AP 109-L
Lecturer Evaluation Form
http://www.academic-personnel.calpoly.edu  Forms
LECTURER’S NAME:
CURRENT RANGE:
COLLEGE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
This is a review for (select one of the following evaluation types):
6th year Cumulative Review - required to establish eligibility for initial 12.12 3-year appointment; review
covers 6 years
3rd year Cumulative Review - required to establish eligibility for subsequent 12.13 3-year appointment;
review covers 3 years
Range Elevation Review - must be eligible and must have applied; comprehensive review covers total time
in current range
Annual Periodic Review - non-cumulative; review covers one year
FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION
Justification for Recommendations
(Reference: University Personnel Action Procedures and Criteria: http://www.academic-personnel.calpoly.edu/Policies and Procedures)
Evaluative statements should be accompanied by supporting evidence. If the evidence does not appear to support the
recommendations made, the file will be returned to the reviewing levels for amplification.
The evaluator should review effectiveness of the lecturer during the appropriate evaluation period as stated above. The
evaluation should reflect both (1) evidence of merit and (2) suggested areas for improvement. Reference any resources used
for evaluation; such as class visitation, consultations with lecturer, Personnel Action File, and materials provided by the
lecturer (WPAF).
*I. Teaching Performance and/or Other Professional Performance:
Consider such factors as the faculty member's competence in the discipline; ability to communicate ideas effectively;
versatility and appropriateness of teaching techniques; organization of courses; relevance of instruction to course
objectives; methods of evaluating student achievement; relationship with students in class; effectiveness of student
advising; and other factors relating to performance as an instructor. (Include results of Student Evaluation Program.)
*Nonteaching academic personnel are to be evaluated on their professional performance.
Evidence of Merit:
Areas and Suggestions for Improvement:
II. Professional Growth and Achievement:
As appropriate to the lecturer’s assignment, consider such factors as: maintaining currency in academic discipline/area
of expertise; educational background and further academic training; related work experience and consulting practices;
scholarly and creative achievements; participation in professional societies; attendance and/or presentation of papers
at professional and scholarly meetings; publications; and external validation of scholarly activities.
AP109-L - Lecturer Evaluation Form (3/2014)
Page 1
Evidence of Merit:
Areas and Suggestions for Improvement:
III. Service to University, Students, and Community:
As appropriate to the lecturer’s assignment, consider such factors as participation in academic advisement; placement
follow-up; co-curricular activities; diversity-related activities; department, college and university committees; Academic
Senate and its committees; individual assignments; systemwide assignments; and service in community affairs directly
related to the lecturer’s teaching area, as distinguished from those contributions to more generalized community activities.
Evidence of Merit:
Areas and Suggestions for Improvement:
IV. Other Factors of Consideration:
Consider such factors as collegiality (working collaboratively and productively with colleagues and participation in
traditional academic functions); initiative; cooperativeness; and dependability.
Evidence of Merit:
Areas and Suggestions for Improvement:
V. Summary:
On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, I/we conclude that
:
1.
has reached a high level of professional development and is making an outstanding contribution to the university
which is readily recognizable.
2.
fully meets the requirements of the present assignment and is making a valuable contribution to the university.
3.
meets the requirements of the present assignment adequately and by following the preceding suggestions for
improvement may make a greater contribution to the university.
4.
does not meet satisfactorily the requirements of the present assignment.
for the following reasons:
AP109-L - Lecturer Evaluation Form (3/2014)
Page 2
VI. Recommendation for eligible Lecturers who have applied for range elevation: (if applicable)
Range Elevation Recommended
Range Elevation Not Recommended
for the following reasons:
(If this is a PRC evaluation, members should sign in spaces provided below)
, PRC Chair
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
(If this is a Department Head/Chair evaluation, Department Head/Chair should sign in space below)
Department Head/Chair Signature
Date
I have read the above evaluation:
Signature of person being evaluated
Date
COMMENTS OF PERSON BEING EVALUATED:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTE: The college dean or division head's evaluation statement will subsequently be attached to this form. The complete evaluation
statement and attachments will be filed in the individual's Personnel Action File in the college/division office following action on the
recommendations.
AP109-L - Lecturer Evaluation Form (3/2014)
Page 3
AP 109-L
Lecturer Evaluation Form
http://www.academic-personnel.calpoly.edu  Forms
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
DEAN’S EVALUATION
Lecturer Being Evaluated:
(name)
This is a periodic review for (select one of the following evaluation types):
6th year Cumulative Review - required to establish eligibility for initial 12.12 3-year appointment; review
covers 6 years
3rd year Cumulative Review - required to establish eligibility for subsequent 12.13 3-year appointment;
review covers 3 years
Range Elevation Review - must be eligible and must have applied; comprehensive review covers total time
in current range
Annual Periodic Review - non-cumulative; review covers one year
COMMENTS OF DEAN:
I. Rating Required for Cumulative Evaluations: (If applicable)
Lecturers eligible for an initial or subsequent three-year appointment under Provisions 12.12 or 12.13 who are receiving a
3rd year or 6th year cumulative periodic review must be rated in one of the following categories.
On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, this lecturer’s overall cumulative performance is rated as:
1.
Satisfactory – has performed in a satisfactory manner in carrying out the duties of his/her position
2.
Unsatisfactory- has NOT performed in a satisfactory manner in carrying out the duties of his/her position
for the following reasons:
II.
Recommendation for eligible Lecturers who have applied for range elevation: (if applicable)
Range Elevation Recommended
Range Elevation Not Recommended
for the following reasons:
Date
Dean's Signature
I have read the above evaluation:
Signature of person being evaluated
Date
COMMENTS OF PERSON BEING EVALUATED:
AP109-L - Lecturer Evaluation Form (3/2014)
Page 4