As a member of a review committee in the Lecturer Evaluation Process, your primary objective in this role is to assess how well the documentation submitted in the WPAF demonstrates the Lecturer Faculty's performance in comparison to the criteria published  in UPS 210.070 or approved Department Standards for Lecturer Faculty (DSLF).

To begin the evaluation process you will need to find the cases that are assigned to you as a reviewer.  For a more in-depth description on how to that reference the earlier article on "Finding Your Assigned Cases".  Otherwise there is a brief refresher down below.  

Once the assigned cases have been located, you will need to open each case to see what each individual submitted as evidence of his or her professional performance.  Different types of lecturer evaluations will have different amounts of submitted documentation, for a summary of these volumes please refer to the table provided in the "Review Step Introduction".

After reading the submitted material and comparing it to the appropriate criteria in UPS 210.070 or the approved Department Standards for Lecturer Faculty, the review committee needs to write its performance evaluation for the faculty member, including the performance ranking.

• Performance rankings for Annual Periodic Reviews (per UPS 210.070)
  • Exceeds Expectations
  • Satisfactory
  • Needs Improvement
  • Unsatisfactory
• Performance Rankings for 6-Year Comprehensive & Year 3 of 3 Reviews (per UPS 210.070)
  • Satisfactory
  • Unsatisfactory

*All Lecturer performance evaluations need to be written on the template form provided by FAR.

All performance evaluations, also, need to be completed, uploaded to "required items" box in each Interfolio case, and shared with the faculty member under review (also known as the "candidate") by a specific date each annual cycle.  Failure to accomplish all responsibilities for the review step by the published deadline will result in an email notification from the FAR office.