Faculty Affairs and Records

Review Step Introduction

Updated

Part Time Lecturer Annual Periodic Workflow

Lecturer Evaluation Review Steps Breakdown - Word

All Other Lecturer Evaluations Workflow

Lecturer Evaluation Review Steps Breakdown - Word

Range Elevation Workflow

Lecturer Evaluation Review Steps Breakdown - Word

Eligibility to serve on DPRC

For full eligibility details please reference UPS 210.070, Section VII.B.

To be considered eligible to serve on the DPRC, a faculty member MUST meet the following criteria:

  • All evaluators must be tenured
  • Cannot be on leave during any part of the semester in which the cycle is occurring
  • Cannot have any conflict of interest (i.e. Nepotism)
  • For FERP faculty who are teaching in both semesters of the academic year, permission must be requested from the Provost to serve as a DPRC member (Contact FAR for details)

Candidate Role

Responding to the Rebuttal Period initiated by the Department Peer Review Committee (DPRC) Chair

Responsibilities for the Review Step

Due to a recent change in UPS 210.070 (June 2021), the DPRC and Department Chair review levels are NO LONGER SEPARATE.  Both the DPRC and Department Chair will have simultaneous access to their assigned Lecturer Interfolio cases, however each review committee is responsible for conducting its own rebuttal period.  

For the DPRC, the evaluation should be uploaded and shared with the faculty member under review BEFORE the Department Chair's.  This responsibility is under the purview of the DPRC Chair.

  1. Login
  2. Evaluate each WPAF in each case against UPS 210.070 or the appropriate Department Standards for Lecturer Faculty (DSLF)
  3. The evaluation shall be prepared on the Lecturer Evaluation Form (or Department equivalent) and contain, at a minimum:
    1. Details on the candidate/type of evaluation
    2. The names of the DPRC committee members
    3. Date the evaluation was completed
    4. The overall rating of the candidate
      1. Summary of Lecturer Ratings
    5. A written statement on the candidate’s performance

DPRC Chair Responsibilities

  1. Upload the completed DPRC Evaluation to the“Required Items”box on the“Case Details”page of each case
  2. Conduct the Rebuttal Period through Interfolio for the DPRC Evaluation ONLY

*PLEASE NOTE: FAR will not be creating binders this year, all paperwork that would normally have to go into the binder will be assigned as “Required Documents” at each review level.  The process for satisfying these requirements will be discussed below

Summary of Review Periods for Lecturer Evals

Part-time Lecturers might not have the SOQ and Grade Distribution Data for the entire period of review, because they do not always work for the entire Academic Year.  

Often Part-time Lecturers will work only 1 semester in an Academic year.

Full-time Lecturers/Part-time Lecturers
Review Type Interfolio Status  Required Volume of Documentation 
Initial Annual Periodic Lecturer - Annual Periodic This type of review applies only to Lecturer faculty undergoing their first evaluation at CSUF
  • 1 Semester's worth of documentation and data, dating from the initial hire date 
Subsequent Annual Periodic Lecturer - Annual Periodic
  • 2 Semester's (1 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data
Year 3 of 3 Periodic (3-Year Periodic) Lecturer - 3YR Periodic
  • 5 Semester's (2 1/2 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data, dating from the start of the contract
6-Year Comprehensive  Lecturer - 6YR Comprehensive 
  • 11 Semester's (5 1/2 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data, dating from the initial hire date
Range Elevation Range Elevation
  • 10 Semester's (5 Academic Year's) worth of documentation and data

Summary of Lecturer Ratings

Part-Time Lecturer Evaluations 
Review Type  Rating #1 Rating #2 Rating #3 Rating #4
Annual Periodic Exceeds Expectations Satisfactory  Needs Improvement  Unsatisfactory 
Year 3 of 3 Periodic Exceeds Expectations Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
6-Year Comprehensive Exceeds Expectations  Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Range Elevation  Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Recommend Range Elevation  Do Not Recommend Range Elevation
Full-Time Lecturer Evaluations 
Review Type Rating #1 Rating #2 Rating #3 Rating #4
Annual Periodic Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Year 3 of 3 Periodic Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
6-Year Comprehensive
Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Range Elevation
Exceeds Expectations
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Recommend Range Elevation
Do Not Recommend Range Elevation
Previous Article How to Forward your Cases to the Next Review Level
Next Article Log In Options