally positive, although negative comments in response to risks taken in pursuit of teaching excellence will not be counted against the candidate. Student testimonials or statements of support may also be included.
Teaching Honors and Awards.
Peer Observation of Teaching. All CSE faculty observations of teaching forms received, which should number at least two and include at least some observations of required courses from one of the department’s degree programs. If submission of peer observation of teaching forms is not possible, those circumstances must be explained.
Course Materials. Syllabi and course materials for each quarter of all courses taught during the review period. The syllabi must include department approved course outcomes. Not all assessment items need be included, but the included items must total at least 75% of the graded coursework for the course. A sampling of additional materials can also be included. Additionally, for each course taught, the candidate must list which coursework items are used to assess each course outcome. Cumulatively, assessment items should be rigorous and aligned with student learning outcomes.

Scholarship

Publications. Publication of original research in reputable peer reviewed journals, conference proceedings and workshop proceedings. To help the reviewers assess the value of a publication venue, candidates may include rejection rates, impact factor, indexing, and details about sponsoring organizations. This is the primary form of scholarship and some evidence of this must be given for promotion to Associate Professor. Peer reviewed publications with student co-authors are particularly valued.
Research Mentorship. Active research mentorship of WWU students.
Providing authentic research experiences to students, both undergraduate and graduate, is highly valued, particularly those resulting in peer-reviewed publications. Mentorship on research projects resulting in student presentations (including oral and poster) is also valued, and demonstrates a commitment to the faculty-mentored student scholarship culture of the department.
Research Reflections. Thoughtful reflections on one’s approach to research. This must include a research plan. Research agendas should be plausible, and those that address and are adaptable to changing societal, community and student needs are particularly valued. Other suggested sections include discussions about development of one’s research program, evolving approach to research mentorship, and promotion of diversity and inclusion through scholarship.
Research Honors and Awards.
Presentations. Presentations of one’s work at academic conferences, workshops and professional meetings, whether presented by the faculty member or other co-authors.
Presentations at more prominent venues carry additional weight.
Invited presentations carry additional weight.
Other active participation (e.g., serving as a panelist) is also valued.
Funding. Proposals for funding.
Proposals for external funding carry more weight than proposals for internal funding.
Funded proposals carry more weight than proposals in review or unfunded proposals. Support for faculty, students, travel and/or equipment is highly valued.
High quality, competitive proposals carry more weight than less competitive ones. Evidence of the competitiveness of an unfunded proposal could include the scores and reviews from the review process, but inclusion of these reviews is not strictly required.
Collaboration. Strong, diverse and on-going research collaboration. Collaborations within the department, with other departments and with external researchers are all highly valued.
Citations. Number of citations during the review period of publications, placed into the context of the norms of the sub-field.
Books and Book Chapters. Publication of books or chapters of books by a recognized academic publisher or professional body.
Software Artifacts. For artifacts released outside of the department we will consider evidence of merit including acceptance by the open source community, association with a publication, or a measure of high utility (e.g., web site hits, user reviews). For an artifact within the department we will evaluate merit by peer evaluation of the software based on its utility in coursework or research projects.
Diversity & Inclusion. A description of the candidate’s work to incorporate activities that contribute to and advance Accessibility, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) efforts through scholarship. We refer readers to the CSE ADEI Committee resources for guidance on these activities.

Service

Departmental Committees. Constructive contributions to departmental faculty meetings and committees. Chairing is particularly valued.
College and University Committees. Constructive contributions to college and university committees. Chairing is particularly valued.
Stewardship Responsibilities. Constructive contributions to the on-going business of the university, examples of which would include: organizing and/or facilitating student workshops, support and mentorship of clubs, TA coordinating, course coordinating, coordinating visits and talks, promoting alumni engagement, fostering internship opportunities, etc. Certainly, this includes serving in key departmental roles such as Graduate Advisor, Transfer Advisor, and Department Chair, as well as other key roles in the university, including serving on the Faculty Senate, or as the UFWW steward.
Academic advising. Advising students in matters of class schedule, progress toward degree, etc.
Service to the Profession. Professional service, such as the review of manuscripts and grant proposals; chairing and organizing workshops, conferences or sessions therein; and participation in professional organizations.
Overloads. Teaching courses above and beyond the agreed-upon course load set by the department chair, which contributes to the department’s ability to offer required courses in the event that faculty schedules are altered.
Project Mentorship. Advising senior capstone groups on software engineering projects whose focus is not within the scope of the candidate’s research and not tallied in their teaching load.
Faculty Mentorship. Mentoring WWU faculty colleagues.
Diversity & Inclusion. Service contributions to the department’s efforts to promote diversity and inclusion both within the department and in the discipline as a whole. We refer readers to the CSE ADEI Committee resources for guidance on these activities.
Relevant Community Service. Community outreach that is related to the discipline.
Service Honors and Awards.

Departmental Standards for Reappointment of Probationary Faculty

The department shall perform an annual evaluation of probationary (tenure-track) faculty. The purpose of the annual review is to provide regular feedback to the candidate regarding their progress toward tenure and promotion.

In evaluating a candidate at the rank of Assistant Professor with a view toward eventual tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, evaluating faculty should regard the standards defined in Section 7 as the objectives to be achieved by the candidate. This evaluation should emphasize performance in the review period but can be informed by the candidate’s accomplishments that precede the review period.

Departmental Standards for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

We expect both excellent teaching and productive scholarship. While some service contributions are expected, service plays a substantially less significant role in faculty evaluations at this level than do teaching and scholarship.

Scholarship plays a very significant role and a good publication record is expected, but excellence in scholarship does not replace the need for excellence in teaching. Conversely, excellence in teaching does not replace the need for a record of active and productive scholarship. It is recognized that the lines between teaching, scholarship and service may be uncertain and that scholarship may take a wide variety of different forms.

Teaching

Faculty will maintain appropriate levels of course content and academic and intellectual standards, and seek active involvement in other aspects of instruction such as the development of course content, innovation in means and mode of delivery, and overall curricular and program development. That is, we seek a clear commitment and contribution to excellent instruction in a wide sense. The candidate will provide evidence of teaching excellence or improvement towards that goal by including in their dossier all the mentioned categories in Section 5, Teaching, excepting Teaching Honors and Awards, but including all components of Teaching Reflections. Discussions of Course Improvement and Course Content Maintenance are optional in the first few years of probationary review, but evidence of contributions to both of these categories is required for promotion to Associate Professor.

Scholarship

The candidate is expected to present a record of productive scholarly, creative and professional activity, and of participation to the active scholarly life of the department, the university and the profession. Work completed prior to appointment at Western will contribute to such a record, but the record should include several works during the period of employment at Western. The candidate’s scholarly contributions will be assessed in quantity and quality relative to their area of specialization, recognizing that different sub-disciplines have different norms. Probationary faculty are considered to be satisfactory if, referring to the categories of evidence of scholarship enumerated in Section 5, they demonstrate two or more significant items from Publications, an established record of ResearchMentorship, evidence of a thoughtful approach to scholarship in the Research Reflections, and at least three additional items from any of the categories prior to coming up for tenure.

Service

Service as a good citizen of the department and the university and contributions to the day-to-day functioning of the department is required. The expectation is eighteen quarter units of meaningful participation in department, college or university service work, where a ‘quarter unit’ is service in one role for one quarter. This expectation can be realized via the following categories of evidence under Section 5, Service: (1) Department Committees, as well as (2) ad hoc committees empaneled for a specific purpose, (3) College Committees, (4) University Committees, or (5) special service roles of substantial workload such as Community Ambassador, TA Coordinator, Transfer Advisor (under Stewardship Responsibilities). Beyond the quarter unit requirement, quality Academic Advising as well as at least one additional item from any of the remaining service categories (see Section 5, Service) is expected. While the evaluation of the above requirements will primarily be based on service at Western, faculty service conducted at prior institutions may also be considered if indicated in the offer letter, in which case the chair’s first year review letter should indicate the relevant past credit that was provided in the offer letter at the time of hiring. If a candidate is denied the opportunity to meet the quarter unit requirements, this should be explained and documented in their dossier.

Departmental Standards for Promotion to Professor

We expect a record of continued success and sustained excellence in teaching and productive scholarship along with significant contributions to service in order to be promoted to Professor. Compared to the expectations for promotion to Associate Professor, continued scholarly productivity is of great importance and a record of significant contributions to service at a number of levels is expected. However, the Computer Science Department recognizes that careers at the senior level can be distinguished in several ways and for this reason standards for promotion to Full Professor are necessarily less precise than promotion from Assistant to Associate professor.

Recognizing the University’s support of interdisciplinary and collaborative scholarship, candidates for full professor are encouraged to take advantage of the freedom afforded by tenure to pursue their scholarly interests whether they fall within or across traditional disciplinary boundaries. An associate professor may also have more opportunities for productive collaboration than a candidate for tenure, though it continues to be expected that the individual’s contribution should be original and significant.

Number of years in rank is not part of the requirements for promotion to full professor. The timing is individual, and a dossier put forward for promotion sooner does not need to meet any enhanced standard. The assessment of a candidate comprises their entire career, taking into special account accomplishments since promotion to Associate Professor. Most associate professors can expect to submit their dossier for promotion to full professor no sooner than at the start of their fourth year as associate professor.

Teaching

We expect evidence of continued success and sustained excellence in teaching, demonstrated in the same manner as the teaching expectations for promotion to Associate Professor. Evidence of teaching excellence must be demonstrated by addressing all elements in Section 5, Teaching, excepting Teaching Honors and Awards, but including all components of the Teaching Reflections.

Scholarship

We expect evidence of continued productivity and sustained productivity in scholarship leading to a substantial body of work that includes several of the components listed under the scholarship expectations for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor and demonstrated in the same manner. Evidence that the scholarship is significant to the broader professional community (e.g. external grants, citations, invitations to conference panels or other universities) is particularly desirable. Ultimately, the Associate professor’s full body of work at WWU, including accomplishments prior to promotion to Associate, will be considered. However, promotion to Full Professor requires additional, significant accomplishments. Associate professors are considered to be satisfactory if, referring to the categories of evidence of scholarship enumerated in Section 5, Scholarship, after promotion to Associate but prior to coming up for promotion to Full Professor they demonstrate two or more significant items from Publications, a continued record of Research Mentorship, evidence of a thoughtful approach to research in the Research Reflections, and at least three additional items from any of the categories.

Service

A candidate seeking promotion to professor must discuss and provide evidence demonstrating sustained contributions in the following categories described in Section 5, Service: Departmental Committees, College & University Committees, Stewardship Responsibilities, Academic Advising, and Service to the Profession. Ideally, chairing a committee is especially valued.

Departmental Standards for Post Tenure Review

Review is required every five years in accordance with the UFWW Faculty Contract. Reviews for promotion may serve as a substitute. In accordance with the UFWW Faculty Contract, a candidate must meet or exceed departmental standards in teaching, scholarship, and service for a successful review.

Faculty will be evaluated on departmental standards for their rank, making allowance for fluctuations in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service across the professional life cycle of the individual faculty member.

Teaching

To meet department standards in teaching, we require evidence of continued success and sustained excellence in teaching. Evidence of meeting department standards includes addressing the Teaching Reflection, Student Evaluations, Course Materials, Teaching Goals, Peer Observation of Teaching, Diversity & Inclusion, and the Course Outcomes Reflection items in Section 5, Teaching.

To exceed department standards in teaching, we require evidence of excellence beyond those enumerated above to meet department standards, including evidence from the Course Improvement and Teaching Accomplishments categories from Section 5, Teaching.

Scholarship

Expectations in this category may be reduced during the later years of an individual faculty member’s professional life cycle, if there is commensurate growth in contributions to teaching and service.

To meet department standards, we expect evidence of continued engagement in research during the five-year interval, as evidenced by one significant item or multiple minor items from any of the categories of evidence enumerated in Section 5, Scholarship.

To exceed department standards, among the categories of evidence enumerated in Section 5, Scholarship, two significant items from the following categories during the five year review period are required: Publications, Research Mentorship, Research Honors and Awards, Presentations, Funding, Collaboration, Books and Book Chapters, and Software Artifacts.

Service

To meet department standards, the candidate must demonstrate leadership on a department committee at least once during any single 5-year period or be a member of a college or university committee, in addition to serving as a member of one or more department committees. The candidate must continue to perform academic advising duties.

To exceed department standards, in addition to meeting department standards, the candidate must demonstrate a leadership role for at minimum one additional item identified in Section 5, Service.

Review of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

The chair (or the chair and members selected by the chair in the case of 0.5FTE or greater appointment) may visit classes, review student evaluations and course materials, and have discussions with departmental colleagues regarding the candidate.

Contract renewal evaluation will be performed annually for instructors and every three years for senior instructors. Merit evaluations for senior instructors will be performed in the sixth year after promotion and every sixth year thereafter.

Aspects of professional performance that are directly related to the duties specified in the contract letter (most often instructional duties) are the focus of the review. Other contributions beyond those specified are welcome but do not affect the evaluation.

10.1 Appointment Evaluation

The chair will provide a letter that summarizes all WWU duties for which the NTT faculty member was compensated during the review period, including but not necessarily limited to those defined in the contract letter.

Teaching

To meet department standards in teaching, we require evidence of teaching effectiveness. Evidence of meeting these standards includes the Student Evaluations and Course Materials categories in Section 5, Teaching. Instructors are not required to include additional categories of evidence in Section 5, Teaching, but may opt to do so.

Scholarship, Service and Other Duties

Non-tenure-track faculty may engage in scholarship, service, or other duties, but this will play no role in the evaluation process unless it is specified as compensated work in the chair’s summary letter during the review period. If any such duties are specified in the chair’s summary letter, performance must be satisfactory, and evidence must include a brief reflection and any relevant categories of Section 5, Scholarship or Service. Senior instructors may include additional forms of evidence, as appropriate to their specific compensated work duties.

10.2 Merit Evaluation

Teaching

To meet department standards for a merit review increase, we require evidence of teaching excellence. Evidence of meeting these standards includes addressing the Student Evaluations, Course Materials, and Peer Observation of Teaching categories of Section 5, TeachingAdditionally, candidates must include an abbreviated Teaching Reflection (Section 5, Teaching) that addresses at least two of the following categories: Course Improvement, Diversity & Inclusion, Student-Centered Learning and Risks Taken, Teaching Accomplishments, Course Outcomes Reflection, or Course Content Maintenance. Instructors may additionally use the reflection to address any significant comments from the course evaluations.

Scholarship, Service and Other Duties

Senior instructors may engage in scholarship, service, or other duties, but this will play no role in the evaluation process unless it is specified as compensated work in the chair’s summary letter during the review period. If any such duties are specified in the chair’s summary letter, performance must be satisfactory, and evidence must include a brief reflection and any relevant categories of Section 5, Scholarship or Service. Senior instructors may include additional forms of evidence, as appropriate to their specific compensated work duties.

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING

Preamble

This document outlines the standards for the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department’s expectations and processes for faculty appointments, promotions, and reviews. All standards described in this document are supplementary to those described in the College of Science and Engineering COPEP, the University Mission, the UFWW Faculty Contract, and ABET accreditation standards.

Adopted by the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department on [5/20/2025].

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning, and Budget Council on [5/29/2025].

All Electrical and Computer Engineering faculty members are expected to work to support the Department Mission and must meet ABET-EAC, Criterion 6 (ABET Website).

The Review Process

Consistent with the CBA and COPEP, all tenured members of the faculty are required to participate in the review process, including rating a candidate under review in each of the three categories of teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as providing a letter that justifies the rating(s) given.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate candidates with a uniform expectation of quality, but with effort and evidence of quantity commensurate with the candidate’s contract during the review period.

The Chair will invite candidates under review to submit their dossier for inspection by the Chair or a designated representative to ensure that the dossier is complete before it is submitted to the department for review.

The candidate under review bears responsibility for explaining circumstances that may have prevented them from providing evidence to meet expectations in any of the three areas.

B.1. Teaching

Teaching is the primary way in which faculty fulfill the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department’s Mission of developing industry-ready graduates through a combination of creative problem solving, analytical skills development, and experiential learning. Candidates under any type of review must demonstrate that they are:

Assessing and evaluating student learning to meet course and program outcomes,
Engaging in continuous improvement,
Using evidence-based learning approaches,  
Maintaining technical currency and incorporating current industry practices to the degree to which equipment and budgets allow, and
Developing and maintaining learning environments that are inclusive of students with diverse social identities and backgrounds.

B.1.1 Required Elements

Evidence of substantial achievement in teaching or improvement toward that goal (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum development) is expected to be provided by the candidate under review. This includes the following required elements:

A teaching statement and self-assessment of teaching achievements during the evaluation period that includes reflection on students’ learning relative to course learning outcomes. Items must be consistent with documented course specifications and show an appropriate level of rigor. Candidates may include supporting materials beyond those in item 3 below.
All peer evaluations received during the review period. For promotions and PTR, at least two peer teaching observations must be included from the review period. For probationary reviews, at least one peer teaching observation must be included per year. If fewer observations are submitted than required, a brief explanation should be provided.
Syllabi for every class taught and sufficient course material for the most recent offering of each course taught during the review period to demonstrate that the course was taught at the appropriate level with sufficient rigor and met the requirements listed above.
All student evaluations for all lecture and laboratory classes during the evaluation period including rating cover sheets and comment sheets.

B.1.2 Additional Elements

A teaching portfolio may be strengthened by inclusion of evidence of significant curriculum development. Examples of significant curriculum development may include, but are not limited to:

Significant revisions of existing courses and course materials to meet Criteria (A) - (E) in Sec. B.1,
Creating new courses,
Securing extramural grants to support teaching activities.

Such contributions may be made in an individual capacity or as a member of a group that is charged with this responsibility. In the latter case, the contribution of the individual to the group effort will be considered.

B.2. Scholarship

The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department expects active, sustainable, and discipline-relevant scholarship, and values both technical and pedagogical research and the meaningful involvement of undergraduate and/or graduate students in faculty research. Evaluation of scholarship will be based on the quantity of work, the quality of the work, the degree of contribution to team efforts, and the degree to which the body of work indicates that the scholarship program is active, sustainable, and discipline relevant.

B.2.1. Required Elements

The results of a scholarship program are expected to lead to externally or peer-reviewed works. Examples of such work can include:

*Peer-reviewed publications, such as:
Journal paper(s),
Scholarly work in conference proceedings at a national/international level,
*Submission of major extramural grant proposal(s) (indicate relative contribution to collaborative proposal development in parentheses after the listed item in the CV),
Externally funded projects/grants,
Issued patents,
Books or book chapters within the discipline,
Other resources that support research productivity may also be considered, such as in-kind support obtained from companies in the form of equipment, computational resource awards, or access to instrumentation awards.

NOTE: Evidence for items marked with * is required to be provided when a candidate is under review for tenure and/or promotion (Sec. D, Sec. E).

B.2.2. Additional Elements

A scholarship portfolio may be enhanced by supplemental works that demonstrate working toward building and maintaining sustainable, discipline-relevant scholarship. Evidence of these may include, but is not limited to:

Funded internal grant proposals,
Non-peer-reviewed presentations at regional or national professional meetings,
Faculty fellowships (e.g., at national laboratories),
Student mentorship, including:
Student presentations at conferences and/or Scholar’s Week,
Grants/awards to students for their research carried out under faculty supervision.

B.3. Service

Faculty members in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department are expected to actively participate in the development, management, and continuous improvement of programs and policies for the department, the college, and the university. Service to the profession and, when related to one’s area of expertise, the community, also counts as service activities. Evaluation of service will be based on the amount of involvement and degree of contribution.

B.3.1. Required Elements 

A candidate under any type of review is expected to:

Provide service within the department, including advisement of assigned students and service for accreditation,
Attend and participate in department meetings,
Serve on department committees, as assigned by the Chair,
**Serve on college, interdisciplinary program, or university committees.

NOTE: Evidence for items marked with ** is not required during annual reviews of probationary faculty (Sec. C).

B.3.2. Additional Elements

Activities that enhance a service portfolio include, but are not limited to:

Advisement of graduate students and masters project supervision,
Mentoring of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty,
Service to the profession: examples include serving a guest journal editor, a special session organizer or moderator for professional society conferences, paper reviewer for a professional organization, as an officer in professional societies, or as a faculty advisor for a student chapter of a professional organization,
Assisting with university events,
Curricular development,
Public presentations and community projects,
K-12 and community outreach,
Developing program or departmental marketing and outreach material,
Participation in university interdisciplinary programs,
Supporting the professional development of undergraduate and graduate students, which may include writing letters of recommendation and participation in student-focused panels and workshops,
Efforts to arrange resources for the department, such as arranging gifts in-kind or working with the Western Foundation, and/or opportunities for students, such as arranging internships,
Membership on a thesis committee outside the department.

B.3.3. Leadership Elements

Activities demonstrating leadership may further strengthen a service portfolio, beyond evidence provided in Sec. B.3.2. Service activities displaying leadership include, but are not limited to:

Department Chair,
Graduate Program Director,
Organizing a professional conference, conference section, or conference session,
Peer review for government agencies, including but not limited to the NSF, DoE, or the DoD,
Program evaluator for accreditation of academic programs,
Chairing department, college, or university committees, or professional bodies external to the university,
Member of a working group with significant impact and leadership role in the field,
Development of interdisciplinary programs,
Regular journal editor.
Probationary Faculty

C.1. Qualifications for Appointment

A Ph.D. in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering or a closely related discipline from a recognized institution.

C.2. Annual Reviews

Probationary faculty will be reviewed annually by tenured faculty of the department, except in the first year of appointment, where such review is carried out by the Department Chair. The goal of this review is to provide regular feedback to the candidate regarding their progress toward tenure and promotion. The candidate under review will prepare a dossier. The material in the dossier must map evidence provided to elements of teaching, scholarship, and service specified in Sec. B.1.,B.2., B.3. While the evidence provided must be cumulative and encompass all previous review periods, the dossier must clearly indicate which parts are new since the previous annual review.

Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

Candidates are expected to demonstrate substantial achievement in teaching, productive scholarship, and development of service activities over time. For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must show that they:

Satisfy criteria (A) - (E) inSec. B.1. and provide evidence of substantial achievement in teaching as described in Sec. B.1.1.,
Have developed a scholarship program that is active, sustainable, and discipline relevant by providing evidence of achievement as described in Sec. B.2.1.,
Haveparticipated in service activities and built up to the level of participation in all required service activities as described in Sec. B.3.1.

An application for tenure and promotion may be strengthened by providing additional evidence of achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service as detailed in Sec. B.1.2, B.2.2, B.3.2, and B.3.3.

Promotion to Professor

For promotion to Professor, candidates must demonstrate that they have consistently and continuously met teaching expectations, established a record of productive scholarship, and significantly contributed to service activities since promotion to Associate Professor and receiving tenure. Candidates must show that they are satisfying criteria (A) - (E) described in Sec. B.1 and that they are meeting department expectations by providing evidence of required teaching, scholarship, and service elements as described in Sec. B.1.1, B.2.1, and B.3.1. In addition, candidates must provide additional evidence of achievement in teaching as detailed in Sec. B.1.2. Candidates should also have made significant contributions through service activities as described in Sec. B.3.2 and participated in activities that display leadership as specified in Sec. B.3.3.

Candidates applying for promotion to Professor who have taken professional leave since their last review shall include a copy of their professional leave report in the relevant section of their dossier.

Post-Tenure Review

Faculty will be evaluated on departmental standards for their rank (Associate Professor or Professor), making allowance for fluctuations in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service across the career of the individual.

To meet department standards in teaching, candidates must demonstrate continued fulfillment of teaching expectations by satisfying criteria (A) - (E) in Sec. B.1 and providing evidence of required elements described in Sec. B.1.1. To exceed department standards in teaching, candidates must additionally provide evidence of curriculum development as described in Sec. B.1.2.

To meet department standards in scholarship, candidates must present evidence of continued involvement in discipline-relevant scholarship as described in Sec. B.2.1. To exceed department standards, candidates must present a body of work that indicates an active and sustained program of discipline-relevant scholarship during the review period.

To meet department standards in service, candidates must participate constructively in the required service activities described in Sec. B.3.1. To exceed department standards, candidates must participate in service activities as described in Sec. B.3.2 and in activities that display leadership as specified in Sec. B.3.3.

Candidates who have taken professional leave since their last review shall include a copy of their professional leave report in the relevant section of their dossier.

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

Non-Tenure-Track (NTT) faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) are expected to establish themselves as effective teachers. The teaching of Instructors and Senior Instructors shall be evaluated using the criteria detailed in Sec. B.1.

Scholarship and service efforts are typically not required for NTT faculty. Any expectation of service to the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department will be outlined in the NTT faculty member’s contract and be compensated accordingly. Evaluation of any scholarship and service activities will occur during the annual review.

G.1. Instructors

Instructors shall be reviewed annually based on expectations defined in the letter of offer. For instructors with annual appointments of less than 0.5 FTE associated with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department courses, the Chair will provide the review. For instructors with annual appointments of 0.5 FTE or greater associated with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, the Chair shall form an NTT Review Committee of three tenured faculty.

G.2. Senior Instructors

NTT faculty with a minimum of five years of experience at 0.5 FTE or greater at the university with satisfactory evaluations in each of those five years shall be appointed Senior Instructor effective the following September. Senior Instructors’ positions may include specific tasks or roles beyond teaching activities as outlined in the letter of appointment. Appointment to Senior Instructor shall not result in additional duties without compensation beyond the senior instructor salary increase. Performance in all such areas must be satisfactory.

G.2.1 Triennial Reviews

Senior Instructors shall be evaluated once every three years according to the criteria for evaluation of NTT Instructors, except that the minimum number of peer evaluations of teaching is one evaluation per course number during the evaluation period. For Senior Instructors with annual appointments of less than 0.5 FTE associated with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department courses, the Chair will provide the review. The Chair may, at their discretion, select a tenured faculty member to assist with this review. To meet department standards, candidates must demonstrate continued fulfillment of teaching expectations by satisfying criteria (A) - (E) in Sec. B.1 and providing evidence of required elements described in Sec. B.1.1.

G.2.2 Merit Reviews

In the review that takes place in their sixth year following promotion and every six years thereafter, senior instructors will be considered for an award of merit as outlined in the CBA. For senior instructors who teach in multiple departments, the review is conducted in the department where the majority of their teaching has occurred. For senior instructors with their primary appointment in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, the required dossier materials to be submitted and criteria for the review will be the same as that defined for the Triennial Review in Sec. G.2.1. To earn a positive recommendation on merit, candidates must demonstrate that they are continuing to meet teaching expectations by satisfying criteria (A) - (E) in Sec. B.1 and providing evidence of required elements described in Sec. B.1.1. The candidate must additionally provide evidence of curriculum development as described in Sec. B.1.2. The merit reviews will be conducted by a committee of three faculty members appointed by the Chair. The committee will vote on whether the senior instructor met or did not meet the criteria for a merit review and will provide their recommendation to the Chair. The Chair will summarize the recommendations of the committee and provide their own assessment in a letter to the Dean.

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

This document outlines the standards for the Engineering & Design Department's expectations and processes for faculty appointments, promotions, and reviews. All standards described in this document are supplementary to those described in the College of Science and Engineering’s COPEP, the University Mission, the UFWW faculty contract, and program accreditation standards.

Adopted by the Engineering & Design Department on March 12, 2009. Updated November 19, 2014, May 23, 2018, October 31, 2018, February 20, 2019, May 12, 2021, October 27, 2021, May 18, 2022, April 24, 2024, and February 25, 2026.

PREAMBLE

Members of the faculty are expected to work to support the Engineering & Design Department Mission (https://cse.wwu.edu/engineeringdesign/assessment-and-accreditation). Faculty members must meet ABET-EAC, Criterion 6. (http://www.abet.org/) standards or NASAD for Degree-Granting Institutions, Standard II E. (http://nasad.arts-accredit.org/) as is appropriate for their areas of teaching and research.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

Consistent with the CBA and COPEP, all tenured members of the faculty are required to participate in the review process, including rating the candidate's accomplishments in each of the three categories of teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as providing a letter that justifies the rating given. As the Engineering & Design Department is comprised of independent and nearly independent programs spanning diverse subject areas, tenured members of the faculty from programs other than the candidate’s (non-program faculty members) may not be able to fairly and thoroughly assess all material in a candidate’s dossier. However, reviewers are expected to evaluate candidates with a uniform expectation of quality commensurate with the candidate's contract during the review period. Candidates are therefore expected to clearly document the terms of their contract, particularly where those terms include expectations or responsibilities that differ from, or extend beyond, the uniform expectations applied across the department.

In their review letters, non-program faculty members must clearly delineate what, if any, materials in a candidate’s dossier were not assessed because reviewers did not believe themselves to be qualified to fairly and thoroughly assess them.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate candidates with a uniform expectation of quality but with effort and evidence quantity commensurate with the candidate’s contract during the review period.

After the Chair has written the evaluation letter (CBA sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8). The Chair shall share a copy of the draft letter with the tenured members of the faculty before the draft letter goes to the candidate. The chair may revise the letter based on feedback from the tenured members of the faculty.

TEACHING

Teaching is the primary way that faculty fulfill the Engineering and Design Department Mission of developing industry-ready graduates through a combination of creative problem-solving, analytical skills development, and experiential and hands-on learning.

Demonstration of substantial achievementin teaching is expected for all candidates applying for promotion. Candidates under any type of review must demonstrate that they are:

Assessing and evaluating student learning and working to meet course and program outcomes,
Engaging in continuous improvement,
Using evidence-based learning approaches,
Maintaining technical currency and incorporating current industry practices to the degree which equipment and budgets allow, and
Developing and maintaining learning environments that are equitable and inclusive of students with diverse social identities and backgrounds.

Evidenceof substantial achievementin teaching or improvement towards that goal (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum development) includes the following required elements:

A teaching statement and self-assessment of teaching achievements during the evaluation period that includes reflection on students’ learning relative to course learning outcomes. Items must be consistent with documented course specifications and show an appropriate level of rigor. Candidates may include supporting materials beyond those that are required in item 3 below.
Peer evaluations are required except for PTR evaluations. If peer valuations have been received during the review period, all shall be included.
Syllabi for every class taught and sufficient course materials for the last offering of a course taught during the review period to demonstrate that the course was taught at the appropriate level with sufficient rigor and met the requirements listed above. Course materials may be provided by providing additional access to course sites to all reviewers.
All student evaluations for lecture and laboratory classes during the evaluation period with summaries that include ratings cover sheets and comment sheets.

SCHOLARSHIP

The Engineering and Design department expects active, sustainable, and discipline relevant scholarship, and values both technical and pedagogical research and the meaningful involvement of undergraduates. The results of such a scholarship program are expected to lead to externally/peer-reviewed works, such as:

Peer reviewed journal publications
Peer reviewed scholarly work in conference proceedings at a national or international level for professional societies or organizations
Externally funded projects/grants
Issued Patents
Books or book chapters within the discipline
Faculty fellowships (e.g. at national laboratories)
Submission of major grant proposals as PI, even if the proposals are not funded
For Industrial Design only – invited/juried gallery shows and multimedia productions

Evaluation of scholarship will be based upon the quantity of work, the quality of the work, the degree of contribution to team efforts, and the degree to which the body of work indicates that the scholarship program is active, sustainable, and discipline-relevant.

A scholarship portfolio may be strengthened by supplemental works that demonstrate works towards building and maintaining sustainable, discipline-relevant scholarship such as funded internal grant proposals, unfunded external grant proposals (except as noted above), and non-peer reviewed presentations at regional or national professional meetings.

SERVICE

Faculty members in the Engineering & Design Department are expected to actively participate in the development, management, and continuous improvement of programs and policies for academic programs, the department, and the University. Service to the profession and, when related to one’s area of expertise, the community also count as service activities.

Evaluation of service will be based on the amount of involvement and degree of contribution.

Required Service activities:

Service within the program, including:
Student advisement
Service for accreditation
Attendance at and participation in meetings
Department committee participation
College, interdisciplinary program, or university committee participation

Examples of service activities that enhance the service portfolio include, but are not limited to:

Mentoring tenure track and non-tenure track faculty
Service to the profession: examples include serving as a guest journal editor, a special session organizer or a moderator for professional society conferences, a paper reviewer for a professional organization, as an officer in professional societies, or as a faculty advisor for a student chapter of a professional organization
Assisting with university events
Curricular development at the program level
Public presentations and community projects
K-12 and community outreach
Development of program or departmental marketing and outreach materials/websites.
Participation in university interdisciplinary programs
Efforts to arrange resources for the Department, such as arranging gifts in kind or working with the Western Foundation, and/or opportunities for students, such as arranging internships
Membership on a thesis committee

Service activities displaying leadership include, but are not limited to:

Department Chair
Program Director or Program Lead
Organizing a professional conference, conference section, or conference session
Peer review for government agencies such as NSF, DOE, or DOD
Program evaluator for accreditation of academic programs
Chairing college or university committees or professional bodies external to the University
Member of a working group that has a significant impact and leadership role in the field
Development of interdisciplinary programs

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Qualifications and expectations for appointment to probationary faculty:

Engineering Faculty

An earned PhD in engineering or a closely related discipline, received from an accredited institution, or
An earned MS degree in engineering or a closely related discipline, and significant, recent, and relevant industry-based professional experience.

Industrial Design Faculty

An earned MID, MS, or MFA degree in industrial design or a related field is required

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Teaching

Faculty members at the Assistant Professor level are expected to establish themselves as effective teachers. For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must demonstrate that they are meeting expectations in teaching as stated above.

Scholarship

Faculty members at the Assistant Professor level are expected to develop sustainable programs of discipline-relevant scholarship. For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must present a body of work that indicates that their scholarship program is active, sustainable, and discipline-relevant.

Service

Faculty members at the Assistant Professor level must show development of service activities over time and build to the level of participation in all required service activities by time of application for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. The application can be strengthened with the addition of other relevant service activities. Participation in service activities displaying leadership is not expected during a faculty member’s probationary period, though it will count and be valued in situations where it does occur.

FULL PROFESSOR

Candidates applying for promotion to Professor who have been on sabbatical since their last review shall include a copy of their sabbatical report in the relevant section of their dossier.

Teaching

For promotion to Professor, candidates must demonstrate that they have consistently and continue to meet expectations in teaching as stated above and provide evidence of significant curriculum development.

Scholarship

For promotion to Professor, candidates must present a body of work that indicates an active, sustained, and discipline-relevant program of scholarship since promotion to Associate Professor and tenure.

Service

For promotion to Professor, candidates must participate in service activities that display leadership and have made significant contributions through service activities.

POST TENURE REVIEW

It is expected that there will be fluctuations in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service across the career of an individual faculty member, so candidates for PTR should be assessed holistically over the review period rather than against rigid expectations in each of the categories.

Candidates who have been on sabbatical since their last review shall include a copy of their sabbatical report in the relevant section of their dossier.

Teaching

To meet department standards, candidates must demonstrate that they are continuing to meet the teaching expectations stated above. To exceed department standards, candidates must demonstrate that they are continuing to meet the teaching expectations stated above and must also provide evidence of significant curriculum development.

Scholarship

To meet department standards, candidates must present evidence that indicates continued involvement in discipline-relevant scholarship. To exceed department standards, candidates must present a body of work that indicates an active and sustained program of discipline-relevant scholarship during the review period.

Service

For faculty members to meet department standards, candidates must participate constructively in the required service activities. To exceed department standards, candidates must participate in service activities that display leadership and have made significant contributions through service activities.

Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Teaching

Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) are expected to establish themselves as effective teachers. The teaching of Instructors and Senior Instructors shall be evaluated using the demonstration of substantial achievement in teaching as listed above. The evidence of substantial achievement in teaching shall be included in an electronic dossier and contain the four categories of items listed above as evidence of teaching.

Scholarship

Research efforts are typically not required for NTT faculty. Any expectations of service to the Engineering and Design Department are outlined in the NTT faculty member’s contract and are compensated accordingly. Evaluation of any scholarship to the department will occur during the annual review.

Service

Service efforts are typically not required for NTT faculty. Any expectations of service to the E&D Department are outlined in the NTT faculty member’s contract and are compensated accordingly. Evaluation of any service to the department will occur during the annual review.

INSTRUCTOR

Instructors shall be reviewed annually on the basis of expectations defined in the letter of offer. For instructors with annual appointments of less than 0.5 FTE associated with Engineering and Design department courses, the Chair will provide the review. For instructors with annual appointments of 0.5 FTE or greater associated with Engineering & Design department courses, the Chair shall form a NTT Review Committee of three tenured faculty.

SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

NTT faculty with a minimum of five years of experience at 0.5 FTE or greater at the University with satisfactory evaluations in each of those five years shall be appointed Senior Instructor effective the following September. Senior Instructors’ positions may include specific tasks or roles beyond teaching activities as outlined in the letter of appointment. Appointment to Senior Instructor shall not result in additional duties without compensation beyond the senior instructor salary increase. Performance in all such areas must be satisfactory.

Senior Instructor Triennial Reviews

Senior Instructors shall be evaluated once every three years. Senior Instructors will be evaluated according to the criteria for evaluation of Non-Tenure Track Instructors, except that the minimum number of peer evaluations of teaching is one evaluation per course number during the evaluation period. The Chair is responsible for identifying faculty evaluator(s) and securing the required evaluation(s). For Senior Instructors with annual appointments of 0.5 FTE or less associated with teaching in the department, the Chair will provide the review. The Chair may, at their discretion, select a tenured faculty member to assist with this review. To meet department standards, candidates must demonstrate that they are continuing to meet the expectations of demonstrated substantial achievement in teaching.

Senior Instructor Merit Reviews

In the review that takes place in their sixth year following promotion and every six years thereafter, senior instructors will be considered for an award of merit as outlined in the CBA. For senior instructors that teach in multiple departments, the review is conducted in the department where the majority of their teaching has occurred. For Senior Instructors with their primary appointment in the Engineering & Design department, the required dossier materials to be submitted and the criteria for the review will be the same as that defined for the Senior Instructor evaluation above. To exceed department standards, candidates must demonstrate that they are continuing to meet the expectations of demonstrated substantial achievement in teaching stated above and must also provide evidence of consistent engagement of curriculum development. The merit reviews will be conducted by a committee of three faculty appointed by the Chair. The committee will vote on whether the Senior Instructor met or did not meet the criteria for a merit review and will provide their recommendation to the Chair. The Chair will summarize the results from the committee and provide their own assessment in a letter to the Dean.

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – GEOLOGY

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning and Budget Council

Revised and adopted by the Geology Department on May 23, 2024.

This document outlines Geology Department expectations supplemental to those presented in the College of Science and Engineering Operating Procedures and Evaluation Plan (COPEP) for faculty appointments, promotions, and review.

Participation by Faculty in the Review Process

AlltenuredfacultyareexpectedtoparticipateinthereviewoftheirGeologyDepartment colleagues. A faculty member may be excused from participation if the review is to occurduringaquarterinwhichthefaculty memberis onleave.Leavestatus does not precludeparticipation,butadvancearrangementsmustbemadeifthefacultymember isawayfromcampus.Probationary(tenure-track)andlimitedtermfacultydonotvote. However, they are invited to provide comments. Spouses may not participate in decisions that affect each other’s appointment, promotion, and/or salary.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Qualifications for appointment to probationary faculty:

A Ph.D. in geological sciences or related science/engineering field is required. The candidate will also show evidence of excellence in teaching and research.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Department standards for tenure and promotion:

Teaching

Evidence of teaching excellence or improvement towards that goal (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum development) as demonstrated by:

A teaching reflection that includes a statement of teaching goals for each course taught with self-assessment of teaching accomplishments and whether course outcomes have been met. This should include responses to student assessment data and any course improvements and/or curricular changes. It should also include any evidence for the use of active learning and other inclusive teaching methods
Syllabi and examples of course materials used to assess student learning for each course taught, such as exams, problem sets, pre- and post-test scores, and/or evidence of student work (with written permission of the student)
Student evaluations of teaching that show evidence of teaching effectiveness. This should include course evaluations for every class taught, and any omissions should be explained.
Participation in faculty development to improve teaching or curriculum (optional but encouraged).
Faculty peer evaluations (not required, but strongly encouraged)

Research

Evidence for excellence in research as demonstrated by:

Publications that are peer-reviewed, first-authored or student-authored and published in national or international journals that present the results of work performed while at WWU. Manuscripts that have been accepted or published are considered with more weight than those in revision, which are considered with more weight than those that have been submitted. For work begun at another institution, explain what portion of the work was performed at WWU.
Multiple peer-reviewed publications in which you are junior author may compensate for a first-authored publication. The candidate should specify her/his percentage contribution to the manuscript.
Multiple publications in non-peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, or extended conference abstracts may compensate for a peer-reviewed publication.
Significant efforts towards setting up departmental research facilities and development of research software, techniques, and methodologies for broader scientific application may also compensate for a peer-reviewed publication.
Authorship or contributions to textbooks or validated and publicly distributed software may compensate for a peer-reviewed publication.
Ongoing research in the form of published abstracts.
Proposals for research grants. Funded grants carry more weight than unfunded grants, and external proposals carry more weight than internal proposals.
Outside review letters. The candidate will submit the names of five or more potential reviewers to the chair, who will obtain three letters. Only one reviewer may be a close collaborator.
Other evidence that your research is important to the larger community such as science citation index.

Evidence that the candidate is fostering student research as demonstrated by:

Active advisement of graduate and/or undergraduate students.
One or more completed theses of advised graduate students.
Some of the following: published results of student theses, presentations by students at regional, national, or international meetings, awards to students, and/or research grants awarded to students.

Service

Basic departmental service is required: attendance at and constructive contribution to faculty meetings and to departmental program development, and service on departmental committees. This also includes proper upkeep and maintenance of individual research facilities and lab space and continued participation in classroom and laboratory safety procedures. Some additional Geology-related service to profession, University, College, and/or community is required. Service on graduate student thesis committees is expected.
Professional service may include, but is not limited to, reviewing manuscripts, books, grants, convening topical sessions at regional or national conferences, leadership roles in regional or national organizations, etc.
University and college service may include, but is not limited to, service on university or college level committees, presentations to the university community, etc.
Community service may include, but is not limited to, public presentations, participation in scientific outreach, scientific engagement via social media, etc.

FULL PROFESSOR

Department standards for promotion to Full Professor

Teaching

Evidence of teaching excellence as demonstrated by:

A teaching reflection that includes a statement of teaching goals for each course taught with self-assessment of teaching accomplishments and whether course outcomes have been met. This should include responses to student assessment data and any course improvements and/or curricular changes. It should also include any evidence for the use of active learning and other inclusive teaching methods
Syllabi and examples of course materials used to assess student learning for each course taught, such as exams, problem sets, pre- and post-test scores, and/or evidence of student work (with written permission of the student)
Student evaluations of teaching that show evidence of teaching effectiveness. This should include student course evaluations, including comments, for every class taught since the last promotion, and any omissions should be explained.
Participation in faculty development to improve teaching or curriculum is encouraged.
Faculty peer evaluations (not required, but strongly encouraged)

Research

Evidence for sustained excellence in research as demonstrated by:

A substantial body of work that may include the following:
Regular publication in national or international journals.
Peer reviewed senior authored (or second author on student-senior-authored) manuscripts that have been accepted or published are considered with more weight than those in revision, which are considered with more weight than those that have only been submitted.
Multiple peer-reviewed publications in which you are junior author may compensate for a first-authored publication. The candidate should specify their percentage contribution to the manuscript.
Multiple publications in non-peer-reviewed journals, or those in local journals, may compensate for a peer-reviewed publication.
A research book, textbook, popular publication, or validated and publicly distributed software, which can significantly contribute to this body of work.
Technical reports, which can significantly add to the body of work if they represent original research.
Ongoing research in the form of published abstracts.
Proposals for research grants. Funded grants carry more weight than unfunded grants, and external proposals carry more weight than internal proposals.
Significant contribution to departmental research infrastructure.
Outside review letters. The candidate will submit the names of potential reviewers to the chair, who will obtain three letters. Only one reviewer may be a close collaborator.
Other evidence that your research is important to the larger community such as science citation index, invited talks at national/international conferences, and guest lectures at other universities.

Evidence that the candidate is fostering student research as demonstrated by:

Active advisement of graduate students, and/or undergraduate students.
Completed theses of graduate students advised since last promotion.
Some of the following: published results of student theses, presentations by students at regional or national meetings, awards to students, and/or research grants awarded to students.

Service

Promotion to Full Professor requires excellence in departmental service activities (outlined under Associate Professor section above) as well as some combination of the following:

Substantial service to the College and/or University typically demonstrated by active committee membership.
Substantial service with professional organizations at the national, regional, or local levels is desired, and can compensate for some (but not all) College/University-level service. This includes editorial positions for academic journals.
Substantial involvement in local outreach or community service related to faculty professional activities. Such involvement, while not required, may be given weight in this category.
Efforts to broaden participation and improve equality of opportunity for underrepresented groups in the geosciences, which may include diversity workshops, trainings, and direct research mentorship of minorities, and outreach programs.

Post-Tenure Review

Review is required by the Faculty Contract every five years after promotion. Reviews for promotion, as described above, may substitute. The faculty member’s performance shall be determined as having exceeded department standards, having met department standards, or not having met department standards in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

Teaching

To meet department standards in teaching, we require evidence for sustained engagement in and attention to teaching. These materials will be used to judge the quality of teaching:

A teaching reflection that includes a statement of goals and self-assessment of accomplishments for each course taught since the last review. This should include reflection on whether course outcomes have been met.
Syllabi and examples of course materials used to assess student learning for each course taught, such as exams, problem sets, pre- and post-test scores, and/or evidence of student work (with written permission of the student)
Participation in departmental curricular review/revision efforts
Student evaluations of teaching that show evidence of teaching effectiveness. This should include student course evaluations, including comments, for every class taught since the last promotion or post-tenure review, and any omissions should be explained.

To exceed department standards in teaching, we require evidence for excellence in teaching. Excellence can be measured by some of the following:

Clear self-assessment and response to student assessment data, with resulting course improvements and/or curricular changes
Development of new courses and revision of existing courses
Participation in teaching workshops and continued training in pedagogy
Evidence for incorporating student-centered approaches in the classroom
Evidence for fostering an inclusive classroom environment
Other evidence of teaching excellence derived from:

Student teaching evaluations
Peer evaluations of teaching
Letters from alumni

Research

To meet department standards in this category, we expect evidence for continued engagement in research including some combination of:

At least one published manuscript or comprehensive professional report
At least two presentations at national or regional conferences
Attempts to secure extramural funding
Successful mentorship of graduate and/or undergraduate student research in the form of completed theses and/or thesis committee membership

To exceed departmental standards in this category, evidence should include several of the following:

A body of scholarly work that may include:

Publications in national or international journals
A research book, textbook, or research-based publication for the broader public
Technical reports, if they represent original research
Validated and publicly distributed software

Ongoing research in the form of published abstracts
Funded research proposals.
Significant contribution to departmental research infrastructure
Other evidence that your research is important to the larger community such as science citation index, invited talks at national/international conferences, and guest lectures at other universities, popular media representation of your research, etc.
Successful mentorship of graduate and/or undergraduate student research in the form of published results of student theses, presentations by students at regional or national meetings, awards to students, and/or research grants awarded to students

Service

To meet departmental standards in this category, we expect evidence for continued engagement with colleagues in the University and beyond, including:

Continued participation in departmental activities, including attendance at faculty meetings and presentations within the department
College or University service demonstrated by committee membership
Proper upkeep and maintenance of individual research facilities and lab space. This includes the pertinent safety protocols, training research students, and communicating activities to other faculty and staff.
Continued participation in classroom and laboratory safety procedures including department trainings, University/College level (e.g., sexual harassment training), and class safety measures (e.g., first aid training, CPR training for field camp instructors).
Professional service such as manuscript or proposal review

To exceed departmental standards in this category, evidence should include the above plus any of the following:

Substantial service to the College and/or University demonstrated by active committee membership and leadership.
Substantial service with professional organizations at the national, regional, or local levels, and can compensate for some (but not all) College-/University-level service
Substantial involvement in local outreach or community service related to faculty professional activities. Such involvement, while not required, may be given weight in this category.
Significant efforts to broaden participation and promote equal opportunity for underrepresented groups in the geosciences.

NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

INSTRUCTOR

The CBA specifies that Instructors shall be reviewed on the basis of expectations defined in this document and in the letter of offer or compensated duties (referred to here as the contract). Instructors are reviewed annually; Senior Instructors are evaluated once during their period of appointment (not more than three years) and are eligible for merit review after year six.

The Department Chair may convene a committee to oversee the evaluation. The Chair will summarize the results of the review and separately provide their own recommendation on merit. The faculty member will receive a copy of this letter and will have five business days to respond to the letter. The Department Chair will correct any errors of fact and a copy of the final version of the evaluation letter will be submitted to the Dean and provided to the instructor.

Review will be based on materials provided by instructor in a dossier that includes:

Teaching

Evidence of teaching excellence or improvement towards that goal (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum development) as demonstrated by:

A teaching reflection that includes a statement of goals and self-assessment of accomplishments for each course taught since the last review. This should include reflection on whether course outcomes have been met. This should include responses to student assessment data and any course improvements and/or curricular changes. It should also include evidence for the use of active learning; and evidence toward advancing Accessibility, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) via course design, curriculum, instruction, mentorship, and/or advising practices.
Student evaluations of teaching that show evidence of teaching effectiveness. This will include all student evaluations (including comments) for all instances of all courses taught during the review period, and any omissions should be explained.
Syllabi and an example of course materials used to assess student learning for each course taught. Examples of completed/graded student work may be included.
Participation in faculty development to improve teaching or curriculum (optional but encouraged).
Faculty peer evaluations (optional but encouraged)

Research

NTT faculty are welcome to conduct research, but research is not required.

Service

Service is not required unless otherwise specified in the contract. However, basic departmental engagement is welcome, such as attendance at department faculty meetings and contributions to academic program development.

Other

Instructor positions may include other specific tasks or roles outlined in the candidate’s contract. Performance in these areas must be satisfactory.

SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

An instructor who has taught a minimum of five separate academic years at 0.5 annual FTE or more at the University with satisfactory evaluations (criteria listed above) in each of those five years shall be appointed senior instructor effective the following September. The 0.5 annual FTE is based upon a nine-month appointment at the University and on the teaching of credit bearing and/or degree applicable courses. Appointment to Senior Instructor does not require additional duties without compensation beyond the senior instructor salary increase.

MERIT BASED COMPENSATION REVIEW OF SENIOR INSTRUCTORS

Senior instructor merit reviews will be conducted by a committee appointed annually by the chair. The committee will consist of three department faculty members, one of whom may be a senior instructor. The committee may solicit reviews by other faculty in the department as they see fit. The committee will determine by vote whether the senior instructor “met” or “did not meet” the criteria for merit review and will provide their recommendation to the Chair. The Chair will summarize the results of the review and separately provide their own recommendation on merit. The faculty member will receive a copy of this letter and will have five business days to respond to the letter. The Department Chair will correct any errors of fact and a copy of the final version of the evaluation letter will be submitted to the Dean and provided to the senior instructor.

Merit evaluations of Senior Instructors take place in the sixth year following promotion to senior instructor and every six years after that. Senior instructors must provide a dossier comprising all the materials described above for the six years under review. A positive recommendation for merit will be based on the applicant’s providing evidence of excellence using some of the following:

Clear self-assessment and response to student assessment data, with resulting course improvements and/or curricular changes
Evidence for fostering ADEI in teaching as described above
Evidence for development of new courses and revision of existing courses
Participation in teaching workshops and continued training in pedagogy
Evidence for incorporating student-centered approaches in the classroom
Examples of graded student work
Peer evaluations

Evaluation of Faculty with Joint Appointment in SMATE

FacultywhoholdjointappointmentsinGeologyandinScience,Math, andTechnologyEducation (SMATE) willbe reviewed according to rank-defineddepartmentalstandardsfortenure,promotion,and post tenure review, with these caveats:

The Geology Department will review courses taught for both Geology and for SMATE, with the exception of courses that are exclusively teaching-methods courses and contain no Geology content. These courses will be reviewed by SMATE.
We recognize geoscience education as a sub-discipline in geology. Thus, some or all research activities may be in the field of geoscience education. Research products may differ from those specified above, such as development of a nationally-distributed, peer-reviewed curriculum.
Some or all extra-departmental service may be on behalf of SMATE or professional science education organizations.
Service to the Geology Department is expected, as described under the criteria set for tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.
The Chair will request that the SMATE Director provide a letter summarizing the SMATE program’s evaluation of the candidate, which will be forwarded with the faculty member’s dossier. This should include an evaluation of SMATE-related teaching and SMATE-related scholarship.

Evaluation of Faculty with Joint Appointment in Physics & Astronomy

FacultywhoholdjointappointmentsinGeologyandinPhysics & Astronomy willbe reviewed according to rank-defined departmental standards for tenure, promotion, and post tenure review, with these caveats:

The Geology Department will review courses taught for both Geology and for Physics & Astronomy, with the exception of courses that contain no Geology content. These courses will be reviewed by Physics & Astronomy.
Some or all extra-departmental service may be on behalf of Physics & Astronomy.
Service to the Geology Department is expected, as described under the criteria set for tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.
TheChairwillrequestthat thePhysics & Astronomy Chairprovidealetter summarizingthe Physics & Astronomy department’s evaluation of the candidate, which will be forwarded with the faculty member’s dossier.

Evaluation of Faculty with Joint Appointment In MACS

FacultywhoholdjointappointmentsinGeologyandthe Marine and Coastal Science Program (MACS)willbe reviewed according to rank-defineddepartmentalstandardsfortenure,promotion,and post tenure review, with these caveats:

The Geology Department will review courses taught for both Geology and for MACS, with the exception of courses that contain no Geology content. These courses will be reviewed by MACS.
Some or all extra-departmental service may be on behalf of MACS.
Service to the Geology Department is expected, as described under the criteria set for tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.
TheChairwillrequestthat theMACS directorprovidealetter summarizing the MACS program’s evaluation of the candidate, which will be forwarded with the faculty member’s dossier.

Timeline of Evaluation Procedures for promotion to Associate or Full Professor

August15:Thechairwillrequestlettersfromoutsidereviewers.Thecandidatewill supply the chair with a CV and statement of research to include, which will be discussed in the spring prior to application.

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – MATHEMATICS

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning and Budget Council, February 19, 2009 – most recent updates approved April 30, 2026.

This document specifies the policies, procedures and expectations of the Department of Mathematics regarding faculty appointments, promotions and review. This document serves as a supplement to the College of Science and Engineering Unit Evaluation Plan; it does not replace or supersede any stipulations in the CSE Unit Evaluation Plan, the UFWW Faculty Contract or the Faculty Handbook.

Participation by Faculty in the Review Process

All tenured faculty are expected to participate in all professional reviews of their tenured and tenure-track departmental colleagues. A faculty member is excused from participation if the review occurs during a quarter in which the faculty member is on professional leave, but may choose to participate if suitable arrangements can be made.

Tenure-track (probationary) faculty and non-tenure-track faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) do not participate in any reviews or decisions regarding the reappointment, tenure or promotion of tenured or tenure-track faculty, but may submit a letter of support at the request of the faculty member under review.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Qualifications for appointment as probationary faculty.

A doctorate or equivalent degree in mathematics, mathematics education, statistics or an appropriate closely related field is required, except in exceptional circumstances. The candidate must show evidence of potential or continued excellence in both teaching and research and have professional goals and interests aligned with the wider educational and professional objectives of the Department of Mathematics.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Departmental standards for tenure and promotion.

Faculty will be evaluated based on their teaching, scholarship and service. We expect, as a minimum, both excellent teaching and productive scholarship. It is recognized that there may be blurring of the lines between teaching, scholarship and service, and that scholarship may take a wide variety of forms. The totality of contributions across all three of these areas will determine the overall outcome of the evaluation. Any missing elements from the following prescriptions need to be explained and documented by the candidate.

All faculty members are expected to interact in a constructive and cooperative manner with students, fellow faculty and the departmental leadership in a way that promotes equity, inclusivity, and diversity. All faculty are required to behave in accordance with all the relevant professional ethical standards.

Teaching

The candidate must demonstrate a clear commitment to excellent teaching. Evidence of this begins with the candidate providing for review all of the following items:

Student teaching evaluations for all sections taught (except independent study courses). In an exceptional circumstance when an evaluation cannot be provided, the candidate must explain the reason for this.
A representative selection of course materials from each course taught. This should include syllabi, assignments, examinations, and other assessment materials from each course.
A written reflection and self-assessment of the candidate’s past teaching and future teaching goals. This should include a discussion of the candidate’s efforts to create and maintain a learning environment that is welcoming and inclusive for students from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is recognized that instructional and curricular innovation, which are encouraged, carry risk and that such risks do not immediately result in success. Such experiences should be addressed here.
At least five evaluations by peers in the department, using the department’s observation protocol. These observations need to be from three different academic years, or from each academic year since appointment, whichever is less.

Teaching excellence requires more than these items can encompass; further evidence is required. Such evidence can be demonstrated by items in the following non-exhaustive list.

Evidence of curricular or instructional innovation.
Supplemental course or instructional materials generated by the faculty (e.g., lecture notes, solutions, etc.).
Copies of student work (with student permission or with identifying material redacted).
Participation in professional development activities specifically related to teaching. This includes participation in training or professional development focused on diversity, inclusivity and/or the use of evidence-based teaching methods.
Evidence of the implementation inclusive teaching practices in one’s own classroom.
Results of climate evaluations of one’s own classroom, and demonstration of efforts to respond to the evaluations.
Student letters of support.
Archived online course content.
Materials generated by independent study courses, graduation with distinction projects, or graduate student projects.
Materials generated by undergraduate student research projects.
Distributions of final grades assigned.

Scholarship

Evidence of active and productive scholarship is required to be eligible for promotion to Associate Professor. Work completed prior to appointment at Western will contribute to such a record, but the record should include several substantial works completed and accepted for publication during the period of employment at Western. Both quality and quantity of publications will be assessed.

Scholarship consists, primarily, of original work published in reputable journals, following peer review. Generally speaking, journals in which work is published should be listed on a professional index (e.g. MathSciNet, etc.). In cases where the journal is not listed in such an index, the candidate should provide an explanation as to why the journal was chosen.

The following are considered in the assessment of scholarly activity:

Dissemination of scholarly work, through publication and public presentations at professional meetings. In the case of joint work, the candidate should indicate the extent of their contribution to the work.
As a guideline, a publication rate in reputable journals of two substantial single-authored papers in three years, or (for joint work) one paper per year to which the candidate has made a significant contribution, is regarded as being highly satisfactory.
Manuscripts under revision carry less weight than published articles, while submitted manuscripts carry considerably less weight.
Papers in particularly highly rated journals will carry enhanced weight.
Significant high-level involvement in service in a professional capacity to external professional bodies.
Inter-disciplinary and applied scholarly work.
Only upon request of the candidate, or the Department Chair (representing the department), external letters of evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be sought, in accordance with the relevant CSE policies.

The candidate may also show evidence of scholarship, as suggested in the following non-exhaustive list:

Funded research grants. Significant state, federal or otherwise externally funded grants are extremely highly valued. Such grants contribute substantially to the candidate’s record of scholarship and are viewed as of comparable value to publications.
Research presentations or invited participation at professional meetings, especially at the national or international level, with additional weight given to invited presentations at major meetings.
Supervision of undergraduate, or graduate, original work research projects.
Publication by a recognized academic publisher or professional body, of books or chapters in books.
On-going research and scholarship as evidenced by:
abstracts, work in progress and submitted manuscripts,
proposals submitted (but not necessarily funded) for grant funding,
active, productive collaborations with established scholars,
professional contributions to external projects and reports, including work done as an outside consultant,
expository writing, book reviews, non-peer reviewed publications are encouraged but do not, alone, suffice.
Publication of peer reviewed articles or research presentations on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In the case of the Director of First Year Mathematics Instruction (DFYMI) position, institutional research that is disseminated within the department, college, and/or university and is used to informevidence-based changes to the first year mathematics program can count toward the scholarly record, but this alone will not suffice and carries less weight than refereed publications.

Service

With the exception of the DFYMI, for probationary faculty some service within the department is required. Other forms of service are valuable contributions to the candidate’s record. When specified in the letter of offer, service may carry enhanced weight, but otherwise teaching and scholarship are generally weighed more heavily than service in the tenure and promotion process. In the early years of appointment less service is expected, but as the candidate approaches promotion, a more substantive record is expected. Service will be evaluated based on contributions to the department, the university, the profession, and the community. Examples of such service appear below.

Specifically for the DFYMI, substantial departmental service is required throughout the appointment. The quality and effectiveness of this service will be evaluated and constitutes a significant component of the DFYMI’s application for promotion.

Service to the department:

Departmental committees (Curriculum, Graduate, Undergraduate, Elections, First Year Mathematics Steering).
Graduate student project advising.
Undergraduate student advising.
Recruitment of students (both undergraduate and graduate).
Colloquium organizer.
Curricular development.
Library representative, Math Club adviser, etc.
Examinations, contests, and related activities.
Providing extra guidance, mentoring, and supervision for at-risk students.
Serving as an advisor to, or otherwise actively engaging with, student clubs or groups within the department related to supporting underrepresented students.
First year mathematics professional learning organizer.

Service to the university:

Representation of the department on a college or university committee, or making presentations to such committees on behalf of the department.
Service to the department or university as a faculty union representative.
Providing extra guidance, mentoring, and supervision for at-risk students.
Serving as an advisor to, or otherwise actively engaging with, student clubs or groups related to supporting underrepresented students.
Service on college or university committees, initiatives, and programs tasked with matters pertaining to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Service to the profession:

Involvement in professional activities, such as review of publications or refereeing of papers.
Active participation in a number of local or national professional meetings.
Review of scholarly or instructional materials or grants (refereeing);
Service on professional committees, initiatives, and programs tasked with matters pertaining to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Organizing of conferences, meetings, etc.

Service to the community:

Presentations to the community.
Educational outreach to school children.
Contributions to public relations and fund-raising efforts, such as alumni events etc.

FULL PROFESSOR

Department standards for promotion to Full Professor.

We expect a record of continued success and excellence in both teaching and scholarship, together with significant contributions to service. Any missing elements from the following prescriptions need to be explained and documented by the candidate.

Teaching

We expect evidence of continued success and sustained excellence in teaching, demonstrated in the same manner as the teaching expectations for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. Evidence of service as adviser to students conducting graduate projects, independent study or research is required.

The candidate is required to provide the following items generated in years since promotion to Associate Professor, or from the last five years, whichever is smaller:

Student teaching evaluations for all sections taught (except independent study courses). In an exceptional circumstance when an evaluation cannot be provided, the candidate must explain the reason for this.
A representative selection of course materials from each course taught. This should include syllabi, assignments, examinations, and other assessment materials from each course.
A written reflection and self-assessment of the candidate’s past teaching and future teaching goals. This should include a discussion of the candidate’s efforts to create and maintain a learning environment that is welcoming and inclusive for students from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is recognized that instructional and curricular innovation, which are encouraged, carry risk and that such risks do not immediately result in success. Such experiences should be addressed here.
At least five evaluations by peers in the department, using the department’s observation protocol. These observations need to be from three different academic years, or from each academic year since promotion or appointment, whichever is less.
Evaluation of peers’ teaching according to the department schedule at a minimum rate of one to two observations per academic year, adjusted when necessary for time on leave.

Teaching excellence requires more than these items can encompass; further evidence is required. Such evidence can be demonstrated by items in the following non-exhaustive list.

Evidence of curricular or instructional innovation.
Supplemental course or instructional materials generated by the faculty (e.g., lecture notes, solutions, etc.).
Copies of student work (with student permission or with identifying material redacted).
Participation in professional development activities specifically related to teaching. This includes participation in training or professional development focused on diversity, inclusivity and/or the use of evidence-based teaching methods.
Evidence of the implementation inclusive teaching practices in one’s own classroom.
Results of climate evaluations of one’s own classroom, and demonstration of efforts to respond to the evaluations.
Student letters of support.
Archived online course content.
Materials generated by independent study courses, graduation with distinction projects, or graduate student projects.
Materials generated by undergraduate student research projects.
Distributions of final grades assigned.

Scholarship

Evidence of continued productivity and excellence in scholarship since promotion to Associate Professor is required. This must be demonstrated by a substantial body of work. Both quality and quantity of publications will be assessed.

Scholarship consists, primarily, of original work published in reputable journals, following peer review. Generally speaking, journals in which work is published should be listed on a professional index (e.g. MathSciNet, etc). In cases where the journal is not listed in such an index, the candidate should provide an explanation as to why the journal was chosen.

The following are considered in the assessment of scholarly activity:

Dissemination of scholarly work, through publication and public presentations at professional meetings. In the case of joint work, the candidate should indicate the extent of their contribution to the work.
Manuscripts under revision carry less weight than published articles, while submitted manuscripts carry considerably less weight.
Papers in particularly highly rated journals will carry enhanced weight.
Inter-disciplinary and applied scholarly work.
Only upon request of the candidate, or the Department Chair (representing the department), external letters of evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be sought, in accordance with the relevant CSE policies.

The candidate may also show evidence of scholarship, as suggested in the following non-exhaustive list:

Funded research grants. Significant state, federal or otherwise externally funded grants are extremely highly valued. Such grants contribute substantially to the candidate’s record of scholarship and are viewed as of comparable value to publications.
Research presentations or invited participation at professional meetings, especially at the national or international level, with additional weight given to invited presentations at major meetings.
Supervision of undergraduate, or graduate, original work research projects.
Publication by a recognized academic publisher or professional body, of books or chapters in books.
On-going research and scholarship as evidenced by:
abstracts, work in progress and submitted manuscripts,
proposals submitted (but not necessarily funded) for grant funding,
active, productive collaborations with established scholars,
professional contributions to external projects and reports, including work done as an outside consultant,
expository writing, book reviews, non-peer reviewed publications are encouraged but do not, alone, suffice.
Publication of peer reviewed articles or research presentations on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In the case of the Director of First Year Mathematics Instruction (DFYMI) position, institutional research that is disseminated within the department, college, and/or university and is used to informevidence-based changes to the first year mathematics program can count toward the scholarly record, but this alone will not suffice and carries less weight than refereed publications.

Service

Substantial service is required for promotion to Full Professor. Service to the department, College, University, profession and community all contribute to the candidate’s record. No single area is sufficient, but it is not required that all areas are addressed. Below are some examples of such service. Generally speaking, significant service to the department and representation of the department in College committees is expected.

Service to the department:

Leadership role in departmental committees (Executive, Curriculum, Graduate, Undergraduate, First-Year Math Steering).
Graduate student project advising.
Undergraduate student advising.
Recruitment of students (both undergraduate and graduate).
Colloquium organizer.
Curricular development.
Library representative, Math Club adviser, etc.
Examinations, contests, and related activities.
First year mathematics professional learning organizer.

Service to the university:

Representation of the department on a college or university committee, or making presentations to such committees on behalf of the department.
Service to the department or university as a faculty union representative.
Providing extra guidance, mentoring, and supervision for at-risk students.
Serving as an advisor to, or otherwise actively engaging with, student clubs or groups related to supporting underrepresented students.
Service on college or university committees, initiatives, and programs tasked with matters pertaining to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Service to the profession:

Involvement in professional activities, such as review of publications or refereeing of papers.
Active participation in a number of local or national professional meetings.
Review of scholarly or instructional materials or grants (refereeing).
Service on national review panels.
Organizing of conferences, meetings, etc.
Editor of a professional journal.

Service to the community:

Presentations to the community.
Educational outreach to school children.
Contributions to public relations and fund-raising efforts, such as alumni events etc.
Service on professional committees, initiatives, and programs tasked with matters pertaining to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Post Tenure Review

Review is required every five years in accordance with the UFWW Faculty Contract. Reviews for promotion may serve as a substitute. In accordance with the UFWW Faculty Contract, a candidate must meet or exceed departmental standards in each of the three areas of evaluation (teaching, scholarship and service) for a successful review.

Faculty will be evaluated based on departmental standards for their rank, making allowance for fluctuations in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship and service across the professional life cycle of the individual faculty member.

Any missing elements from the following prescriptions need to be explained and documented by the candidate.

Teaching

We expect evidence of continued success and sustained excellence in teaching. Evidence of service as adviser to students conducting graduate projects, independent study or research is required.

The candidate is required to provide the following items generated since their last review:

Student teaching evaluations for all sections taught (except independent study courses). In an exceptional circumstance when an evaluation cannot be provided, the candidate must explain the reason for this.
A representative selection of course materials from each course taught. This should include syllabi, assignments, examinations, and other assessment materials from each course.
A written reflection and self-assessment of the candidate’s past teaching and future teaching goals. This should include a discussion of the candidate’s efforts to create and maintain a learning environment that is welcoming and inclusive for students from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is recognized that instructional and curricular innovation, which are encouraged, carry risk and that such risks do not immediately result in success. Such experiences should be addressed here.
At least five evaluations by peers in the department, using the department’s observation protocol. These observations need to be from three different academic years.
Evaluation of peers’ teaching according to the department schedule at a minimum rate of one to two observations per academic year, adjusted when necessary for time on leave.

Teaching excellence requires more than these items can encompass; further evidence is required. Such evidence can be demonstrated by items in the following non-exhaustive list.

Evidence of curricular or instructional innovation.
Supplemental course or instructional materials generated by the faculty (e.g., lecture notes, solutions, etc.).
Copies of student work (with student permission or with identifying material redacted).
Participation in professional development activities specifically related to teaching. This includes participation in training or professional development focused on diversity, inclusivity and/or the use of evidence-based teaching methods.
Evidence of the implementation of inclusive teaching practices in one’s own classroom.
Results of climate evaluations of one’s own classroom, and demonstration of efforts to respond to the evaluations.
Student letters of support.
Archived online course content.
Materials generated by independent study courses, graduation with distinction projects, or graduate student projects.
Materials generated by undergraduate student research projects.
Distributions of final grades assigned.

Scholarship

Evidence of continued productivity in scholarship contributes substantially to the candidate’s record. It is recognized that the expectations here may be reduced when the candidate’s contributions to teaching and service are accordingly increased.

The following are considered in the assessment of scholarly activity:

Dissemination of scholarly work, through publication and public presentations at professional meetings. In the case of joint work, the candidate should indicate the extent of their contribution to the work.
Manuscripts under revision carry less weight than published articles, while submitted manuscripts carry considerably less weight.
Papers in particularly highly rated journals will carry enhanced weight.
Inter-disciplinary and applied scholarly work.

The candidate may also show evidence of scholarship, as suggested in the following non-exhaustive list:

Funded research grants. Significant state, federal or otherwise externally funded grants are extremely highly valued. Such grants contribute substantially to the candidate’s record of scholarship and are viewed as of comparable value to publications.
Research presentations or invited participation at professional meetings, especially at the national or international level, with additional weight given to invited presentations at major meetings.
Supervision of undergraduate, or graduate, original work research projects.
Publication by a recognized academic publisher or professional body, of books or chapters in books.
On-going research and scholarship as evidenced by:
abstracts, work in progress and submitted manuscripts,
proposals submitted (but not necessarily funded) for grant funding,
active, productive collaborations with established scholars,
professional contributions to external projects and reports, including work done as an outside consultant,
expository writing, book reviews, non-peer reviewed publications are encouraged but do not, alone, suffice.
Publication of peer reviewed articles or research presentations on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In the case of the Director of First Year Mathematics Instruction (DFYMI) position, institutional research that is disseminated within the department, college, and/or university and is used to informevidence-based changes to the first year mathematics program can count toward the scholarly record, but this alone will not suffice and carries less weight than refereed publications.

Service

Continued service is required to meet expectations. Service to the department, College, University, profession and community all contribute to the candidate’s record. No single area is sufficient, but it is not required that all areas are addressed. Below are examples of such service.

Service expectations differ between Associate and Full Professors. The candidate’s rank will be considered when assessing the contributions.

Service to the department:

Leadership role in departmental committees (Executive, Curriculum, Graduate, Undergraduate, First-Year Math Steering).
Graduate student project advising.
Undergraduate student advising.
Recruitment of students (both undergraduate and graduate).
Colloquium organizer.
Curricular development.
Library representative, Math Club adviser, etc.
Examinations, contests, and related activities.
Providing extra guidance, mentoring, and supervision for at-risk students.
Serving as an advisor to, or otherwise actively engaging with, student clubs or groups within the department related to supporting underrepresented students.
First year mathematics professional learning organizer

Service to the university:

Representation of the department on a college or university committee, or making presentations to such committees on behalf of the department.
Service to the department or university as a faculty union representative.
Providing extra guidance, mentoring, and supervision for at-risk students.
Serving as an advisor to, or otherwise actively engaging with, student clubs or groups related to supporting underrepresented students.
Service on college or university committees, initiatives, and programs tasked with matters pertaining to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Service to the profession:

Involvement in professional activities, such as review of publications or refereeing of papers.
Active participation in a number of local or national professional meetings.
Review of scholarly or instructional materials or grants (refereeing).
Service on national review panels.
Organizing of conferences, meetings, etc.
Editor of a professional journal.
Service on professional committees, initiatives, and programs tasked with matters pertaining to accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Service to the community:

Presentations to the community.
Educational outreach to school children.
Contributions to public relations and fund-raising efforts, such as alumni events etc.

INSTRUCTOR and SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

Reviews will be performed annually for Instructors and every three years for Senior Instructors in accordance with the policies and procedures of the UFWW Contract and CST Unit Evaluation Plan. Those aspects of professional performance that are directly related to the duties specified in the letter of offer – primarily instructional duties, in most cases – are the focus of the review, but professional contributions beyond those specified will be welcomed and acknowledged. Expectations for a successful review are as follows:

Teaching

The candidate must demonstrate a clear commitment to excellent teaching. Evidence of this begins with the candidate providing for review all of the following items:

Student teaching evaluations for all sections from the past three years, or since first appointment, whichever is fewer.
A representative selection of course materials from each course taught from the past three years, or since first appointment, whichever is fewer. This should include syllabi, assignments, examinations, and other assessment materials from each course.
A one to two page written reflection and self-assessment of the candidate’s past teaching and future teaching goals. It is recognized that instructional and curricular innovation, which are encouraged, carry risk and that such risks do not immediately result in success. Such experiences should be addressed here.
All peer evaluations as prescribed in the candidate’s contract of employment using the department’s observation protocol.

Participation in professional development activities related to instruction or relevant mathematical content is strongly encouraged.

Research

Instructors may conduct scholarship or research activities, but this will play

no role in the evaluation process unless otherwise specified in the letter of offer.

Service

Service contributions as outlined in the contract of employment should be documented in a brief exposition.

Other Duties

Instructor positions may include other specific tasks or roles as outlined in the contract of employment. Performance in all such areas must be satisfactory.

Merit Review for Senior Instructors

Merit Review Committee: Each year during which merit reviews are conducted, the department chair will appoint a committee of three faculty members to conduct merit reviews. One of these will be a Senior Instructor who is not eligible for merit review in that particular year. In the event that in a particular year all Senior Instructors are eligible for merit review or no Senior Instructors not eligible for merit review agree to serve in this capacity, one of the eligible Senior Instructors will be selected to serve on this committee and review all cases except their own; another Senior Instructor will be selected to review that remaining case only. The Director of First-Year Mathematics will serve on this committee. The remaining members of the committee will be selected by the department chair. If the Director of First-Year Mathematics is unable to serve on this committee, the department chair will select a substitute.

Timeline: The department chair will determine the timeline for submission of materials for a merit review and for the vote of the committee. This timeline will be constructed to comply with college and university deadlines for submissions. Senior Instructors eligible for merit review will be informed of this timeline before the end of the fall quarter preceding the review.

Review Materials: The candidate must include the following materials in the dossier submitted for a merit review:

Student teaching evaluations for all sections taught during the previous six years.
A representative selection of course materials from each course taught (not from each section) during the previous six years. This should include syllabi, assignments, examinations, and other assessment materials from each course.
A one-to-three-page written reflection and self-assessment of the candidate’s past teaching and future teaching goals. This self-assessment should provide evidence of engagement with student evaluations and peer observations, indicating how they have been used to improve the candidate’s teaching. In particular, this document should include a recognition of any repeated critical comments from either student evaluations or peer observations and a description of any action taken to address those comments. It is recognized that instructional innovation, which is encouraged, carries risk and that such risks do not immediately result in success. Such experiences should be addressed here.
All peer teaching evaluations from observations during the review period, including any from the department chair and those arising from the department’s peer observation protocol.
Evaluations of peers’ teaching during the review period for which the candidate was compensated, using the department’s peer observation protocol.
For those faculty with compensated non-instructional assignments (Lead Instructor, First-Year Math Steering Committee, Course Coordinators, Math Center Director, TA advisor, etc.), a two-page maximum summary of those assignments including a description of their effective contributions to those assignments.
For those instructors who have served as lead instructors, evaluations from TAs supervised.

The candidate may include additional evidence of excellent teaching or contributions to the department. Such evidence can be demonstrated by items in the following non-exhaustive list.

Supplemental course or instructional materials generated by the candidate (e.g., lecture notes, solutions, etc.).
Evidence of the effective incorporation of inclusive, student-centered pedagogical practices.
Archived online course content.
Copies of student work (with student permission or with identifying material redacted).
Student letters of support.
Participation in professional development activities specifically related to teaching.
Evidence of contributions or excellence through non-instructional assignments.
Materials generated by independent study courses or undergraduate student research projects.
Previous chair review letters.

Criteria and Procedure

All reviews will be conducted according to the CBA. When conducting the review, the committee and the department chair will determine if the candidate merits a positive merit recommendation, keeping in mind that a positive recommendation for merit exceeds what is required for a successful standard review. The determination of whether a positive merit recommendation is warranted will be holistic.

The primary criterion is evidence of sustained excellence in teaching. However, no single measure of teaching excellence is sufficient for a positive merit recommendation; evidence beyond what is captured in student course evaluations and materials is required. A successful candidate is expected to provide substantive evidence of effective, high-quality teaching. Significant contributions toward the teaching goals of the department or through non-instructional assignments will be regarded favorably. For those faculty with significant non-instructional assignments, excellence in those roles is also expected for a positive merit recommendation.

The reviewers will determine by vote whether the candidate “met” or “did not meet” the criteria for merit review and will provide their recommendation to the department chair. The chair will summarize the results of the review and separately provide their own recommendation on merit. The faculty member will receive a copy of this letter and will have 5 business days to respond to the letter. The department chair will correct any errors of fact and a copy of the final version of the evaluation letter will be submitted to the dean and provided to the Senior Instructor candidate.

DEPARTMENT ADDENDUM – PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

Approved by the College of Sciences and Technology Policy, Planning and Budget Council, December 4, 2008 - updates approved January 7, 2010, June 2, 2016, April 27,

2023, June 6, 2024.

Updates voted on and approved by the Physics and Astronomy Department May 23, 2019, April 17, 2023), April 9, 2024, and March 13, 2026.

ThisdocumentoutlinesthePhysicsandAstronomyDepartment'sexpectationsforfaculty appointments, promotions, and review.

ParticipationbyFacultyintheReviewProcess

AlltenuredfacultyareexpectedtoparticipateinthereviewoftheirPhysicsandAstronomy Departmentcolleagues.Afacultymembermaybeexcusedfromparticipationifthereview is to occur during a quarter in which the faculty member is on leave. Leave status does notprecludeparticipation,butadvancearrangementsmustbemadeifthefacultymember is away from campus.Instructors and probationary (tenure-track) faculty are not eligible tovoteontenureorpromotionofrankedfaculty.Spousesmaynotparticipateindecisions that affect each other’s appointment, promotion or salary.

Department statement on Teaching Effectiveness

Teaching effectiveness is a key goal of many of the evaluation criteria outlined below.

The Physics and Astronomy Department values many dimensions of teaching effectiveness (For an extensive discussion of teaching effectiveness, see:

https://resources.depaul.edu/teaching-commons/teaching-guides/reflective-practice/Pages/teaching-effectiveness.aspx)

Dimensions highlighted in a candidate's dossier could include: increasing students’ content knowledge; developing analytical, laboratory and computational skills; positively influencing students’ attitudes about physics and science; Other dimensions are also viable, and it is not required that all of these examples be addressed.

The teaching category in dossiers submitted for probationary review, tenure and promotion, and post-tenure review must demonstrate the candidate’s efforts toward creating an accessible, diverse, equitable, and inclusive (ADEI) learning environment for their students. Examples of such efforts include, but are not limited to, the following:

Participating in on-campus training or off-campus professional development focused on diversity
Bringing outside training to one’s own classroom, lab, or department on issues of diversity and equity
Implementing ADEI teaching practices in one’s own classroom
Using equitable methods for recruiting research students, and creating an inclusive culture within one's own student research group
Conducting climate evaluations, other than WWU Office of Institutional Effectiveness evaluations, and using them to inform changes in a course.
Implementing best practices of inclusion in managing students as teaching assistants and research assistants and providing equitable opportunities for all students
Providing substantial mentoring to underrepresented students
Serving as advisor to, or otherwise actively engaging with student clubs or groups related to professional development and retention of underrepresented students
Publishing peer-reviewed articles or presentations on (or receiving funding for) ADEI teaching practices.
Developing or providing leadership for professional, university, or college diversity committees, initiatives, and programs

ASSISTANTPROFESSOR

Qualificationsforappointmenttoprobationaryfaculty:

A Ph.D. in physics or astronomy or related field is required. The candidate will show evidence of (or potential for) impactful and effective teaching. The teaching section of the dossier must include a statement specifically addressing the contributions of the candidate to creating an ADEI learning environment as outlined in the department’s statement on teaching effectiveness in the COPEP addendum.The candidate will also showevidenceforachievementinresearchandthepotentialforestablishinganactive independent research program at WWU.

ASSOCIATEPROFESSOR

The department chair’s annual evaluation of each tenure track faculty shall be used to guide and assist the candidate in preparing the materials for tenure and promotion.

DepartmentstandardsfortenureandpromotiontoAssociateProfessor:

Teaching

Evidence of teaching effectiveness or improvement towards that goal (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum development) as demonstrated by the contents of:

All components of all student teaching evaluations for all instances of every course taught during the review period, except for evaluations specifically exempted by the CBA or any applicable MOU between the UFWW and the University.
Peer evaluations by three or more faculty members. All peer evaluations received during the evaluation period must be included.
At least one syllabus from every course taught during the review period, and selected course materials that best represent the candidate’s ability to foster student learning.
A teaching reflection statement that includes:

Teaching goals for each course taught, self-assessment of accomplishments around those goals, and any changes made or planned around the goals and self-assessment.
A statement specifically addressing the contributions of the candidate to creating an ADEI learning environment as outlined in the department’s statement on teaching effectiveness in the COPEP addendum.

Optionally, results from student learning assessment instruments or questionnaires that assess student learning and are different from evaluations administered by the WWU Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

Research

Evidenceofexcellenceinresearchasdemonstratedbysomecombinationof:

Peer-reviewed publications in national or international journals or peer reviewed conference proceedings that describe the results of research undertaken while employed by WWU. Manuscripts that have been accepted or actually published are considered with more weight than those in revision, which are considered with more weight than those that have only been submitted. Publication of research that includes contributions of WWU undergraduate research students is considered with more weight than publication of research that does not include undergraduate participation. Multiple publications in widely distributed non-peer- reviewed journals or conference proceedings may compensate in part for a peer- reviewed publication. Significant efforts towards setting up departmental research facilities or mentoring student research may compensate in part for a peer- reviewed publication.
Evidence of ongoing research in the form of proposals for grants or funded grants. External grants are considered with more weight than internal grants.
Faculty fellowships (for example, at a national laboratory, research center, or observatory).
Other evidence that the candidate’s research is important to the larger community such as science citation index or invited presentations.
Outside review letters (optional). The candidate may submit the names of potential reviewers to the department chair, who will obtain letters from the outside reviewers.

Service

Basicdepartmentalserviceisrequired,includingattendanceatandcontributiontofaculty meetings and departmental programs.

Serving on and participating in at least one college-wide or university-wide committee is required.

Advisingandmentoringstudentsisexpected.

Lasting contributions to department curriculum such as lab upgrades, new course development, or preparation of undergraduate teaching assistants are valued.

Some additional service to profession and/or community is desired and may include, but is not limited to, reviewing manuscripts, books, or grants; convening topical sessions at regional or national conferences; taking leadership in regional or national organizations; being active in regional recruitment, mentoring, and outreach including planetarium shows, etc.

FULLPROFESSOR

DepartmentstandardsforpromotiontoFullProfessor:

Teaching

Evidence of effectiveness in classroom teaching since promotion to Associate Professor (recognizingrisksthatmaybetakenforcurriculumdevelopment)asdemonstratedbythe contents of:

All components of all student teaching evaluations for all instances of every course taught during the review period, except for evaluations specifically exempted by the CBA or any applicable MOU between the UFWW and the University.
Peer evaluations by three or more faculty members. All peer evaluations received during the evaluation period must be included.
At least one syllabus from every course taught during the review period, and selected course materials that best represent the candidate’s ability to foster student learning.
A teaching reflection statement that includes:

Teaching goals for each course taught, self-assessment of accomplishments around those goals, and any changes made or planned around the goals and self-assessment.
A statement specifically addressing the contributions of the candidate to creating an ADEI learning environment as outlined in the department’s statement on teaching effectiveness in the COPEP addendum.
Optionally, results from student learning assessment instruments or questionnaires that assess student learning, and are different from the evaluations administered by the WWU Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

In addition to the effectiveness in classroom teaching that is expected for promotion to associate professor, promotion to full professor requires contributions to teaching effectiveness at the department level.

Evidence of contributions to teaching effectiveness at the department level, such as:
Substantial course development;
Development of infrastructure for department teaching;
Mentorship of teaching assistants and/or faculty in their teaching efforts;
Facilitating professional development for other department faculty, or attending professional development and sharing that information with other department faculty.

Research

Evidenceofsustainedexcellenceinresearchasdemonstratedby:

A substantial body of work that may include:
Publications in peer-reviewed national or international journals or conference proceedings.
Published monographs, textbooks, or popular articles.
Invited showcase presentations.
Ongoing research that includes active collaboration, proposals for external funding, and involving undergraduates in research.

Service

In addition to continued excellence under the criteria set for promotion to the Associate Professor level, some of the following are also required:

Significant service to the College and/or University as demonstrated by committee leadership and active participation in the work of the committee.
Leadership in departmental activities and program development.
Leadership in profession, including regional and national organizations.
Significant involvement in local outreach or community service related to faculty professional activities, while not required, can be given weight in this category.

POST TENURE REVIEW

At a minimum, the department requires performance that “meets standards” in each of three areas: teaching, research/scholarly activity, and service to the institution and profession.

Teaching

A rating of “meets standards” in this category requires sustained engagement in and attention to teaching as demonstrated by:

Statement of goals and self-assessment of accomplishments for classes currently taught.
All student teaching evaluations for every course taught during the evaluation period.
A statement specifically addressing the contributions of the candidate to creating an ADEI learning environment as outlined in the department’s statement on teaching effectiveness in the COPEP addendum.
Additional evidence may include peer evaluations of teaching and/or letters from alumni.

Research

Aratingof“meetsstandards”inthiscategoryrequirescontinuedengagementinresearch during the five-year interval as demonstrated by some combination of:

Published manuscripts.
Presentations at national and/or regional conferences.
Proposals for external funding.
Mentorship of undergraduate projects and research.
Faculty fellowships (for example, at a national laboratory, research center, or observatory).

Service

A rating of “meets standards” in this category requires continued engagement with colleagues in the University and beyond, demonstrated by:

Continued participation in departmental activities, including attendance at and participation in faculty meetings and contribution to programs within the department.
College or University service demonstrated by active committee participation.

EVALUATION OF FACULTY WITH JOINT APPOINTMENT IN SMATE

It is expected that faculty who hold joint appointments in Physics and Astronomy and in Science,Math,andTechnologyEducation(SMATE)willmeetdepartmentalstandardsfor tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review, with these caveats:

The Physics and Astronomy Department will review courses taught for both Physics and Astronomy and for SMATE, with the exception of courses that are exclusively teaching-methods courses and contain limited Physics and Astronomy content. These courses will be reviewed by SMATE.
Some or all extra-departmental service may be on behalf of SMATE or professional science education organizations. Basic service to the Physics and Astronomy Department is expected.

The Chair will request that the SMATE Director provide a letter summarizing the SMATE evaluation of the candidate.

NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTYINSTRUCTOR

Instructors shall be reviewed annually on the basis of expectations defined in the most recent contract.Thedepartmentchairordesigneewill providethereviewforInstructorswithannualappointmentsoflessthan0.5FTE.For faculty with annual appointments of 0.5 FTE or greater, the department chair and atenured or tenure-track faculty member selected by the chairparticipate in the review.

DepartmentstandardsforInstructors,withannualFTE0.5orgreater,follow.

Teaching

Evidenceofteachingeffectivenessorimprovementtowardsthatgoalasdemonstratedby the contents of:

All components of all student teaching evaluations for all instances of every course taught during the review period, except for evaluations specifically exempted by the CBA or any applicable MOU between the UFWW and the University.
One or more peer evaluation per year of the review period. All peer evaluations received during the evaluation period must be included.
At least one syllabus from every course taught during the review period, and selected course materials that best represent the candidate’s ability to foster student learning.
A teaching reflection statement that includes:

Teaching goals for each course taught and self-assessment of accomplishments around those goals, and any changes made or planned around the goals and self-assessment.

Optionally, results from student learning assessment instruments or questionnaires that assess student learning, and are different from the evaluations administered by the WWU Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

Research

Non-tenure-trackfacultyareencouragedtoconductresearch,butresearchisnotrequired.

Service

Basicdepartmentalserviceisencouraged,suchasattendanceatdepartmentfaculty meetings and contributions to academic program development.

Other

Instructor positions may include other specific tasks or roles outlined in the candidate’s letter of appointment.Performance in these areas must be satisfactory.

SENIORINSTRUCTOR

As stated in CBA, section 8.1.1.2, Non-Tenure-Trackfacultywithaminimumoffiveyearsofexperienceat0.5FTEorgreater attheUniversitywithsatisfactoryevaluationsineachofthosefiveyearsshallbeappointed SeniorInstructoreffectivethefollowingSeptember.

Senior Instructor Three year reviews

SeniorInstructorsshallbeevaluated once during the period of their appointment; the dossier submitted should contain the same elements as expected for annual Instructor reviews, but for the longer review period. The department chair or designee will provide the review for Senior Instructors with annual appointments of less than 0.5 FTE. For faculty with annual appointments of 0.5 FTE or greater, the department chair and a tenured or tenure-track faculty member selected by the chair participate in the review.

To pass review the candidate must present significant evidence of sustained effectiveness in teaching and any other contracted duties. 

Evaluations for Senior Instructor Merit Awards

In the 6th year after appointment to Senior instructor, and every 6th year thereafter, the Senior Instructor will be considered for a Merit Award and an accompanying increase in compensation, as specified in the CBA, sections 8.1.4 and 22.4. To be recommended for a Merit Award a candidate must present significant evidence of superior teaching effectiveness in their own courses, and/or contributions that enhanced the department's overall teaching effectiveness.

Merit reviews will be conducted by a committee appointed annually by the chair. The committee will consist of three (3) department faculty, one (1) of whom may be a senior instructor. The reviewers will determine by vote whether the senior instructor met or did not meet the criteria for a merit award and will provide their recommendation to the chair.

The dossier must include a brief (2 page maximum) Merit Review reflection, highlighting how the candidate's activities during the six-year review period preceding the review contribute to one or more dimensions of superior teaching effectiveness. The reflection should frame the candidate's contributions in terms that are closely related to duties described in the original contract. In most contracts these duties are exclusively related to teaching, but in certain cases may extend beyond teaching.

Examples of evidence that candidates may provide to demonstrate their superior teaching effectiveness and/or contributions to the department's overall teaching effectiveness include, but are not limited to:

(1) a description of curriculum development, teaching innovations, teaching experiments, and/or changes to instruction the candidate has made and a thoughtful assessment of how these have affected their teaching effectiveness.

(2) a description of how the candidate's scholarly, creative, or other professional activities during the review period have enhanced teaching effectiveness in the department. For example, discuss student research mentorship and how this has contributed to teaching and/or student learning.

(3) a description of ADEI activities the candidate has been involved in during the review period which have positively impacted teaching effectiveness.

(4) a description of service activities that the candidate has been involved in during the review period that have positively impacted teaching effectiveness.

(5) comments from students, perhaps excerpted from anonymized student evaluations or letters, that attest to superior teaching effectiveness.

(6) a description of any other activities that the candidate has been involved in during the review period which positively impacted teaching effectiveness beyond the basic level expected for passing review.

PROGRAM ADDENDUM – SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAM (SMATE)

Approved by the College of Science and Engineering Policy, Planning and Budget Council, November 13, 2008 – updated Academic Year 2012-2013, June 6, 2024

This document outlines expectations for the Science Education Program supplemental to those presented in the College of Science and Engineering Unit Evaluation Plan for faculty appointments, promotions, and review.

Introduction

Western Washington University has a long-standing policy of shared responsibility among colleges and departments for the preparation of teachers. This document refers to faculty who participate in the preparation of future teachers of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM). The departments, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geology, Mathematics, and Physics and Astronomy, as well as the Elementary and Secondary Education departments in the Woodring College of Education have faculty who are hired to devote a major portion of their time and teaching (typically 50%) to the preparation of future teachers of STEM fields, in the Science, Math, and Technology Education (SMATE) program, and/or in the math department, for math education courses. These faculty members bear the general obligation to engage in scholarly and/or creative activity of recognized quality. This activity may be distributed between scholarship in the disciplines and in STEM education. Criteria to be used in the evaluation of SMATE faculty members by their peers are discussed in the following paragraphs along with the procedures that will be used in the evaluations.

Note that not all contributors to coursework in SMATE and in math education are formally appointed SMATE faculty members, nor are all practitioners of STEM education research. This COPEP Addendum only applies to tenure track faculty members who are formally appointed in SMATE, and to non-tenure track faculty members who teach SMATE (SCED) coursework. These individuals will henceforth be called “SMATE faculty members”.

Review Procedures for Faculty Members in SMATE

The evaluation process for SMATE faculty for annual reappointment, promotion, tenure, and Post-tenure review will be led by the faculty member’s home department. SMATE tenured faculty will assess the quality of the individual’s SMATE-related teaching, scholarship, and service in accordance with the Review Process for Jointly Appointed Faculty in CSE. Tenured faculty on leave are not required to participate, but may submit their letter of evaluation if desired. Probationary faculty and non-tenure-track faculty do not contribute formal evaluations; however, they are welcome to view candidates’ dossiers with their permission.

All SMATE faculty members are required to address work toward Access, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI), as conceptualized in the SMATE mission and vision statement, in the Teaching section of their dossiers.

Qualifications for Appointment to Probationary Faculty

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

A terminal degree in a STEM discipline or related STEM education field is required. The candidate will also show evidence of excellence in teaching and research.

Qualifications for Promotion

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Program standards for tenure and promotion:

Teaching

A requirement for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor is substantial achievement in teaching, including taking a reflective, improvement-oriented stance toward teaching and incorporating evidence-based teaching practices into SMATE courses, recognizing such incorporation can sometimes be met with less positive evaluations. Probationary faculty must demonstrate these characteristics by submitting the following forms of evidence:

An overview statement of teaching, including teaching philosophy and objectives.
Evidence of student learning (should include statement of learning goals/objectives for each class and self-assessment of achievement of those goals).
Evidence of successful supervision of students’ practicum and internship experiences in the schools (if applicable).
Peer observation and evaluation is encouraged for one SMATE or math education course per year, but required for at least three SMATE or math education courses during the probationary review period.
Syllabi and course materials.
Student evaluations in all courses taught.
Written reflections responding to this evidence and proposing future improvements when appropriate.

Scholarship

It is expected that the candidate demonstrates substantial achievement in scholarship in STEM discipline(s) and/or STEM education as evidenced by any of the activities below. However, the proportion of effort allotted to scholarship may be shared between STEM education and the candidate’s scientific discipline. The candidate must clearly outline how their scholarship effort is allocated between those disciplines (with a sum total of 1 FTE). Thus, evaluation of candidate’s scholarship will be based on this allocation, using the appropriate quality/quantity of the activities below as evidence.

Published work in books or scholarly journals that seeks to interpret, synthesize or bring new insight on original research in STEM or the teaching and learning of STEM to enhance STEM education at the K-12, undergraduate and graduate levels.
Peer-reviewed publications in STEM or STEM education journals, in which the faculty member is a contributor. Manuscripts that have been accepted or published are considered with more weight than those in revision, which are considered with more weight than those that have only been submitted.
Multiple peer-reviewed publications with minor contributions may compensate for a publication where the faculty member is a major contributor. Contribution to the manuscript should be indicated.
Multiple publications in non-peer-reviewed journals or local journals may compensate for a peer-reviewed publication.
Funded research or program development grants (external grants are considered with more weight than internal grants).
Ongoing research in the form of abstracts and proposals for external funding.
Publication and/or dissemination of textbooks or curriculum materials.
Participation in workshops, review panels, commissions, etc.
Presentation of scholarly work at professional conferences or workshops.
Fostering undergraduate or graduate student scholarship as evidenced by published results of student projects, presentations made by students at regional or national meetings, awards to students and/or research grants awarded to students.

Service

Basic program service, as well as some additional service to the profession, university and/or community, is required. Regular attendance at program meetings is required as part of Service. Service may include, but is not limited, to:

Active advisement of graduate and undergraduate students.
Participation in SMATE committees.
Service to the College and/or University as demonstrated by committee membership.
Involvement in STEM education programs for in-service teachers.
Participation in STEM education organizations.
Participation in SMATE outreach activities.
Work in K-12 schools.
Work with K-12 districts on policy issues.
Reviews of grant proposals, manuscripts, books or conference proposals.
Participation in regional or national organizations.

FULL PROFESSOR

Program standards for promotion to Full Professor:

Teaching

A requirement for promotion to Full Professor is excellence in teaching, including taking a reflective, improvement-oriented stance toward teaching and incorporating evidence-based teaching practices into SMATE courses, recognizing such incorporation can sometimes be met with less positive evaluations. Probationary faculty must demonstrate these characteristics by submitting the following forms of evidence:

Evidence of student learning (should include statement of learning goals/objectives for each class and self-assessment of achievement of those goals)

An overview statement of teaching, including teaching philosophy and objectives.
Evidence of successful supervision of students’ practicum and internship experience in the schools (if applicable).
Peer observation and evaluation is encouraged for one SMATE or math education course per year, but required for at least three SMATE or math education courses during the probationary review period.
Syllabi and course materials.
Student evaluations in all courses taught for the last five years.
Written reflections responding to this evidence and proposing future improvements when appropriate.

Scholarship

It is expected that the candidate demonstrates excellence in scholarship in STEM discipline(s) and/or STEM education as evidenced by any of the activities below. However, the proportion of effort allotted to scholarship may be shared between STEM education and the candidate’s scientific discipline. The candidate must clearly outline how their scholarship effort is allocated between those disciplines (with a sum total of 1 FTE). Thus, evaluation of candidate’s scholarship will be based on this allocation, using the appropriate quality/quantity of the activities below as evidence.

Published work in books or scholarly journals that seeks to interpret, synthesize or bring new insight on original research in STEM or the teaching and learning of STEM to enhance STEM education at the K-12, undergraduate and graduate levels.
Peer-reviewed publications in STEM or STEM education journals, in which the faculty member is a major contributor. Manuscripts that have been accepted or published are considered with more weight than those in revision, which are considered with more weight than those that have only been submitted.
Multiple peer-reviewed publications with minor contributions may compensate for a publication where the faculty member is a major contributor. Contribution to the manuscript should be indicated.
Multiple publications in non-peer-reviewed journals or local journals may compensate for a peer-reviewed publication.
Funded research or program development grants (external grants are considered with more weight than internal grants).
Ongoing research in the form of abstracts and proposals for external funding.
Publication and/or dissemination of textbooks or curriculum materials.
Participation in workshops, review panels, commissions, etc.
Presentation of scholarly work at professional conferences or workshops.
Fostering undergraduate or graduate student scholarship as evidenced by published results of student projects, presentations made by students at regional or national meetings, awards to students and/or research grants awarded to students.

Service

In addition to expectations for promotion to the Associate Professor level, some of the following are also required:

Significant service to the College and/or University as demonstrated by committee membership and active participation in the work of the committee.
Leadership in SMATE activities and program development.
Leadership in a STEM discipline or STEM education, including regional and national organizations.
Significant involvement in local outreach or community service related to faculty professional activities, while not required, can be given weight in this category.

Post-Tenure Review

Review is required by faculty contract each five years after promotion. The faculty member’s performance shall be determined as having exceeded department standards, having met department standards, or not having met department standards in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

Teaching

To achieve a rating of “meets department standards” in this category, we require evidence for sustained engagement in and attention to teaching as evidenced by some combination of items outlined in the teaching section for promotion to full professor. For an “exceeds department standards” rating, these items should demonstrate outstanding performance.

Scholarship

To achieve a rating of “meets department standards” in this category, we require evidence for sustained engagement in and attention to teaching as evidenced by some combination of items outlines in the scholarship section for promotion to full professor. For an “exceeds department standards” rating, these items should demonstrate outstanding performance.

Service

To achieve a rating of “meets department standards” in this category, we require evidence for sustained engagement in and attention to service as evidenced by some combination of items outlines in the scholarship section for promotion to full professor. For an “exceeds department standards” rating, these items should demonstrate outstanding performance.

Non-Tenure Track Faculty

INSTRUCTOR

For instructors, the SMATE Director, designee, or committee will provide the review. The SMATE Director will share the review with the faculty member, who will have five business days to respond. If needed, the department Director will correct any errors of fact based on the faculty member’s response. For jointly appointed Senior Instructors, evaluations are defined in the COPEP .

SMATE standards are as follows. Expectations on length and detail of dossier components are proportional to the percent FTE of the faculty member.

Teaching

Evidence of sustained effectiveness and/or improvement of teaching (recognizing risks that may be taken for curriculum development), as demonstrated by:

An overview statement of teaching, including teaching philosophy and objectives.
Evidence of student learning (should include statement of learning goals/objectives for each class and self-assessment of achievement of those goals)
Evidence of successful supervision of students’ practicum and internship experience in the schools (if applicable)
Peer observation and evaluation for at least one SMATE or math education course per year.
Syllabi and course materials
Student evaluations (a representative set for all courses currently taught)
Written reflections responding to this evidence and proposing future improvements when appropriate.

Scholarship

Instructors are welcome to conduct research, but research is not required.

Service

Basic departmental service is welcome, including attendance at faculty/staff meetings and contributions to academic program development, but is not required unless service credit(s) are written into the instructor’s contract.

SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

Non-Tenure-Track faculty with a minimum of five years of experience at 0.5 FTE or greater at the University with satisfactory evaluations for Instructor in each of those five years, as demonstrated by the evidence defined for Instructors, shall be appointed Senior Instructor effective the following September. Senior Instructor positions may include specific tasks or roles beyond teaching activities as outlined in the letter of appointment. Appointment to Senior Instructor shall not result in additional duties without compensation beyond the senior instructor salary increase. For jointly appointed Senior Instructors, evaluations are defined in the COPEP . Performance in all such areas must be satisfactory. Senior Instructors shall be evaluated during the last year of their commitment period .

Merit Review of Senior Instructors

In their 6th year following promotion to Senior Instructor and every 6 years thereafter, Senior Instructors will be considered for an award of merit. This evaluation will be completed by a Chair-appointed committee of three SMATE faculty members. At least two committee members must be in a tenured or tenure-track appointment; up to one member may be a Senior Instructor. For jointly appointed Senior Instructors, evaluations are defined in the COPEP by PPBC. To earn a positive recommendation on merit, evidence of excellence in contracted duties (for example, frequent or substantial revisions of a course or updating pedagogy based on current research) is required during the review period, as evidenced by a dossier containing the evidence outlined for Instructors, with the exception of requiring at least threepeer observations during the review period, instead of one per year (though one per year is still encouraged).

COPEP Forms

Please find all COPEP related forms on the Forms Page.