All Other Lecturer Evaluation Workflows
Eligibility to Review Lecturer Evaluations
For full eligibility details please reference UPS 210.070 Section VII.B
To be considered eligible to evaluate Lecturer WPAFs, a Department Chair 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)
* In any Department where the Department Chair is un-tenured or doesn't meet the criteria listed above, the Department Chair review level will be skipped and the case will be evaluated by the Dean.
Candidate Role:
Responding to the Rebuttal Period initiated by the Department Chair
Responsibilities for the Review Step:
Due to a recent change in UPS 210.070 (June 2021), the Department Chair and DPRC review levels are NO LONGER SEPARATE. Both the Department Chair and the DPRC will have simultaneous access to their assigned Lecturer Interfolio cases, however each review committee is responsible for conducting its own rebuttal period. For the Department Chair, the evaluation should be uploaded or shared with the faculty member under review until AFTER the DPRC has concluded its rebuttal period.
- Login
- Evaluate each WPAF in each case against UPS 210.070 or the appropriate Department Standards for Lecturer Faculty (DSLF)
- Upload a completed evaluation to the“Required Items”box on the“Case Details”page of each case.
-
The evaluation shall be prepared on the Lecturer Evaluation Form (or Department equivalent) and contain, at a minimum:
- Details on the candidate/type of evaluation
- The Department Chair’s name
- Date the evaluation was completed
- The overall rating of the candidate
- A written statement on the candidate’s performance
- Conduct the Rebuttal Period through Interfolio for the Chair Evaluation ONLY
- Share a copy of any rebuttals to the Chair Evaluation with the DPRC
- Forward case to the next review level by the due date listed FAR Annual Lecturer Timetables
*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
|
Subsequent Annual Periodic | Lecturer - Annual Periodic |
|
Year 3 of 3 Periodic (3-Year Periodic) | Lecturer - 3YR Periodic |
|
6-Year Comprehensive | Lecturer - 6YR Comprehensive |
|
Range Elevation |
Range Elevation |
|
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 |