Regulations for Faculty Promotion System at I-Shou University
Reviewed and approved for reference on November 19, 1999
under the Ministry of Education’s Letter No. Tai-88-Shen-Tzu
88144690
Reviewed and approved for reference on May 10, 2002 under the
Ministry of Education’s Letter No. Tai-91-Shen-Tzu 91066462
Amendments adopted on April 20, 2004 at the first meeting of the
University-level Teacher Review Committee in the second
semester of the academic year 2003
Amendments adopted on May 26, 2004 at the first meeting of the
University Council in the second semester of the academic year
2003
Amendments adopted on December 21, 2005 at the first meeting of
the University Council in the first semester of the academic year of
2005
Amendments adopted on June 14, 2006 at the first meeting of the
University Council in the second semester of the academic year
2005
Amendments adopted on December 20, 2006 at the first meeting of
the University Council in the first semester of the academic year
2006
Amendments adopted on November 12, 2008 at the first meeting
of the University Council in the first semester of the academic year
2008
Amendments to Articles 5 and 7~30 ratified and promulgated by
the President on July 28, 2009
Amendments to Articles 1, 2, 4~13, 18 and 26~31 ratified and
promulgated by the President on June 24, 2011
Amendments to Articles 10 and 13 ratified and promulgated by the
President on December 26, 2011
Amendments adopted on February 19, 2014 at the first
extraordinary session of the University Council in the second
semester of the academic year 2013
Amendments to Articles 3, 9, 18, 23, 24, 28 and 30 ratified and
promulgated by the President on March 3, 2014
1
Amendments adopted on May 28, 2014 at the second meeting of
the University Council in the second semester of the academic year
2013
Amendments to Articles 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 25, 26 and 28 ratified
and promulgated by the President on June 9, 2014
Amendments adopted on May 27, 2015 at the second meeting of
the University Council in the second semester of the academic year
2014
Amendments to Articles 1, 3, 7, 8 and 10~33 ratified and
promulgated by the President on June 4, 2015
Amendments adopted on December 30, 2015 at the second
meeting of the University Council in the first semester of the
academic year 2015
Amendments to Article 19 ratified and promulgated by the
President on January 8, 2016
Amendments adopted on January 4, 2017 at the second meeting of
the University Council in the first semester of the academic year
2016
Amendments to Articles 4, 6~9, 11, 15, 16, 19, 22, 30, and 32~36
ratified and promulgated by the President on January 11, 2017
Article 1
The Regulations for Faculty Promotion System at I-Shou University (hereinafter referred to
as “the Regulations”) are made by I-Shou University (hereinafter referred to as “the
University”) pursuant to the Accreditation Regulations Governing Teacher Qualifications at
Institutions of Higher Education under the auspices of the Ministry of Education as well as
the applicable laws, in order to help its faculty members develop professional skills and
qualities based on individual differences in aptitude and to encourage them to put more
effort into teaching, research, and counseling & service.
Article 2
Matters related to faculty promotions at the University shall be subject to the Regulations,
unless otherwise stipulated by law.
Article 3
As long as a full-time faculty member has served continuously at the University after the
current academic rank was accredited by the Ministry of Education and meets one of the
following requirements, he/she may file a promotion application:
1. Promotion from lecturer to assistant professor:
a.
holding a doctoral degree or the equivalent, and having outstanding performance
and academic works;
b.
holding a master’s degree or the equivalent, having engaged in research work,
2
professions or functions related to his/her major(s) for a minimum of four years,
and having outstanding performance and academic works;
c.
having graduated from the School of Medicine, Chinese Medicine or Dentistry of
a university or independent college, having practiced clinically for a minimum of
nine years (at least four years of working experience as an attending physician in
medical centers), and having outstanding performance and academic works; or
d.
having held the position of lecturer for a minimum of three years, and having
outstanding performance and academic works.
2. Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor:
a.
holding a doctoral degree or the equivalent, having engaged in research work,
professions or functions related to his/her major(s) for a minimum of four years,
and having academic works; or
b.
having held the position of assistant professor for a minimum of three years, and
having outstanding performance and academic works.
3. Promotion from associate professor to professor:
a.
holding a doctoral degree or the equivalent, having engaged in research work,
professions or functions related to his/her major(s) for a minimum of eight years,
having productions or inventions, and having great academic contributions or
important academic works; or
b. having held the position of associate professor for a minimum of three years, and
having outstanding performance and important academic works.
Regarding the years of engaging in research work, professions or functions related to
his/her major(s) as referred to in each subparagraph of the preceding paragraph, only the
years of working experience obtained after he/she was conferred a master’s/doctoral degree
will be taken into account.
An applicant for promotion to assistant professor with a doctoral degree pursuant to Item 1,
Subparagraph 1, Paragraph 1 of this article shall be subject to the same screening
procedure as that applicable to newly-appointed faculty members (a college-level external
review). In addition, the applicant’s performance on teaching and counseling & service
must meet the requirements specified in the Guidelines on Evaluation of Teaching and
Counseling & Service Performance for Faculty Promotion at I-Shou University.
For full-time faculty members transferred from another academic institution applying for a
teaching position at the University, or faculty members who intend to apply for promotion
with the years of working experience in research work, professions or functions as referred
to in Paragraph 1, the years of previous teaching/working experience shall be taken into
account by the University. However, such faculty members are eligible to file a promotion
application only after one full year of teaching at the University, and their performance on
3
teaching and counseling & service shall meet the requirements specified in the Guidelines
on Evaluation of Teaching and Counseling & Service Performance for Faculty Promotion
at I-Shou University as well.
Article 4
If a current faculty member has acquired the Certificate of Teaching Assistantship or the
Certificate of Lecturer before the amendments to the Act of Governing the Appointment of
Educators having taken effect on March 21, 1997, has continued teaching without
suspension, and holds a doctoral degree, he/she can file an application for promotion to a
higher academic rank pursuant to the provisions before the amendments to the original
regulations for promotion having taken effect. The teaching continuity mentioned above
refers to the situation where a faculty member carries an actual official teaching load for
each semester. Notwithstanding the foregoing, exceptions may be permitted if a faculty
member has obtained prior consent from the University for leave with or without pay, and
he/she is, therefore, not actually teaching.
If an applicant fails to get promoted to associate professor with a doctoral degree as
referred to in the preceding paragraph, he/she can file another application for promotion to
assistant professor. If he/she intends to apply for promotion to associate professor after
having succeeded in getting promoted to assistant professor, he/she is not allowed to apply
for promotion by submitting all or part of the doctoral dissertation. Instead, he/she shall
submit the academic works or creative works presented or published after reaching the
academic rank of assistant professor for review, and there is no restriction on the length of
service as referred to in Subparagraph 2, Paragraph 1 of the preceding article.
Article 5
The length of service as referred to in each subparagraph of Article 3 shall be calculated on
the basis of the following:
1. Engaging in research work, professions or functions: the dates of both assumption of
duty and severance of employment stated on a certificate(s) of service issued by the
organization(s) or institution(s) an applicant has served in.
2. Length of teaching: the beginning date of teaching experience stated on the Teacher’s
Certificate, along with the Letters of Appointment accepted over the past years, to
calculate the length of teaching service until the end of the semester (i.e. July 31st or
January 31st) in which an applicant applies for promotion. The length of part-time
teaching will be reduced by half.
3. Although the period(s) of being on leave without pay will not be included for
calculation of the length of teaching, the length of teaching before and after the
above-mentioned period(s) may be regarded as continuous regardless of suspension in
between, and it is used to calculate the total length of teaching along with the effective
date stated on the Teacher’s Certificate and the Letters of Appointment accepted over
the past years.
4
4. When a faculty member has been temporarily transferred to another academic
institution or organization with prior consent from the University and has taught a
minimum of two credits at the University without hourly pay for each semester during
the period of temporary transfer, the length of temporary transfer will be counted and a
maximum of two years of temporary transfer will be taken into account by the
University. If a faculty member has been temporarily transferred to another academic
institution or organization for a minimum of three years, he/she may apply for
promotion to the academic institution or organization with prior consent from the
University-level Teacher Review Committee.
5. When a faculty member approved to pursue further studies or conduct research
full-time applies for faculty promotion, the length of full-time studies/research will be
counted and a maximum of one year of full-time studies/research will be taken into
account by the University.
Article 6
Faculty members shall carry an actual official teaching load at the University in the
semester where they file a promotion application. A faculty member is not allowed to file a
promotion application if he/she doesn’t give lessons in the semester where he/she applies
for promotion to the competent department-level Teacher Review Committee. If an
applicant asks for leave of absence or resign for some reason during the screening process,
the review of his/her application for promotion shall be suspended until he/she returns to
the University to teach. When the suspension period exceeds one year, the application shall
be regarded as abandoned.
Article 7
There are five types of faculty promotion, and research achievements required to be
submitted for respective types are as follows:
1. Academic research: academic works, including monographs, journal articles, and
theses/dissertations;
2. Innovative teaching: innovative teaching practices reports;
3. Industry-university collaboration and technology: technical reports;
4. Physical education: academic works (including monographs, journal articles, and
theses/dissertations) or proofs of merit;
5. Arts:
academic
works
(including
monographs,
journal
articles,
and
theses/dissertations), creative works, exhibitions, performances, or proofs of merit.
The screening items and criteria for respective research achievements are set forth in
Attachments 1~5, respectively.
Article 8
The academic works, creative works, proofs of merit, and reports as referred to in the
preceding article shall fulfill the following requirements:
1. An applicant’s work(s) shall be original and shall not be just a compiled product of
rearranging, adding to or deleting from, compiling, and editing any other’s works or
5
other non-research results.
2. If a work is written in a language other than in Chinese, the applicant shall attach an
abstract in Chinese to the work for review. If the work is written in a foreign language
other than in English, the abstract may be written in English instead. If no eligible
reviewer proficient in the foreign language is available in Taiwan, the University may
request a complete translation of the work into either Chinese or English.
3. An applicant can select up to five works, one of which is the representative work and
the others for supporting purposes. Works closely correlated with one another may be
compiled into one representative work. If a work has been submitted as a
representative work for qualifications screening before, the work must not be a
representative work again in an application for promotion.
4. The works submitted for qualifications screening are published or presented after the
accreditation of the current academic rank. If an applicant’s seniority as a full-time
faculty member accrued while teaching abroad is taken into account by the University,
his/her academic works, creative works, proofs of merit or reports submitted for
qualifications screening will be complied and taken into account.
The academic works as referred to in the preceding paragraph shall fulfill one of the
following requirements:
1. monographs published in public circulation, or certified in writing by a publisher to be
published in the future;
2. journal articles published in domestic or foreign scholarly journals or trade journals, or
electronic journals that have official peer-review procedure and may be made public
and use of, or certified in writing by a journal to be published on a specific date.
3. works presented at domestic or foreign conferences that have official peer-review
procedure, and then published and publicly issued in the form of proceedings, on CD
or online.
If an applicant has succeeded in passing the qualifications screening by submitting works,
proofs of merit or reports, he/she shall have his/her academic works published as stipulated
by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any content of the academic works involves
confidential information, application for a patent, or information that shall not be
unlawfully disclosed, the academic works may, at the discretion of the University, not to be
published within a certain period of time.
The academic work submitted by an applicant as a representative work shall be published
with the institution affiliation specified as I-Shou University, and it must not have been
submitted as a representative work for qualifications screening before.
An applicant shall decide on the representative work and the works for supporting
purposes by him/herself when submitting two or more kinds of academic works for
6
qualifications screening; works closely correlated with one another may be compiled into a
representative work, and the applicant shall offer an explanation about their correlation.
If the representative work is similar in content to a representative work submitted for
qualifications screening before, the applicant shall submit the representative work
submitted before and comparisons of similarities and differences between the two
representative works. Other matters related to works shall be subject to the Accreditation
Regulations Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
Article 9
The representative work as referred to in the preceding article shall meet the following
requirements:
1. The nature of the representative work shall be relevant to the subject(s) the applicant
teaches.
2. The representative work shall not be part of a thesis/dissertation. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the aforesaid rule doesn’t apply if the thesis/dissertation has not been
submitted for qualifications screening, or the representative work is part of continued
research of the thesis/dissertation, and the applicant offers an explanation on his/her
own initiative, and the representative work is proved to have considerable degree of
innovation upon professional review.
Unless any one of the requirements mentioned in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, the
applicant will not be considered passing the qualifications accreditation.
Article 10
When a faculty member applies for promotion by submitting a journal article that is
certified to be published on a specific date in a domestic or foreign scholarly journal or
trade journal, his/her representative work shall be published within one year of the date the
journal issued its acceptance certificate; the academic work shall be delivered to the Office
of Human Resources for checking and filing within two months of the date of publication.
If the work cannot be published within one year for reasons not attributable to the applicant,
the applicant shall apply for an extension to the University-level Teacher Review
Committee by submitting the certificate issued by the journal which details the reasons for
delay and the certified date of publication. The extension shall be limited to a maximum of
three years starting from the date the journal issued its acceptance certificate. After the
extension has been granted, the applicant shall deliver his/her representative work to the
Office of Human Resources for filing within one year before the expiration of the
extension.
The work as referred to in the preceding paragraph, once accredited, must not be submitted
for next qualifications screening.
If an applicant fails to have his/her representative work published within the prescribed
period of time and to deliver the work to the Office of Human Resources, the Office shall
request the Ministry of Education to abolish his/her qualifications and to recover or cancel
7
his/her Teacher’s Certificate granted for the newly-promoted academic rank.
Article 11
When a faculty member applies for promotion with innovative teaching, his/her teaching
performance shall satisfy the following requirements:
1. Within the most recent five years, being ranked among the top 30.0% school-wide for
at least three times in terms of the score for teaching in the faculty evaluation, and
being ranked among the top 50.0% school-wide in every academic year in terms of the
score for teaching in the faculty evaluation;
2. Within the most recent three years, being ranked among the top 50.0% of all full-time
faculty members in every semester in terms of the average overall score in the
teaching survey (see the attachment to Article 4 of the Regulations for Teaching
Surveys at I-Shou University);
3. Having been presented with the Distinguished Teaching Award at the college level or
above during the period from the accreditation of the current academic rank through
the submission of the current promotion application; and
4. In addition to fulfilling all the requirements as referred to in the preceding three
subparagraphs, the applicant shall provide one of the following to be eligible to apply
for promotion with an innovative teaching practices report (i.e. the achievements in
teaching innovation and research results).
a. academic works, such as published monographs on teaching in public circulation
(translations and compilations excluded), publications, and journal articles on
teaching;
b. courses or teaching materials that have earned the MOE e-learning accreditation,
or massive open online courses (MOOCs) established in compliance with the
standards set by the Ministry of Education; or
c. other teaching materials or innovative teaching methods available for review,
along with concrete teaching achievements.
Article 12
When
a
faculty
member
applies
for
promotion
with
the
achievements
in
industry-university collaboration or technology, his/her performance on industry-university
collaboration or technology shall satisfy one of the following requirements:
1. Application Requirement: An applicant’s achievements in research and development
within the most recent seven years will be taken into account, and he/she must get
certain points to be eligible for application.
a. Promotion from lecturer to assistant professor: 8 points or more;
b. Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor: 13 points or more;
c. Promotion from associate professor to professor: 18 points or more.
2. The scoring principles of different achievements in research and development
(including patents, technology transfer and industry-university collaboration projects)
8
are set forth in Attachment 3, and I-Shou University must be the patentee or the
signatory representative.
Article 13
If a faculty member in the discipline of physical education him/herself or any athletes
under his/her coaching have won medals at major international games, he/she may submit
the proof(s) of merit for qualifications screening. The scope of major international games
and the recognition of proofs of merit mentioned above shall be stipulated by the Ministry
of Education.
Article 14
A faculty member in the discipline of arts may submit creative works and proofs of merit
for qualifications screening. The disciplines in this category range from fine arts, music,
dance, folk art, drama, film, to design.
Article 15
In any of the following circumstances, faculty members are barred from applying for
promotion, or an application for faculty promotion shall be rejected if submitted:
1. failing to fulfill the required weekly teaching hours in the semester in which the
application is made, but the competent department-level Teacher Review Committee
has begun the screening process;
2. being on leave without pay; or
3. failing to meet the requirements specified in the Guidelines on Evaluation of Teaching
and Counseling & Service Performance for Faculty Promotion at I-Shou University.
Article 16
To apply for promotion, faculty members shall submit the following documents:
1.
Teacher Qualification Resume (including an electronic copy);
2.
Checklist of Teacher Qualifications Accreditation for Academic Works / Checklist of
Teacher Qualifications Accreditation for Degrees or Diplomas;
3.
Application Form for Faculty Promotion;
4.
Representative work and works for supporting purposes, and their abstracts in
Chinese (500-1000 characters each), in triplicate;
5.
Basic Information Sheet of Academic Works for Faculty Promotion;
6.
A photocopy of the Teacher’s Certificate for the current academic rank issued by the
Ministry of Education;
7.
A photocopy of the Letter of Appointment for the current academic rank;
8.
A list of persons to be recused from external review (a maximum of three persons
with sufficient reasons provided, if applicable);
9.
If a representative work is a co-authored work by two or more persons, only one
person may submit the work for qualifications screening. The other person(s) shall
give up the right to submit the academic work, creative work, proof of merit, or
report as a representative work for qualifications screening. The applicant shall
specify in writing in what part of the work he/she has participated and shall obtain
the signature(s) of the co-author(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, exceptions will
9
be sustained if:
a. the applicant is an Academician of the Academia Sinica and thereby exempted
from submitting the signature(s) of the co-author(s).
b. the applicant is the first author or the corresponding author and thereby
exempted from submitting the signature(s) of the foreign co-author(s) who is
(are) not the first author or the corresponding author.
If a co-author as referred to in the preceding paragraph for some reason (being dead,
disappeared, seriously ill, etc.) cannot sign the certificate of co-authorship, the
applicant shall specify in writing in what part of the work he/she has participated
and the reason(s) for being not able to obtain the signature(s) of the co-author(s).
Upon approval by the University-level Teacher Review Committee, the applicant is
exempt from providing the signature(s).
10. Concrete achievements in teaching, research, and counseling & service; and
11. The representative work submitted for the accreditation of the current academic rank.
Article 17
In principle, a promotion application shall be subject to active review at three different
levels. Initial screening is carried out by department (institute/program/center)-level
Teacher Review Committees, second review by college/center-level Teacher Review
Committees, and final review by the University-level Teacher Review Committee.
Article 18
In principle, the maximum number of candidates for promotion at each academic rank
recommended by each department (institute or program) and the Center for General
Education (hereinafter referred to as “the Center”), respectively, every year shall be no
more than two-fifths of the full-time faculty at each academic rank (prior to promotion) at
each department (institute or program) or at the Center (the result shall be rounded up to
the nearest integer). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the aforesaid restriction does not apply
to the number of candidates for promotion to assistant professor and associate professor.
Article 19
The college- and university-level Teacher Review Committees shall establish an external
review procedure that meets the standards of professional assessment, and applicants’
research achievements shall be delivered to three scholars/experts from outside the
University for external review. External reviewers shall have an academic rank equivalent
to, or higher than, that being sought.
To select scholars/experts for college/center-level external review as referred to in the
preceding paragraph, the Dean of the college concerned (or the Director of the Center) and
the members of the college/center-level Teacher Review Committee shall recommend
professors in relevant fields, and then the Committee shall submit the list of candidates
(three times as many as the number required) to the President for selection. To select
scholars/experts
for
university-level
external
review,
the
chairperson
of
the
University-level Teacher Review Committee, the Dean of Academic Affairs, the Dean of
10
Research and Development, the Dean of the college concerned, and the members of the
University-level Teacher Review Committee may recommend professors in relevant fields,
and then the Committee shall submit the list of candidates (three times as many as the
number required) to the President for selection.
If an applicant him/herself, or making a canvass through others, has lobbied illegally,
resorted to enticing and threatening, or interfered in any way with any reviewers or the
screening process to a serious extent, his/her qualifications screening shall be stopped
immediately and he/she shall be notified of this situation. Within two years of the date of
notification, his/her application for qualifications screening shall not be considered.
Article 20
The following principles shall serve as a guide in selecting external reviewers in a fair and
balanced manner:
1.
It is recommended not to invite professors from the same academic institution to
review one single application.
2.
It is recommended not to invite professors from the academic institution from which
an applicant graduated (especially when it has been less than ten years since the
applicant graduated, and professors teach at the department from which the applicant
graduated).
3.
It is recommended not to invite persons who graduated from the same department of
the same academic institution during the same period as an applicant.
4.
It is recommended not to invite persons who have conducted relevant research
projects with an applicant.
When the Teacher Review Committee has difficulty in finding domestic external reviewers
for a special field, it may invite foreign professors as external reviewers.
The chairpersons of the Teacher Review Committees at all levels shall handle the selection
of external reviewers and the external review process in person, and pay great attention to
confidentiality. The documents, opinions and results sent by external reviewers shall be
collected and well arranged; handwritten documents, opinions and results shall be typed
and proofread.
Article 21
In any of the following circumstances, an external reviewer shall recuse him/herself from
review:
1.
being the research supervisor of an applicant;
2.
being the co-author or the co-researcher of the representative work submitted by an
applicant;
3.
currently teaching at the same academic institution as an applicant does, or having
taught at the same department as the applicant did; or
4.
being a relative of an applicant, or being involved in any of the circumstances as
described in Article 32 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
11
If an external reviewer should, but does not, recuse him/herself from review as referred to
in the preceding paragraph, his/her opinions and result shall become invalid, while the
opinions and results offered by other qualified reviewers shall still be valid. In case of a
shortfall in qualified external reviewers, the responsible Teacher Review Committee shall
select another external reviewer(s) to replace the disqualified one(s), and re-submit the
works for external review.
Article 22
Promotion Application Review Procedure:
1. Initial Screening:
a.
The department (institute/program/center)-level Teacher Review Committee
decides the number of candidates for promotion and examines applicants’
qualifications. Then, the Committee follows the Guidelines on Evaluation of
Teaching and Counseling & Service Performance for Faculty Promotion at
I-Shou University to evaluate and score applicants’ overall performance on
teaching, counseling & service, and research after the accreditation of the current
academic rank, and goes through the documents about their research
achievements.
b.
An applicant will succeed in passing the initial screening only when getting at
least 70 points for teaching, counseling & service, and research, respectively,
and being recommended by at least two-thirds of total membership present at the
meeting.
c.
The chairperson of the Committee shall submit successful applications, along
with remarks, scores, documents, forms, and academic works, to the Teacher
Review Committee at a higher level for second review.
2. Second Review:
a.
The college/center-level Teacher Review Committee reviews applicants’ overall
performance on teaching, counseling & service, and research, as well as their
initial screening packets. Moreover, the Committee evaluates and scores
applicants’ performance on teaching and counseling & service as per the
Guidelines on Evaluation of Teaching and Counseling & Service Performance
for Faculty Promotion at I-Shou University.
b.
Only after an applicant scores at least 70 points on the performance of teaching
and counseling & service, respectively, and his/her application is approved by at
least two-thirds of total membership present at the meeting will his/her research
achievements (e.g. academic works, innovative teaching practices reports,
technical reports, proofs of merit, creative works) be delivered to
scholars/experts from outside the University for external review.
c.
An applicant will succeed in passing the second review only after satisfying the
12
scoring standards for external review set below and being approved by at least
two-thirds of total membership present at the meeting:
(1) Promotion to professor or associate professor: at least 75 points from at least
two reviewers with an average of at least 70 points from all the three
reviewers;
(2) Promotion to assistant professor: at least 70 points from at least two
reviewers with an average of at least 70 points from all the three reviewers.
d.
The chairperson of the Committee shall submit successful applications, along
with remarks, scores, documents, forms, and academic works, to the
University-level Teacher Review Committee for final review.
3. Final Review:
a. Regarding promotion applications which have passed the second review, the
chairperson of the University-level Teacher Review Committee shall first deliver
applicants’ research achievements to scholars/experts from outside the
University for external review.
b. The University-level Teacher Review Committee shall take different factors into
consideration when deliberating promotion applications, such as the limitation
on the number of candidates and the length of service. Except for special
circumstances, the University-level Teacher Review Committee shall review
applicants’ research achievements in accordance with the spirit of Interpretation
No. 462 from the Justices of the Constitutional Court.
c. An applicant will succeed in passing the final review only after satisfying the
scoring standards for external review set below and being approved by at least
two-thirds of total membership present at the meeting:
(1) Promotion to professor or associate professor: at least 75 points from at least
two reviewers with an average of at least 70 points from all the three
reviewers;
(2) Promotion to assistant professor: at least 70 points from at least two
reviewers with an average of at least 70 points from all the three reviewers.
The score for the performance on teaching, counseling & service, and research,
respectively, an applicant obtains shall be calculated based on the academic rank being
sought, the criteria applicable to different faculty promotion types, and different weights.
Once an applicant satisfactorily meets the criteria as referred to in the preceding
paragraph, he/she successfully passes initial screening, second review and/or final
review. The weights allocated to research, teaching, and counseling & service,
respectively, based on the academic rank being sought are set forth in Attachment 6.
The Guidelines on Evaluation of Teaching and Counseling & Service Performance for
13
Faculty Promotion at I-Shou University shall be drawn up separately, and become
effective after being adopted by the University-level Teacher Review Committee and
ratified by the President. Departments (institutes or programs), the Center and colleges
may establish other criteria, and these new criteria will become effective after being
reviewed and approved by the college- and University-level Teacher Review
Committees.
The calculated results as referred to in each subparagraph of Paragraph 1 in this article
shall be rounded off to the nearest integer by using the ".5" up rule, and all include the
figures listed.
Article 23
If any committee member doubts the reliability and validity of external review results
during the second or final review process, he/she shall provide concrete reasons grounded
on professional academic expertise. With consent of at least half of total membership
present at the meeting, the academic work(s) in question will be delivered to 1-3 reviewers
(other than the reviewers for the first external review) for a second external review. The
results of both the first and second external reviews shall be submitted to the responsible
Teacher Review Committee for a resolution.
Article 24
Prior to a meeting convened by the Teacher Review Committee at any level, committee
members may be assigned to a specific location to scrutinize the application packets
submitted by applicants for promotion.
Article 25
During the screening/review process, members of the Teacher Review Committees at all
levels are required to attend committee meetings in person, or they are ineligible for
scoring promotion applications. If any committee member doubts an application, a deferral
of screening/review may be achieved with consent of the Committee. Upon resumption of
the screening/review process, the Committee may resume the screening/review after
inviting the applicant concerned to attend the meeting or requesting an explanatory
statement from the applicant concerned.
Article 26
Generally applications for faculty promotion are accepted once every semester. The
procedure and schedule for faculty promotion will be announced by the Office of Human
Resources. Late applications or applications without all required documents will not be
considered.
Article 27
For unsuccessful applications, the department-level Teacher Review Committee shall
request the department (institute, program or the Center) concerned to provide the
screening results and an explanatory statement to the applicants concerned with an official
letter bearing the name of the University; the college-level Teacher Review Committee
shall request the college concerned (or the Center) to provide the review results and an
explanatory statement to the applicants concerned with an official letter bearing the name
of the University; and the University-level Teacher Review Committee shall request the
14
Office of Human Resources to provide the review results and an explanatory statement to
the applicants concerned with an official letter bearing the name of the University. At the
same time, those applicants shall be notified of how to seek administrative relief.
Article 28
If an applicant is dissatisfied with the screening/review result and has concrete evidence,
he/she may put forward an application for reconsideration to the responsible Teacher
Review Committee or an appeal to the Faculty Plea and Arbitration Committee within
thirty days of receiving the screening/review result. When an applicant is dissatisfied with
the reconsideration result, he/she may put forward an appeal to the Faculty Plea and
Arbitration Committee within thirty days from the next day of receiving the
reconsideration result.
If an applicant doubts the review result offered by the University-level Teacher Review
Committee and has concrete evidence, he/she may put forward an appeal to the Faculty
Plea and Arbitration Committee pursuant to the Regulations for Arbitration of Faculty
Pleas and Organization of Faculty Plea and Arbitration Committee at I-Shou University, or
an administrative appeal to the Appeal Review Committee of the Ministry of Education,
within thirty days from the next day of receiving the final review result. An applicant shall
choose between putting forward an appeal or an administrative appeal.
The Guidelines on Reconsideration and Appeal for Faculty Promotion Results at I-Shou
University as referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be drawn up separately, and
become effective after being adopted by the University-level Teacher Review Committee
and ratified by the President.
Article 29
Promotion applications passing the final review by the University-level Teacher Review
Committee shall be submitted to the President for ratification, and then to the Ministry of
Education for approval along with relevant dossiers. During the review by the Ministry, the
applicant shall still teach and receive pay at the current academic rank. The length of
teaching service, academic rank and pay after being promoted shall be subject to the
information stated on the Teacher’s Certificate issued by the Ministry. Applicants failing to
pass the final review or withdrawing their applications during the course of review shall
reapply to the department-level Teacher Review Committees for initial screening.
Article 30
Representative works, theses/dissertations, innovative teaching practices reports, technical
reports, and proofs of merit passing the final review shall be accessible and safely kept at
the University’s library. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the content involves confidential
information, application for a patent, or information that shall not be unlawfully disclosed,
the works may, at the discretion of the University, not to be accessible by the public.
The comments and opinions on an unsuccessful application may be provided to the
applicant concerned.
Article 31
The regulations for initial screening of faculty promotion applications shall be established
15
by the department (institute/program/center)-level Teacher Review Committees, and
become effective after being adopted by the responsible college-level Teacher Review
Committees, reviewed by the University-level Teacher Review Committee, and ratified by
the President. The regulations for second review of faculty promotion applications shall be
established by the college/center-level Teacher Review Committees, and become effective
after being adopted by the University-level Teacher Review Committee and ratified by the
President.
Article 32
An applicant is regarded as having violated the regulations governing teacher
qualifications screening if involved in any of the following, and the situation will handled
as a violation of academic ethics:
1. false information found in the Teacher Qualification Resume or the certificate of
co-authorship; not truthfully including the co-author(s) in the representative work or
no certificate of co-authorship being handed in; inappropriate citation; repeated
publication of unauthorized materials; no indication of contents that include
published results; or other violations of academic ethics; or
2. plagiarism, forgery, alteration, or cheating found in academic works, creative works,
exhibitions, performances, or reports; or
3. academic/professional credentials, proofs of merit, certificates of publishing journal
articles on a specific date, or certificates of co-authorship are proved to be forged or
altered, or the applicant has used illegal or improper means to influence the
screening/review of his/her thesis/dissertation.
Article 33
Part-time faculty members are not eligible to apply for promotion unless they meet the
provisions of Article 11 of the Regulations for the Recruitment and Appointment of
Part-time Faculty Members at I-Shou University. Qualified part-time faculty members are
subject to the qualifications for appointment and the screening procedure as referred to in
the Regulations.
Article 34
When a part-time faculty member applies for a change in his/her status to a new academic
rank after getting promoted at another academic institution and receiving the Teacher’s
Certificate for a higher academic rank, the University may change his/her status to the new
academic rank before the beginning of a semester provided that his/her application is
approved by the Teacher Review Committees at all levels before the semester begins.
Otherwise, the University may change his/her status to the new academic rank in the next
semester if the application is approved by the Teacher Review Committees at all levels
after the semester begins.
Article 35
Any matter not mentioned herein shall be subject to the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education under the auspices of
the Ministry of Education as well as the applicable laws.
16
Article 36
The Regulations become effective from February 1, 2017 after being adopted by the
University Council and ratified by the President.
Note: In the event of any disputes or misunderstanding as to the interpretation of the language or terms of
these Regulations, the Chinese language version shall prevail.
17
(Attachment 1) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Teacher Qualifications Screening Form
Form A: (Humanities & Social Sciences)
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
※ Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Personal academic
and professional
(during the period from the accreditation of the current academic rank
achievements during
through the submission of the current promotion application)
the period from the
accreditation of the
Scoring Items & Percentage
current academic
rank through the
Academic or submission of the
Research Wording & Methodology
Item
Practical
current promotion
Topic
Structure & Reference
Value
application
Representative Work
Professor
10%
5%
20%
25%
40%
Associate Professor
10%
10%
25%
20%
35%
Assistant Professor
10%
15%
25%
20%
30%
Lecturer
10%
20%
35%
15%
20%
Total
Points
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
 If this representative work consists of several papers, please make sure whether these papers are
correlated to one another and can be consolidated: □ Yes □ No
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field
with significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of doctoral dissertations,
and he/she should be competent to do research independently.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of master’s theses.
※ Notes:
1. The compilation of any other’s work pertaining to re-organization, addition/deletion,
18
combination or re-arrangement must not be submitted for teacher qualifications screening.
2. A representative work should not be all or part of a thesis or dissertation. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, an exception will be sustained if the applicant has never submitted the
thesis/dissertation for teacher qualifications screening or has pursued research constituting an
extension of the thesis/dissertation, and he/she has the representative work published and has
submitted an explanatory statement on his/her own initiative, and the representative work is
considered innovative to a certain extent through professional review process.
3. I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and
conclude the teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the
Ministry. The comments and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to
evaluate the applicant’s research achievements.
19
(Attachment 1) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Humanities & Social Sciences)
Work No.
□ Professor
Academic □ Associate
Professor
Rank
Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rich content with innovative insights
Academically valuable results
Practically valuable results
Excellent research competence
Substantial
resources
and
logical
organization of ideas
Excellent research achievements
Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
No special insights
Little academic value
Little practical value
Inability to do research independently
Unsatisfactory research outcomes
Poor
methodology
and
theoretical
foundation
Inappropriate writing format
Incomprehensive analysis
Incomplete content
No originality; compilation of any other’s
work pertaining to re-organization,
addition/deletion,
combination
or
re-arrangement
The representative work is all or part of the
thesis/dissertation; has been submitted for
teacher qualifications screening before; is
not innovative to a certain extent
Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in
the column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing grade:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “No originality…,” “The representative work is all or part of…,” or
“Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this application should
fail the review pursuant to Articles 11, 12 and 37 of the Accreditation Regulations Governing
Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
20
(Attachment 1) - 2
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Science, Engineering, Medicine & Agriculture)
Work No.
□ Professor
Academic □ Associate
Professor
Rank
Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
※ Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
(during the period from the accreditation of the current academic rank
through the submission of the current promotion application)
Scoring Items & Percentage
Item
Methodology &
Research Topic
Research
Competence
Academic and
Practical Value
Personal academic
and professional
achievements during
the period from the
accreditation of the
current academic
rank through the
submission of the
current promotion
application
Professor
5%
10%
35%
50%
Associate Professor
10%
20%
30%
40%
Assistant Professor
20%
25%
25%
30%
Lecturer
25%
30%
25%
20%
Total
Points
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
 If this representative work consists of several papers, please make sure whether these papers are
correlated to one another and can be consolidated: □ Yes □ No
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field
with significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of doctoral dissertations,
and he/she should be competent to do research independently.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of master’s theses.
※ Notes:
1. The compilation of any other’s work pertaining to re-organization, addition/deletion,
combination or re-arrangement must not be submitted for teacher qualifications screening.
21
2. A representative work should not be all or part of a thesis or dissertation. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, an exception will be sustained if the applicant has never submitted the
thesis/dissertation for teacher qualifications screening or has pursued research constituting an
extension of the thesis/dissertation, and he/she has the representative work published and has
submitted an explanatory statement on his/her own initiative, and the representative work is
considered innovative to a certain extent through professional review process.
3. I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and
conclude the teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the
Ministry. The comments and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to
evaluate the applicant’s research achievements.
22
(Attachment 1) - 2
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Science, Engineering, Medicine & Agriculture)
Work No.
□ Professor
Academic □ Associate
Professor
Rank
Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rich content with innovative insights
Academically valuable results
Practically valuable results
Excellent research competence
Substantial
resources
and
logical
organization of ideas
Excellent research achievements
Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
No special insights
Little academic value
Little practical value
Inability to do research independently
Unsatisfactory research outcomes
Poor
methodology
and
theoretical
foundation
Inappropriate writing format
Incomprehensive analysis
Incomplete content
No originality; compilation of any other’s
work pertaining to re-organization,
addition/deletion,
combination
or
re-arrangement
The representative work is all or part of the
thesis/dissertation; has been submitted for
teacher qualifications screening before; is
not innovative to a certain extent
Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in
the column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “No originality…,” “The representative work is all or part of…,” or
“Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this application should
fail the review pursuant to Articles 11, 12 and 37 of the Accreditation Regulations Governing
Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
23
(Attachment 2)
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Criteria for Teacher Qualifications Screening of Applications Supported by
Innovative Teaching Practices Reports
Scope
I.
Any
achievement
in I.
teaching innovation
II. Any comprehensive report
on teaching innovation
with unique insights/
substantial contributions
III. Any research achievement
in teaching innovation
with notable contributions
IV. Any journal in the field of
education, which focuses
on teaching innovation
Description
Rules for reviewing faculty promotion applications supported by
innovative teaching
1. For applications supported by teaching innovation
achievements, applicants must satisfy the requirements for
the length of service in teaching, professions or functions.
The length of service is calculated based on the dates of
both assumption of duty and severance of employment
stated on a certificate(s) of service issued by the
organization(s) or institution(s) an applicant has served in.
2. For applications supported by innovative teaching materials
or teaching methods, applicants should designate the
representative course themselves, and at the same time
provide other innovative teaching materials or teaching
methods for supporting purposes. Courses in a series may
be consolidated as the representative course.
3. If a representative course has been completed by two or
more persons, only one of them can submit the
representative course for teacher qualifications screening,
and any other persons should individually give up the right
to claim it as the representative course. Applicants should
state in writing in what part of the course he/she has
participated, and the endorsement and signatures of
collaborators are required.
4. Should any innovative teaching material or teaching method
contain confidential information, applicants may make a
clear statement on the confidential information and request
confidentiality during the review process and from all
reviewers.
5. For applications supported by innovative teaching materials
or teaching methods, applicants should compile a report on
the achievements in teaching innovation and research
results along with supporting documents. The following
items should be included:
a. The teaching philosophy and theoretical foundation of
the representative course (how innovation is reflected
in the teaching philosophy and which theory the
applicant is applying)
b. The content, teaching methods, teaching materials, and
teaching techniques adopted for the representative
course (including teaching topics, teaching plans,
analysis, teaching innovation/improvements, test
methods and literature citation)
c. Any achievements in or contributions to teaching as a
result of the representative course (to what extent are
the teaching results innovative, applicable to other
contexts, forward-looking or significant; any academic
or practical value; and any substantial contributions to
24
Scope
Description
the profession or teaching)
d. Achievements for supporting purposes during the
period from the accreditation of the current academic
rank through the submission of the current promotion
application:
(1) Relevant research works
(2) Teaching attainments or creations in the related
teaching area (the quality and quantity, application
in teaching or in practice, teaching performance,
teaching-related awards, the implementation of
teaching improvement projects, improvements in
or contributions to the profession or teaching, the
degree and ability to put in sustained efforts, etc.)
6. Innovative teaching practices reports passing the final
review should be accessible on the University’s website or
at the University’s library, or published at home or abroad.
The aforesaid requirement is not applicable if the report
may be kept confidential or not to be published within a
certain period of time as agreed upon.
II. The scoring items and weights applicable to faculty promotion
applications supported by innovative teaching are set forth in the
Teacher Qualifications Screening Form (Innovative Teaching
Practices Reports).
25
(Attachment 2) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Teacher Qualifications Screening Form
Form A: (Innovative Teaching Practices Reports)
Representative
Course No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate Professor
□ Assistant Professor
Representative
Course Title
※ Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Relevant research
works produced or
teaching
attainments/creations
completed during the
Content, teaching
period from the
methods, teaching Achievements
accreditation of the
materials, and in/contributions to current academic
teaching
teaching
rank through the
techniques
submission of the
current promotion
application
Representative Course
Scoring Items & Percentage
Item
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Individual
Points
Teaching
philosophy and
theoretical
foundation
10%
20%
40%
30%
15%
30%
30%
25%
20%
40%
20%
20%
Reviewed by
Total
Points
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. A representative course can be one single course, or the achievements in teaching innovation and
research results from courses in a series.
2. Teaching philosophy and theoretical foundation: how innovation is reflected in the teaching
philosophy and which theory the applicant is applying.
3. Content, teaching methods, teaching materials, and teaching techniques: teaching topics, teaching
plans, analysis, teaching innovation/improvements, test methods, literature citation, etc.
4. Achievements in/contributions to teaching: students’ learning performance; to what extent the
teaching results are innovative, applicable to other contexts, forward-looking or significant; any
academic or practical value; or any substantial contributions to the profession or teaching.
5. Relevant research works produced or teaching attainments/creations completed during the period
from the accreditation of the current academic rank through the submission of the current promotion
application: the quality and quantity, application in teaching or in practice, teaching performance,
teaching-related awards, the implementation of teaching improvement projects, improvements in or
contributions to the profession or teaching, the degree and ability to put in sustained efforts, any
impressive student performance, etc.
26
(Attachment 2) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Innovative Teaching Practices Reports)
Representative
Course No.
Academic □ Professor
Rank Being □ Associate Professor
Sought
□ Assistant Professor
Name
Representative
Course Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative course and achievements for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list your
comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments may be
provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Innovative teaching philosophy
Rich course content
Broadly applicable teaching design scheme
Well-organized teaching design scheme
Distinctive teaching plan
Satisfactory teaching survey results
Appropriate evaluation criteria of students’
learning experiences
Effective use of the feedback on evaluation
results
Good student learning outcomes
Substantial achievements in/contributions to
teaching
Distinctive course features
Excellent teaching attainments/creations in the
field of teaching
Professional growth of real benefit to teaching
Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Little innovation in teaching philosophy
Poor course content
Unfeasible teaching design scheme
Vulnerable teaching design scheme
Teaching plan with no distinctive features
Unsatisfactory teaching survey results
Inappropriate evaluation criteria of students’
learning experiences
□ Indiscriminate use of the feedback on
evaluation results
□ Unsatisfactory student learning outcomes
□ Modest achievements in/contributions to
teaching
□ Lack of distinctive features
□ Few teaching attainments/creations in the field
of teaching
□ Professional growth of no benefit to teaching
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
□ Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
27
(Attachment 3)
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Criteria for Teacher Qualifications Screening of Applications Supported by Technical
Reports
Scope
I.
Any achievement pertaining to I.
patents or innovations
II. Any analytical case study report on
specialized
technology
or
management
providing
wide-ranging, unique insights and
contributions
III. Any R&D result contributing solely
to an improvement project of
industrial-university
collaboration
practices
Description
An ISU faculty member may submit a technical report
in place of a representative work for teacher
qualifications screening if all the requirements below
are duly fulfilled:
1. Applicants’ performance/achievements pertaining
to
industry-university
collaboration
and
technology will be evaluated and scored based on
patents,
technology
transfer,
and
industry-university
collaboration
projects,
respectively.
2. Only the performance/achievements within the
most recent seven years will be taken into
account. Promotion to Assistant Professor: 8
points; Promotion to Associate Professor: 13
points; and Promotion to Professor: 18 points.
The scoring items are as follows:
a. Patents: Points will be awarded only if
I-Shou University is the patentee.
(1) Being an inventor of foreign invention
patents: 3 points per patent.
(2) Being an inventor of R.O.C./Chinese
invention patents: 1.5 points per patent.
(3) Being an inventor of utility model
patents or design patents: 0.3 points per
patent with a maximum of 3 points.
(4) If a patent has been applied for by two
or more inventors, the points to be
awarded to each of the inventors are
calculated
based
on
individual
contributions (see the patent category
of the Scoring Principles for Faculty
Evaluation for more details).
b. Technology Transfer:
(1) Patent licensing: 0.1 points per
NT$10,000. Points to be awarded are
calculated based on the amount granted
to an applicant.
(2) Project achievement licensing: 0.025
points per NT$10,000. Points to be
awarded are calculated based on the
amount granted to an applicant.
Knowledge transfer projects are
excluded. NO point will be awarded if
a technology transfer project is not
carried out by the University.
c. Industry-university Collaboration Projects:
The project(s) should be related to the
28
Scope
Description
discipline(s) an applicant teaches, and aim at
technological/skills development. Projects
for promoting employment-related programs
at universities and colleges as subsidized by
the
Ministry
of
Labor,
and
industry-university collaboration projects
subsidized by the Ministry of Science and
Technology are excluded. Applicants may
choose either of the following formulas to
calculate
the
points
awarded
for
industry-university collaboration projects,
depending on which favors most.
(1) Management fees: 0.4 points per
NT$10,000. Points to be awarded are
calculated based on the amount granted
to an applicant.
(2) Project grants: 0.02 points per
NT$10,000. Points to be awarded are
calculated based on the amount granted
to an applicant.
3. An applicant should be exempt from the aforesaid
limitations if his/her application is supported by
case study research.
II. The achievements submitted for teacher qualifications
screening should be subject to the following rules:
1. The achievements should be subject to the
applicable laws and regulations of the Ministry of
Education.
2. If two or more kinds of achievements pertaining
to
industry-university
collaboration
and
technology
are
submitted
for
teacher
qualifications screening, an applicant should
decide on the representative achievement and
achievements
for
supporting
purposes
himself/herself. Achievements closely correlated
with one another may be consolidated as one
representative achievement.
3. If a representative achievement has been
completed by two or more persons, only one of
them can submit the representative achievement
for teacher qualifications screening, and any other
persons should individually give up the right to
claim it as a representative achievement.
Applicants should state in writing in what part of
the achievement they have participated, and the
endorsement and signatures of collaborators are
required.
4. Should any achievement contain confidential
information, applicants may make a clear
statement on the confidential information and
request confidentiality during the review process
and from all reviewers.
29
Scope
Description
5. The achievements submitted by an applicant
should be accompanied by a complete report. The
following items should be included in such a
report:
a. Theme (how innovation is reflected in the
R&D inspiration and which theory the
applicant is using)
b. Content, methods and techniques (R&D
content,
analysis,
R&D
innovation/breakthroughs, test methods,
literature citation, etc.)
c. Achievements/contributions pertaining to
industry-university collaboration (to what
extent
are
the
achievements
in
industry-university collaboration innovative,
applicable to other contexts, forward-looking
or significant; any academic or practical
value; and any substantial contributions to
the profession or the industry)
d. The
overall
performance
on
industry-university collaboration, technology
transfer or academic research during the
period from the accreditation of the current
academic rank through the submission of the
current promotion application.
6. Technical reports passing the final review should
be accessible on the University’s website or at the
University’s library, or published at home or
abroad. The aforesaid requirement is not
applicable if the report may be kept confidential
or not to be published within a certain period of
time as agreed upon.
III. The scoring items and weights applicable to faculty
promotion applications supported by technical reports
are set forth in the Teacher Qualifications Screening
Form (Technical Reports).
30
(Attachment 3) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Technical Reports)
Representative
Achievement No.
□ Professor
Academic □ Associate
Rank Being
Professor
Sought
□ Assistant
Professor
Name
Representative
Achievement Title
※ Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Achievement
Achievements for
Supporting Purposes
(the overall
performance on
Scoring Items & Percentage
industry-university
collaboration,
technology transfer or Total
academic research
Points
Achievements/contriContent,
during
the
period
from
butions pertaining to
Theme
methods and
industry-university the accreditation of the
techniques
current academic rank
collaboration
through the submission
of the current
promotion application)
(attained during the period from the accreditation of the current academic
rank through the submission of the current promotion application)
Item
Professor
5%
10%
35%
50%
Associate Professor
10%
20%
30%
40%
Assistant Professor
20%
25%
25%
30%
Individual Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※
If this representative achievement consists of several technical reports, please make sure whether
these reports are correlated to one another and can be consolidated:
□ Yes
□ No
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have continued engaging in technological or practical research
and development, and have distinctive and coherent works/research achievements in his/her
research field/industry with significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have continued engaging in technological or practical
research and development, and have coherent works/research achievements in his/her research
field/industry with substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant should have continued engaging in technological or practical
research and development, have R&D achievements of great benefit, and he/she should be
31
※
※
competent to do research independently.
Scoring Items:
1. Theme: how innovation is reflected in the R&D inspiration and which theory the applicant is
applying.
2. Content, methods and techniques: R&D content, analysis, R&D innovation/breakthroughs, test
methods, literature citation, etc.
3. Achievements/contributions pertaining to industry-university collaboration: to what extent are the
achievements in industry-university collaboration innovative, applicable to other contexts,
forward-looking or significant; any academic or practical value; and any substantial contributions
to the profession or the industry.
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude
the teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The
comments and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the
applicant’s research achievements.
32
(Attachment 3) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Technical Reports)
Representative
Achievement
No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate Professor
□ Assistant Professor
Representative
Achievement
Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative achievement and achievements for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list your
comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments may be
provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
1.
2.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Real innovations and breakthroughs
□ No innovation or breakthrough
Practically
valuable
achievements
in □ Achievements
in
industry-university
industry-university collaboration
collaboration with little practical value
Substantial contributions made by achievements □ Modest contributions made by achievements in
in industry-university collaboration to the
industry-university
collaboration
to
the
profession or the industry
profession or the industry
Substantial contributions made by achievements □ Modest contributions made by achievements in
in industry-university collaboration to society,
industry-university collaboration to society,
culture or ecology
culture or ecology
Comprehensive
achievements
in □ Incomplete content or inappropriate format of
industry-university collaboration
industry-university collaboration achievements
Good
execution
of
industry-university □ Inappropriate implementation method of
collaboration and accurate methodology
industry-university collaboration
Excellent performance on the execution of □ Poor performance on industry-university
industry-university collaboration
collaboration
Strong possibility of constant effort into □ Faint possibility of constant effort into
industry-university collaboration
industry-university collaboration
A rigorous attitude toward industry-university □ A casual attitude toward industry-university
collaboration
collaboration
Excellent performance on technology transfer
□ Poor performance on technology transfer
Real benefits to teaching practices
□ Room for improvement in the performance on
Possibility of cooperation with the industry and
projects or industry-university collaboration in
real benefits to industrial technology
terms of the number or the amount
Excellent performance on projects or □ Room for improvement in the performance on
industry-university collaboration in terms of the
invention patents or technology transfer
number or the amount
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic
Excellent performance on invention patents or
ethics (please state the facts in the column
technology transfer
“Comments”)
Others:
□ Others:
Review Result
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations Governing
Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
33
(Attachment 4)
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Criteria for Teacher Qualifications Screening of Applications Supported by Creative
Works, Exhibitions, Performances or Proofs of Merit
Scope
Categories and Documents to Be Submitted
1.
2.
Fine Arts
3.
1.
Music
2.
An applicant is required to hold at least two solo exhibitions after the accreditation of
the current academic rank, and his/her creative works should be displayed only once.
One of the solo exhibitions as referred to above must be held for the purpose of teacher
qualifications screening (it should systematically embody creative inspirations and has
one work dedicated to a specific research theme). The applicant should notify the
University of the solo exhibition at least one month prior to its opening. Depending on
different arts categories, the number of creative works displayed at the solo exhibition
should meet one of the following requirements:
a. Graphic works (paintings, engravings, photographs, mixed media works, etc.): at
least twenty pieces, and there is no restriction on the size of works or the
materials used.
b. 3D works (sculptures, mixed media works, etc.): at least ten pieces, and there is
no restriction on the size of works or the materials used.
c. Composite works (installation art, digital art, multimedia art, action art, etc.): at
least five pieces, and there is no restriction on the size of works, arts forms, or the
materials used.
Documents to be submitted are: an album or compact disc containing the creative
works displayed at the solo exhibition, the information about exhibition of creative
works by a public/private museum or exhibition agency, and a proof of
collection/certificate of merit. The applicant should also submit a statement to
systematically elaborate on creative inspirations.
Composition:
a. An applicant is required to submit representative works from at least any three of
the following sub-categories:
[1] Orchestral music (symphony, symphonic poem, concerto, etc.), cantata
(oratorio), opera and the like
[2] chamber music (a minimum of four musicians)
[3] chorus or ensemble; instrumental (vocal) solo
[4] works in other categories
b. The total length of the works submitted varies depending on the academic rank
being sought: at least 60 minutes for lecturer; at least 70 minutes for assistant
professor; at least 80 minutes for associate professor; and at least 90 minutes for
professor. Moreover, the works submitted should include one piece of music
from the first and second sub-categories as referred to above, respectively.
c. Documents to be submitted are: music scores, a proof of public performance, and
a compact disc of the performance.
Instrument (vocal) performance and conducting:
a. An applicant is required to submit the information on at least five representative
public concerts involving different repertoires, including: conducting or
instrument (vocal) performance for leading roles in a solo, accompaniment,
concerto, chamber music piece, Chinese chamber music piece, or cantata
(oratorio); stage directing for an opera; or vocal performance as a leading role.
b. The submission of an instrument (vocal) performance (including traditional
music pieces) should include at least three concerts of instrumental (vocal) solo;
the length of each performance should be at least 60 minutes.
c. Documents to be submitted are: concert repertoires, a proof of public
performance, a compact disc of the entire performance, and a report of musical
34
1.
Dance
2.
1.
2.
Folk Arts
3.
interpretation of the pieces performed at the concert.
Choreography:
a. An applicant is required to submit the information on at least three different and
representative dance works (including a dance for 1-4 persons and a group dance
for five persons or more).
b. The total performance length of the dance works submitted varies depending on
the academic rank being sought:
[1] Professor: at least 120 minutes
[2] Associate Professor: at least 100 minutes
[3] Assistant Professor: at least 80 minutes
[4] Lecturer: at least 80 minutes
c. Documents to be submitted are: a proof of performance, a compact disc of the
entire performance (by panoramic videotaping from a fixed angle), a working
tape, a statement concerning the choreographic process, and the form and content
of each dance.
Performance:
a. An applicant is required to submit the information on at least three different and
representative dance performances in which he/she is a solo dancer or leading
dancer.
b. An applicant’s total performance length varies depending on the academic rank
being sought:
[1] Professor: at least 80 minutes
[2] Associate Professor: at least 80 minutes
[3] Assistant Professor: at least 100 minutes
[4] Lecturer: at least 100 minutes
c. Documents to be submitted are: a program, a proof of performance, and a
compact disc of the entire performance.
Scriptwriting:
a. An applicant is required to submit a proof of performance of an original script
(including a program), a compact disc of the performance, and the entire script.
b. Depending on the academic rank being sought, the total performance length of
the above-mentioned work is as follows:
[1] Professor: at least 90 minutes
[2] Associate Professor: at least 80 minutes
[3] Assistant Professor: at least 70 minutes
[4] Lecturer: at least 60 minutes
Stage Directing:
a. An applicant is required to submit a proof of performance in this category as
directed by him/her (including a program and a compact disc of the performance)
as well as the entire director’s script.
b. Depending on the academic rank being sought, the total performance length of
the above-mentioned work is as follows:
[1] Professor: at least 90 minutes
[2] Associate Professor: at least 80 minutes
[3] Assistant Professor: at least 70 minutes
[4] Lecturer: at least 60 minutes
Musical Compilation:
a. An applicant is required to submit a proof of performance of different and
representative music scores of at least one folk opera (including a program), a
compact disc of the performance, and the entire script and music scores.
b. Depending on the academic rank being sought, the total performance length of
the above-mentioned scores of each folk opera is as follows:
[1] Professor: at least 90 minutes
[2] Associate Professor: at least 80 minutes
35
Drama
Film
[3] Assistant Professor: at least 70 minutes
[4] Lecturer: at least 60 minutes
4. Acting:
a. An applicant is required to submit a proof of performance of at least three folk
arts or Shuochang* performances in which he/she is one of the leading
performers (including a program), a compact disc of the performance, and the
entire scripts or scores.
b. Depending on the academic rank being sought, the total performance length of an
applicant is as follows:
[1] Professor: at least 90 minutes
[2] Associate Professor: at least 80 minutes
[3] Assistant Professors: at least 70 minutes
[4] Lecturer: at least 60 minutes
* traditional Chinese entertainment involving talking and singing.
1. Scriptwriting: An applicant is required to submit at least three original scripts which
have been published or performed; for an original script performed, he/she should also
submit a proof of performance (including a program), a compact disc of the
performance, and the entire script.
2. Stage Directing: An applicant is required to submit a proof of performance of at least
two dramas as directed by him/her (including a program), a compact disc of the
performance, and the entire scripts.
3. Acting: An applicant is required to submit a proof of performance of at least three
dramas in which he/she is one of the leading characters (including a program), a
compact disc of the performance, and the entire scripts.
4. Theater Design & Technology (scenic design, lighting design, costume design, makeup
design, theatre engineering, sound design, etc.): An applicant is required to submit the
original design or specialized technical design for at least three dramas, a proof of
performance (including a program), a compact disc of the performance, and the entire
scripts.
5. The length of each drama submitted should be at least 80 minutes.
1. Feature Film (at least 70 minutes):
a. Sub-categories and documents to be submitted:
[1] Screenwriting: a copy of the film in which the applicant is the screenwriter,
and the entire original script of the film.
[2] Directing: a copy of the film in which the applicant is the director, and a
shooting script which may include storyboards.
[3] Production: a copy of the film in which the applicant is the producer, and a
complete production plan.
[4] Cinematography: a copy of the film in which the applicant is the
cinematographer, and lighting & scenic design drawings.
[5] Sound Recording and Sound Effects: a copy of the film in which the
applicant is the sound engineer or sound effects designer.
[6] Editing: a copy of film in which the applicant is the editor.
[7] Art Design: a copy of the film in which the applicant is the art designer,
and design drawings.
[8] Acting: a copy of the film in which the applicant is one of the
actors/actresses, and a report of his/her character and script analysis.
b. The total performance length:
[1] Films: including both feature films and short films produced within the
most recent five years; at least 80 minutes in length.
[2] Screenplays: at least three screenplays completed within the most recent
five years, and each script should be at least 80 minutes in length.
2. Short Film (less than 70 minutes):
a. An applicant should be the creator of short films, and is required to submit at
36
least six short films produced within the most recent five years.
Documents to be submitted are: copies of films or digital videos produced by an
applicant.
1. Spatial Design (architectural design, urban design, interior design, landscape design,
etc): at least three different and representative personal works, works entered in
competitions, or works dedicated to a specific research theme, along with explanatory
statements, photos, multimedia data or models.
2. Product Design (product design, craft design, etc.): at least five different and
representative personal works that have been put into production, entered in
competitions or dedicated to a specific research theme, along with explanatory
statements, photos, multimedia data or models.
3. Visual Communication Design (graphic design, 3D design, package design, etc.): at
least fifteen different and representative personal works, works entered in competitions
or works dedicated to a specific research theme, along with explanatory statements,
photos, multimedia data or models.
4. Multimedia Design (web design, computer animation, digital games, etc.): at least five
different and representative personal works, works entered in competitions or works
dedicated to a specific research theme. There is no restriction on the media playing
duration. An applicant should also submit explanatory statements, photos, multimedia
data or models.
5. Fashion Design (apparel design, textile design, fashion design, etc.): at least ten
different and representative personal works in use, works entered in competitions or
works dedicated to a specific research theme, along with explanatory statements,
photos, multimedia data or models.
The submission of creative works under each category should fulfill the following
requirements:
1. Creative works submitted for teacher qualifications screening should be published or
presented after the accreditation of the current academic rank.
2. If a creative work has been completed by two persons or more, only one of them can
submit the work for teacher qualifications screening, and any other persons should
individually give up the right to claim it as a representative work. Applicants should
state in writing in what part of the work they have participated, and the endorsement
and signatures of collaborators are required.
3. A creative work submitted for teacher qualifications screening should be accompanied
by a complete creation (exhibition/performance) report. If the work passes the fine
review, the applicant should have the report officially published. The following items
should be included in the report:
1. creative (exhibition/performance) inspirations
2. theoretical foundations
3. form and content
4. methods and techniques (the creation process may be included)
4. Should a creative work submitted for teacher qualifications screening fail the review,
the applicant is not allowed to resubmit the work unless at least half of the content is
newly added so as to be qualified for the next review.
5. An applicant for a post at the level of professor should also provide specific
achievements pertaining to academic research.
6. Except for original works, any other works and supporting documents submitted for
teacher qualifications screening should be made in triplicate. An applicant may submit
the following supplementary materials: an album or compact disc containing the
creative works displayed, the information about exhibition of creative works by a
public/private museum or exhibition agency, and a proof of collection/certificate of
merit; a proof of application, manufacturing or intellectual property rights; and a
statement to systematically elaborate on creative inspirations.
7. Regarding the sub-category of Multimedia Design, an applicant should submit copies
b.
Design
Notes
37
8.
of original works (playable videos, computer programs, computer files, etc.),
substantial drawings (with a necessary explanation of the work, the installation
procedure, operational instructions, etc.), and decoders and add-on programs required
for playing.
Creative works or proofs of merit passing the final review should be accessible on the
University’s website or at the University’s library, or published at home or abroad. The
aforesaid requirement is not applicable if the work/proof may be kept confidential or
not to be published within a certain period of time as agreed upon.
38
(Attachment 4) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Fine Arts: □ Graphic Work □ 3D Work □ Composite Work
Work No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate
Professor
□ Assistant
Professor
□ Lecturer
Representative
Work Title
※
Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
Research achievements
pertaining to teaching
attained or creations
produced during the
Creation Report
period from the
(including creative
accreditation of the
inspirations, theoretical
Research theme,
current
academic rank
foundations, form &
form & techniques
through
the submission
content, methods,
of the current promotion
techniques, artistic
application
value/contributions, etc.)
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the
current academic rank through the submission of the current
promotion application)
Item
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
25%
55%
20%
40%
45%
15%
45%
40%
15%
50%
35%
15%
Total Points
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field with
significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
39
(Attachment 4) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Fine Arts: □ Graphic Work □ 3D Work □ Composite Work
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
□ Lack of completeness of creative inspirations
□ Lack of creativity in the work
□ Less satisfactory performance on techniques
or the content
□ Unclear insights into creation
□ Unsatisfactory outcomes of previous creations
or research
□ Low artistic value
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
□ Others:
Review Result
A smooth stream of creative inspirations
Great creativity in the work
Good techniques for creation
Fresh insights into research or creation
Excellent achievements pertaining to previous
research or creations
□ With artistic value/contributions
□ Others:
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
40
(Attachment 4) - 2
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Music: □ Composition □ Instrument (Vocal) Performance & Conducting
Work No.
□ Professor
Academic
□ Associate Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant Professor
Sought
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative Work
Title
※
Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
Research
achievements
pertaining to
teaching
attained
Composition:
Creation Report: creative
or creations
techniques, artistic
inspirations, theoretical
produced
during
implications, and foundations, the structure of the
the period from
report, creativity, artistic
creativity
Total Points
the
accreditation
Instrument (Vocal)
value/contributions, etc.
Performance & Interpretation Report: methods, of the current
academic rank
Conducting:
techniques, performance
through the
techniques, ways of
analysis, theoretical
submission of the
interpretation, and
foundations, points of
current
promotion
artistic implications
interpretation, etc.
application
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the current academic
rank through the submission of the current promotion application)
Item
Professor
40%
40%
20%
45%
35%
20%
45%
35%
20%
Lecturer
50%
30%
20%
Professor
35%
30%
35%
40%
30%
30%
40%
30%
30%
50%
30%
20%
Associate
Composition Professor
Assistant
Professor
Instrument
(Vocal)
Performance
&
Conducting
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Individual Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field with
significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
41
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
42
(Attachment 4) - 2
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Music: □ Composition □ Instrument (Vocal) Performance & Conducting
Work No.
Academic
Rank
Being
Sought
Name
□
□
□
□
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
Representative Work
Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting
purposes, respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review
result. You may list your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least
300 words). Your comments may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is
unsuccessful.)
Strengths
Weaknesses
Composition
□ Great creativity in the work
□ Good techniques for creation
□ Fresh insights into research or
creation
□ Excellent achievements pertaining
to previous creations
□ High artistic value
Others:
Instrument (Vocal) Performance
Conducting
□ A musical work of classic nature
□ Great music performing skills
□ Ideal ways of interpretation
□ Excellent performances in the past
□ With artistic implications
Others:
Composition
□ Lack of creativity in the work
□ Less satisfactory performance on techniques or
the content
□ Unclear insights into creation
□ Unsatisfactory outcomes of previous creations
□ Low artistic value
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
Others:
&
Instrument (Vocal) Performance & Conducting
□ Low artistic quality
□ Poor music performing skills
□ Clichéd ways of interpretation
□ Lack of artistic implications
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked,
this application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation
Regulations Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
43
(Attachment 4) - 3
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Drama: □ Scriptwriting □ Stage Directing □ Acting □ Theater Arts
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
※
Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
Research achievements
pertaining to teaching
attained or creations
produced during the
Creation Report
period from the
Total Points
(creative inspirations,
accreditation of the
Theme, content, form,
theoretical foundations, form current academic rank
techniques, and
& content, methods,
through the submission
effects
techniques, artistic
of the current promotion
value/contributions, etc.)
application
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the
current academic rank through the submission of the current
promotion application)
Item
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
30%
40%
30%
40%
35%
25%
45%
30%
25%
55%
25%
20%
Individual
Points
Reviewed
by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field with
significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
44
(Attachment 4) - 3
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Drama: □ Scriptwriting □ Stage Directing □ Acting □ Theater Arts
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Great creativity in the work
Good techniques for creation
Fresh insights into research or creation
Excellent achievements pertaining to previous
creations
High artistic value
Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Lack of creativity in the work
Less satisfactory performance on techniques
or the content
Unclear insights into creation
Unsatisfactory outcomes of previous creations
Low artistic value
Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
45
(Attachment 4) - 4
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Film: □ Feature Film (Screenwriting, Directing, Production, Cinematography, Sound
Recording & Sound Effects, Editing or Art Design)
□ Short Film
Work No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate
Professor
□ Assistant
Professor
□ Lecturer
Representative
Work Title
※
Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the
current academic rank through the submission of the current
promotion application)
Research achievements
pertaining to teaching
attained or creations
produced during the period
from the accreditation of the
current academic rank
through the submission of the
current promotion application
Item
Theme, content,
form, techniques,
and effects
Creation Report
(creative inspirations,
theoretical foundations,
form & content, methods,
techniques, artistic
value/contributions, etc.)
Professor
25%
50%
25%
35%
45%
20%
40%
40%
20%
50%
35%
15%
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Total
Points
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field with
significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
46
(Attachment 4) - 4
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Film: □ Feature Film (Screenwriting, Directing, Production, Cinematography, Sound
Recording & Sound Effects, Editing or Art Design)
□ Short Film
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Great creativity in the work
Good techniques for creation
Fresh insights into research or creation
Excellent achievements pertaining to previous
creations
High artistic value
Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Lack of creativity in the work
Less satisfactory performance on techniques
or the content
Unclear insights into creation
Unsatisfactory outcomes of previous creations
Low artistic value
Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
II.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
47
(Attachment 4) - 5
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Dance: □ Choreography □ Performance
Work No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate
Professor
□ Assistant
Professor
□ Lecturer
Representative
Work Title
※
Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the
current academic rank through the submission of the current
promotion application)
Item
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Research achievements pertaining
to teaching attained or creations
Choreography:
produced during the period from
techniques used in
Creation Report
the accreditation of the current
choreographic
(creative inspirations,
academic rank through the
creation
theoretical foundations,
submission of the current
form & content, methods,
promotion application
techniques, artistic
Performance: dance
movements and
value/contributions, etc.)
techniques
40%
30%
30%
40%
30%
30%
40%
30%
30%
40%
30%
30%
Total
Points
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field with
significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
48
(Attachment 4) - 5
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Dance: □ Choreography □ Performance
Work No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate
Professor
□ Assistant
Professor
□ Lecturer
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Great creativity in the work
Good techniques for creation
Fresh insights into research or creation
Excellent achievements pertaining to previous
creations
High artistic value
Others:
□ Lack of creativity in the work
□ Less satisfactory performance on techniques or
the content
□ Unclear insights into creation
□ Unsatisfactory outcomes of previous creations
□ Low artistic value
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
□ Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
49
(Attachment 4) - 6
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Folk Arts: □ Scriptwriting □ Stage Directing □ Musical Compilation
□Acting
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
※
Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the
current academic rank through the submission of the current
promotion application)
Research achievements
pertaining to teaching
attained or creations
produced during the period
from the accreditation of the
current academic rank
through the submission of the
current promotion application
Item
Theme, content,
form, techniques,
and effects
Creation Report
(creative inspirations,
theoretical foundations,
form & content, methods,
techniques, artistic
value/contributions, etc.)
Professor
30%
40%
30%
40%
35%
25%
45%
30%
25%
55%
25%
20%
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Total
Points
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field with
significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
50
(Attachment 4) - 6
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Folk Arts: □ Scriptwriting □ Stage Directing □ Musical Compilation
□ Acting
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments:
(Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Great creativity in the work
Good techniques for creation
Fresh insights into research or creation
Excellent achievements pertaining to previous
creations
□ High artistic value
□ Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Lack of creativity in the work
Less satisfactory performance on techniques
or the content
Unclear insights into creation
Unsatisfactory outcomes of previous creations
Low artistic value
Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
51
(Attachment 4) - 7
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Works of Art)
Design: □ Spatial Design □ Product Design □ Visual Communication Design □
Multimedia Design □ Fashion Design
Work No.
□ Professor
□ Associate
Academic
Professor
Rank Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
※ Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Work
(produced during the period from the accreditation of the
current academic rank through the submission of the current
promotion application)
Item
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Research achievements
pertaining
to teaching attained
Creation Report
Socio-cultural
or creations produced during
quality, functionality, (creative inspirations,
the period from the
theoretical foundations,
accreditation
of the current
technological
form & content,
academic rank through the
methods, techniques,
quality, artistic
submission of the current
patent acquisition,
quality, originality,
promotion application
artistic
and industrial
value/contributions,
applicability
etc.)
35%
50%
15%
45%
40%
15%
60%
30%
10%
70%
20%
10%
Total
Points
Individual Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should have distinctive and coherent works in his/her research field
with significant and substantial contributions.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should have coherent works in his/her research field with
substantial contributions.
3. Assistant Professor: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Doctor of Arts.
4. Lecturer: The applicant’s works should reach the standards of the Master of Arts.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
52
(Attachment 4) - 7
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Works of Art)
Design: □ Spatial Design □ Product Design □ Visual Communication Design □
Multimedia Design □ Fashion Design
Work No.
Academic
Rank Being
Sought
Name
□ Professor
□ Associate
Professor
□ Assistant
Professor
□ Lecturer
Representative
Work Title
Comments: (Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative work and works for supporting purposes,
respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result. You may list
your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words). Your comments
may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Great socio-cultural quality
High functionality
Good techniques for creation
Fresh insights into research or creation
High artistic value
High industrial applicability
Patent acquired
Others:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Lack of socio-cultural quality
Low functionality
Less satisfactory performance on techniques
or the content
Unclear insights into creation
Low artistic value
Low industrial applicability
Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
53
(Attachment 5)
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Criteria for Teacher Qualifications Screening of Applications Supported by Proofs of
Merit in Physical Education
Scope
Description
If a faculty member in the discipline of physical I.
education him/herself or any athletes under his/her
coaching have won medals at major international
games, he/she may submit the proof(s) of merit for
qualifications screening.
The scope of major international games and the
recognition of proofs of merit mentioned above
should be stipulated by the Ministry of Education.
The term “the proof of merit” refers to the proof of
sports achievements, namely the proof of
competition ranking issued by the organizer of an
international sports event.
54
For applications supported by proofs of merit
in physical education, the following
requirements should be fulfilled:
1. The proof of merit should be made in
quintuplicate, with the date on which an
athlete won a medal at the international
sports event clearly stated. The
submission of the proof of merit should be
subject to Subparagraph 2, Paragraph 1 of
Article 11 of the Accreditation
Regulations
Governing
Teacher
Qualifications at Institutions of Higher
Education.
2. For applications supported by the proof of
merit in physical education, a case study
report should also be submitted in
triplicate; the items to be included in the
report are listed below. An applicant who
submits two or more kinds of
achievements for teacher qualifications
screening
should
designate
the
representative
achievement
from
achievements for supporting purposes
him/herself;
achievements
closely
correlated with one another may be
compiled
into
one
representative
achievement packet. Achievements or
works other than the representative
achievement are considered achievements
for supporting purposes.
3. When an applicant submits the proof of
merit of an athlete under his/her coaching,
he/she should also submit a certificate of
coaching issued by the organizer of the
international sports event.
4. Other awards related to the proof of merit
submitted for teacher qualifications
screening may be submitted for
supporting purposes.
5. If the representative achievement has been
completed by two or more persons, only
one of them can submit the achievement
for teacher qualifications screening, and
any other persons should individually give
up the right to claim it as a representative
achievement. Applicants should state in
writing in what part of the achievement
he/she has participated, and the
endorsement
and
signatures
of
collaborators are required.
6. If his/her application for the current
academic rank was supported by proofs of
merit, the applicant should also provide
all the documents submitted for the
previous application for review.
7. If an applicant fails the teacher
qualifications screening, he/she is allowed
to resubmit the same proof of merit, along
with a revised case study report (at least
50% of the content has been revised) and
the original unsatisfactory report (all in
triplicate) only when the proof of merit
submitted satisfies the requirements as
referred to in each subparagraph of
Provision I.
II. The case study report is a report about the
theoretical foundations and the outcomes of
sports training in which an applicant is an
athlete or a coach to an athlete. If the report
passes the teacher qualifications screening, the
applicant should have the report officially
published. The following items should be
included in a case study report:
1. A description of the person receiving
training
2. Theoretical foundations
3. A sports training (competition) plan for
the applicant him/herself or for the athlete
under his/her coaching
4. The sports training (competition) process
and the outcomes of the applicant
him/herself or of the athlete under his/her
coaching
III. Case study reports passing the final review
should be accessible on the University’s
website or at the University’s library, or
published at home or abroad. The aforesaid
requirement is not applicable if the report may
be kept confidential or not to be published
within a certain period of time as agreed upon.
55
(Attachment 5) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form A: (Physical Education)
□ Personal Achievement □ Coaching Achievement
Work No.
□
Academic
□
Rank Being
□
Sought
□
Name
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
Representative
Work Title
※ Lowest Possible Passing Score:
Representative Achievement
(attained during the period from the accreditation of the current
academic rank through the submission of the current promotion
application)
Item
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Other personal sports
achievements, coaching
Proof
Case Study Report
achievements (including
coaching during the
Including:
training period) or
1. a description of the person
academic works
Total
receiving training
An applicant
during the period from Points
2. theoretical foundations
him/herself or any
3. a sports training (competition) plan the accreditation of the
athletes under his/her
for the applicant him/herself or for current academic rank
coaching have won
the athlete under his/her coaching through the submission
medals at major
4. the sports training (competition) of the current promotion
international games
application
process and the outcomes of the
applicant him/herself or of the
athlete under his/her coaching
25%
45%
30%
30%
40%
30%
35%
35%
30%
40%
30%
30%
Individual
Points
Reviewed by
Reviewed on
(mm/dd/yyyy)
※ Screening Criteria:
1. Professor: The applicant should take part in or coach an athlete for major international games, have
distinctive and consistent achievements and case study reports (or academic works) in his/her
sports field, and have substantial and great accomplishments.
2. Associate Professor: The applicant should take part in or coach an athlete for major international
games, have consistent achievements and case study reports (or academic works) in his/her sports
field, and have great accomplishments.
3. Assistant Professor：The applicant should take part in or coach an athlete for major international
games with great accomplishments in his/her sports field, his/her case study report(s) should reach
the standards of doctoral dissertations, and he/she should be competent to do research
independently.
56
4. Lecturer: The applicant should take part in or coach an athlete for major international games with
satisfactory outcomes in his/her sports field, and his/her case study report(s) should reach the
standards of master’s theses.
※ Note:
I-Shou University has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to undergo and conclude the
teacher qualifications screening, and there will be no second review by the Ministry. The comments
and the result offered herein will be the basis for the University to evaluate the applicant’s research
achievements.
57
(Attachment 5) - 1
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS SCREENING FORM
Form B: (Physical Education)
□ Personal Achievement □ Coaching Achievement
Work No.
□ Professor
Academic □ Associate
Professor
Rank
Being
□ Assistant
Sought
Professor
□ Lecturer
Name
Representative
Work Title
Comments:
(Please scrutinize and make comments on the representative achievement and achievements for supporting
purposes, respectively, and tick the appropriate boxes for any strengths/weaknesses and the review result.
You may list your comments and are recommended to type them in an A4 size paper (at least 300 words).
Your comments may be provided to the applicant for reference if this application is unsuccessful.)
Strengths
□
□
□
Weaknesses
Real innovations and breakthroughs
High practical value
Complete content and appropriate format of
the case study report
□ Good performance on sports/coaching
□ Practical application to training or coaching
□ Excellent research achievements
□ Satisfactory quality and quantity
□ Others:
□
□
□
No innovation or breakthrough
Low practical value
Incomplete content and inappropriate format
of the case study report
□ Poor performance on sports/coaching
□ Not suitable to training or coaching
□ Unsatisfactory research outcomes
□ Possibility of plagiarism or violation of
academic ethics (please state the facts in the
column “Comments”)
□ Others:
Review Result
I.
Lowest possible passing score:
This application, in my opinion, □ passes □ fails the review.
II. If the box indicating “Possibility of plagiarism or violation of academic ethics” is ticked, this
application should fail the review pursuant to Article 37 of the Accreditation Regulations
Governing Teacher Qualifications at Institutions of Higher Education.
58
Attachment 6
I-SHOU UNIVERSITY
Weights to Research, Teaching, and Counseling & Service for Promotion
to Different Academic Ranks
Research (including
academic works,
innovative teaching
practices reports, technical
reports, proofs of merit in
physical education, and
proofs of merit in arts)
Teaching
Counseling &
Service
Professor
60%
25%
15%
Associate Professor
60%
25%
15%
Assistant Professor
50%
35%
15%
Category
Academic Rank
Being Sought
59