Evaluation and Promotion of Lecturers

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 “Section 3.2.2 Non-Tenure Track Academic Faculty Members: Hiring and Promotion Guidelines” of the Georgia Tech Faculty Handbook and a memo from Vice Provost of Graduate Education and Faculty Development (June 2018). 

Lecturers are expected to focus on classroom instruction but the following may also be included as part of their duties (this should be detailed in the appointment letter of the Lecturer):

  • Service activities – Participation on internal or external related committees, faculty advisor to student organizations, incorporation of recent research into courses, attendance at or organization of teaching workshops, or other creative contributions.
  • Development of original course material and syllabi in line with the learning outcomes of courses.
  • In rare cases, administrative duties may be assigned but teaching should account for a majority of the workload for lecturers.
  • 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. 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)– Includes all materials for course(s) taught, self-evaluation, and other related information. Starting in 2019, all Lecturers must undergo "peer evaluation of teaching" by at least two different people in two different classes. Have your evaluators use the following form for their evaluation. 
    3. CIOS Table with Normative Data –The candidate should provide a table of student evaluation scores from the Course Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS). 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. Other evidence of effective teaching may be provided with the guidance of the supervisor.
    4. 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.
    5. 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 – The dossier will be reviewed by the school undergraduate committee, graduate committee, or appropriate committee as determined by the School Chair. This committee will provide feedback to the Lecturer in a letter that includes progress that the faculty member is making towards promotion to Senior Lecturer based on the criteria from the GT Faculty Handbook. This letter should include constructive information to the candidate about the areas where he/she is excelling at and indicate areas (if any) that need change or improvement. This letter will be addressed to the School Chair. 
  3. School Chair Letter - School Chair will provide a letter of evaluation addressed to the Dean. This letter should provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and teaching performance and progress that the candidate is making towards being promoted to Senior Lecturer.
  4. College Committee Letter –The Dean will convene a committee of five or more tenured full professors, senior 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 Senior Lecturer.
  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 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. 

  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) – Includes materials for course(s) taught, self-evaluation, and other related information. 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, etc. Refer to the CoE guidance teaching portfolios for non-tenure track promotions. Starting in 2019, all Lecturers must undergo "peer evaluation of teaching" by at least two different people in two different classes. Have your evaluators use the following form for their evaluation.
    3. CIOS Table with Normative Data –The candidate should provide their own table of student evaluation scores from the Course Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS). The candidate should use the table template provided by the College that is the same table that is used by tenure-track faculty for their promotion process. 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. Other evidence of effective teaching may be provided with the guidance of the supervisor.
    4. Curriculum Vitae (Updated for 2018)- 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Statement of Completeness – Statement indicating materials submitted are accurate and complete. Signed and dated with the same date as the CV.
    7. Waiver – Statement indicating whether or not candidate waives rights to see the identity of external letter writers or content of their letters.
  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. 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 – The dossier will be reviewed by the school undergraduate committee, graduate committee, or appropriate committee as determined by the School Chair. This committee will provide feedback to the Lecturer. 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 provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and teaching performance, a summary of the external letters, and a recommendation for or against promotion.
  6. College Committee Letter –The Dean will convene a committee of 5 or more tenured full professors, senior 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.