Lecturer Evaluation and Promotion

The following is an overview of the promotion process for Lecturers and the list of documentation required to be considered for promotion.

This is based on two sources:

Lecturers are expected to focus on classroom instruction but the following may also be included as part of their duties and may be used as part of their evaluation for promotion:

  • Service activities – Participation on internal or external related committees, faculty advisor to student organizations, advisor for senior design projects, or other meaningful engagement with the campus community. Any expectation of service or professional development activities should be outlined in the appointment letter.
  • Development of original course material and syllabi in line with the learning outcomes of courses.
  • Professional development – publication of papers or technical reports, attendance at field-related conferences, incorporation of recent research into courses, attendance at teaching workshop, or creative contributions. Any expectation of service or professional development activities should be outlined in the appointment letter.
  • Student Success Activities – Activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service. Faculty members are to be evaluated on their student success activities that are relevant to their job responsibilities and roles. Faculty members are afforded the discretion to determine the student success activities that they undertake; however, as required by the Board of Regents, faculty members must report their student success activities. 
  • Administrative duties – In rare cases, administrative duties may be assigned but classroom instruction should account for a majority of the workload for lecturers of all ranks.
  • Only Lecturers serving 75% time or more are eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer. Calendar years of service are the same for everyone at or above the 75% level.

Third Year Review of Lecturers (from the GT Faculty Handbook)

Lecturers will receive a third year review to determine progress towards promotion to Senior Lecturer or Principal Lecturer (if hired at the Senior. This review process is described below.

  1. Lecturers will prepare a dossier of materials that includes the following:
    1. Biosketch – 150 word biosketch in a 12 point or larger font that describes the candidate’s tenure at Georgia Tech, current duties, and any significant awards or honors.
    2. Teaching Portfolio (Updated for 2018)– A teaching portfolio is a description of an instructor’s teaching strengths and accomplishments. The candidate should use the Institute guidelines for the teaching portfolio and submit the portfolio as four individual documents including the reflection/self-evaluation, feedback and evaluation from others, teaching effectiveness (CIOS) table (see below), and the appendix with sample teaching materials. It is at the discretion of the faculty member which courses are chosen to highlight their growth as a Lecturer over the review period. This portfolio does not need to cover every course taught. Starting in 2019, all Lecturers must undergo “peer evaluation of teaching” by at least two different people as part of the feedback and evaluation from others section of the teaching portfolio. This peer evaluation of teaching should not occur in the same class. Have your evaluators use the following form for their evaluation.
      • CIOS Table with Normative Data –The candidate should provide a table of student evaluation scores from the Course Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS) as an individual document as part of the teaching portfolio. The table, in landscape orientation, should include the scores from the question: “Is the instructor an effective teacher?” Normative data from the candidate’s college and teaching subject area (i.e., school), if applicable, should be included. The candidate should use the table template provided by the Faculty Affairs. 
    3. Curriculum Vitae for Lecturers (Updated February 2019) – Summarizes biographical, personal, and professional data. The modified CoE institute standard resume for non-tenure track promotions should be used as a template and candidates should delete any categories/headings that are not relevant to them.
    4. Statement of Completeness – Statement indicating materials submitted are accurate and complete. Signed and dated with the same date as the CV.
  2. School Committee Letter – School Committee Letter (Optional in CoE for promotion/review of Lecturers, check with your school for their policy) – The dossier will be reviewed by an appropriate elected committee of tenure track faculty and Lecturers at or above the rank being considered as determined by the School Chair. This committee will vote and provide feedback. This letter will be addressed to the School Chair.
  3. School Chair Letter – The School Chair will provide a letter of evaluation addressed to the Dean. This letter should summarize the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case, provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and teaching performance, a summary of the external letters, and a recommendation for or against promotion. The School Chair letter should also acknowledge the use of the annual evaluations in their review and specifically discuss how the faculty member addressed any areas that had been identified as needing improvement or not meeting expectations.
  4. College Committee Letter –The Dean will convene a committee of five or more elected tenured faculty, principal lecturers, or principal academic professionals to review the candidate’s materials. The committee will provide feedback to the Lecturer on progress that the faculty member is making towards promotion to the next rank.
  5. Communicating Results – The Dean will write a letter communicating the result  of the review process to the Lecturer. Possible results for this process include, Yes or No. The Yes result could be an unconditional  “Yes” with keep up the good work or a “Yes” with some needed corrections suggested. The “No” result could result in termination of the Lecturer for the next academic year and is at the discretion of the school chair and/or direct supervisor.
  6. Dean’s office will submit a copy of the materials to Institute Faculty Affairs to complete the process.

Qualifications for Promotion to Senior/Principal Lecturer (from the GT Faculty Handbook)

Both Senior and Principal Lecturers are expected to participate fully in the School/College and at a more robust level than Lecturers. Their participation may include new course development, service on internal/external committees, research and implementation regarding pedagogy, and/or leadership within the School/College. In addition to time in rank at the Senior Lecturer level, Principal Lecturers also are expected to show more leadership and educational impact than a Senior Lecturer and their participation may include cutting-edge pedagogical practices and/or leadership within the Institute.

Promotion to Senior or Principal Lecturer

Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer may be considered after six (6) years at the Institute. Promotion from Senior Lecturer to Principal Lecturer may be considered after five (5) years in rank as a Senior Lecturer. Time in service at any rank does not necessarily imply having met the criteria for the next rank simply with the passage of time. The review process is described below. All materials for promotion are uploaded into PROMOTE. Get your unit administrator to add you as a candidate to get access to PROMOTE.

  1. Supervisor and faculty member meet to discuss eligibility and readiness for promotion.
  2. Faculty member prepares the following dossier
    1. Biosketch – 100 word biosketch in a 12 point or larger font that describes the candidate’s tenure at Georgia Tech, current duties, and any significant awards or honors.
    2. Teaching Portfolio (Updated for 2018) – A teaching portfolio is a description of an instructor’s teaching strengths and accomplishments. The candidate should use the Institute guidelines for the teaching portfolio and submit the portfolio as four individual documents including the reflection/self-evaluation, feedback and evaluation from others, teaching effectiveness (CIOS) table (see below), and the appendix with sample teaching materials. It is at the discretion of the faculty member which courses are chosen to highlight their growth as a Lecturer over the review period. This portfolio does not need to cover every course taught. Starting in 2019, all Lecturers must undergo “peer evaluation of teaching” by at least two different people as part of the feedback and evaluation from others section of the teaching portfolio. This peer evaluation of teaching should not occur in the same class. Have your evaluators use the following form for their evaluation.
      • CIOS Table with Normative Data – The candidate should provide a table of student evaluation scores from the Course Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS) as an individual document as part of the teaching portfolio. The table should include the scores from the question: “Is the instructor an effective teacher?” Normative data from the candidate’s college and teaching subject area (i.e., school), if applicable, should be included. The candidate should use the table template provided by the Faculty Affairs.
    3. Curriculum Vitae for Lecturers (Updated for 2019)– Summarizes biographical, personal, and professional data. The modified CoE institute standard resume for non-tenure track promotions should be used as a template and candidates should delete any categories/headings that are not relevant to them.
    4. Reviewer List with bios – Names of potential reviewers with one paragraph bios for each potential reviewer. The candidate should provide the names of at least three (3) people, external to the unit, who are in a position to evaluate the dossier for promotion. At least one evaluation letter should be from an individual external to the Institute; for promotion to Principal Lecturer, at least two letters should be from individuals external to the Institute.  Candidate has the right to request that certain individuals not be contacted as a reviewer. It is the supervisor/school chair’s final decision as to who is solicited for a reference letter.
    5. Statement of Completeness – Statement indicating materials submitted are accurate and complete. This is completed within the PROMOTE system.
    6. Waiver – Statement indicating whether or not candidate waives rights to see the identity of external letter writers or content of their letters. This is completed within the PROMOTE system.
  3. External Evaluation Letters – There should be at least three review letters and need not be more than five, but each letter should address the substance of the candidate’s accomplishments and be solicited either by the supervisor or Unit head with an explanation of the criteria for evaluation, as appropriate. These references must be external to the unit. For promotion to Senior Lecturer, at least one evaluation letter should be from an individual external to the Institute; for promotion to Principal Lecturer, at least two letters should be from individuals external to the Institute. The list of individuals from whom letters are to be obtained should be developed jointly by the candidate for promotion and the supervisor. The final decision regarding who shall be selected to provide recommendations from the list shall rest with the supervisor or Unit Head. A candidate for promotion may request that a particular individual not be contacted as an external reviewer. 
  4. School Committee Letter (Optional in CoE for promotion/review of Lecturers, check with your school for their policy) – The dossier will be reviewed by an appropriate elected committee of tenure track faculty and Lecturers at or above the rank being considered as determined by the School Chair. This committee will vote and provide feedback. This letter will be addressed to the School Chair.
  5. School Chair Letter –  The School Chair will provide a letter of evaluation addressed to the Dean. This letter should summarize the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case, provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and teaching performance, a summary of the external letters, and a recommendation for or against promotion. The School Chair letter should also acknowledge the use of the annual evaluations in their review and specifically discuss how the faculty member addressed any areas that had been identified as needing improvement or not meeting expectations.
  6. College Committee Letter –The Dean will convene a committee of five or more elected tenured faculty, principal lecturers, or principal academic professionals to review the candidate’s materials. The committee will vote on the promotion and write a letter of recommendation describing the rationale of the vote for or against promotion.
  7. Dean Letter – The Dean will write a letter to the Provost the summarizing the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case and whether he/she recommends promotion or not.
  8. Institute Committee – One representative from each college, the library, and professional education (8 members total) will convene and review all cases for promotion and vote for or against promotion.
  9. Provost – After review by the Institute Committee, the Provost will review the package and communicate the final outcome to the Dean, who in turn communicates the decision to the faculty member, completing the process.

Decisions for Promotion

The effective date of promotion is July 1 for faculty members on a fiscal year contract and August 15 for faculty members on an academic year contract. A positive decision grants promotion to the candidate; a negative outcome means the candidate has not met expectations for promotion at Georgia Tech.