College Policy for Lecturer-Track Faculty - Promotion, Reappointment, and Service Assignments (Updated 2022; Revised 2025))

College Policy for Lecturer-Track Faculty - Promotion, Reappointment, and Service Assignments (Updated 2022; Revised 2025)

I. Promotion

A. Lecturer to Senior Lecturer

1. In accordance with University (ACA-18) policies for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, the rank of Senior Lecturer is appropriate for individuals who have demonstrated excellence in teaching. Lecturers can be assigned responsibilities in research and service that are in support of teaching, and may choose also to participate in research, creative activity, and service that enhances their teaching or that contributes to the academic mission of the institution, broadly defined. Such activities, when in support of teaching, should be considered in merit, reappointment, and promotion decisions.
2. In accordance with Campus (BL-ACA-A3) policy, any research or service, in support of teaching, when assigned, must count toward promotion to Senior Lecturer.
3. The College Instructional Faculty Promotion Subcommittee will review the case on the basis of excellence in teaching. Comparisons of teaching are to be made with respect to persons who have recently been promoted to equivalent rank at IU or elsewhere.
4. In the College of Arts & Sciences, a rating of 'excellent in teaching' means that the candidate has made significant progress toward becoming an excellent classroom teacher, as well as demonstrated a sustained commitment to remaining current with pedagogical developments in their field, and to continued professional growth.
   • For purposes of promotion, classroom teaching is defined broadly to include instruction in a physical classroom as well as instruction occurring online, in a lab, in the field, and in various combinations of instructional modalities.
   • Service, research, or creative activity that is relevant to the university's academic mission may be included in the dossier.
5. Typically, a body of work will be necessary to demonstrate excellence in teaching. The dossier must include elements stipulated by campus, College, and departmental policies and guidelines. These documents and/or activities may include:
   • a statement of teaching philosophy;
   • syllabi from all courses taught in rank;
   • peer observations;
   • participation in pedagogical workshops or training;
   • student evaluations, whether OCQ or instructor-administered, recognizing that they contain biases both favorable and unfavorable;
   • innovations in classroom teaching;
   • curriculum development;
   • development of remote instructional modalities;
   • mentoring undergraduate and/or graduate students within the home unit (e.g., directing honors theses, capstone papers, etc.);
   • documented engagement with diversity, equity, inclusion and justice through teaching, mentoring, service, and/or other activities.
6. If the decision is made to not promote the candidate, the candidate is not eligible for reappointment at the end of their current contract. Candidates should refer to BL ACA -A3 for the appeal process.

B. Senior Lecturer to Teaching Professor

1. To be promoted to the rank of Teaching Professor, the candidate must demonstrate pedagogical leadership outside of the home unit while at the rank of Senior Lecturer as well as a sustained record of excellence in classroom teaching. This leadership could be at the College, campus, local, state, national, or international level.
2. Typically, a body of work will be necessary to demonstrate pedagogical leadership. These activities might include (but are not limited to):
   • Pedagogical publications (e.g., articles, textbooks, publisher-distributed curricular materials);
   • Significant mentoring of undergraduate and/or graduate students outside the home unit (e.g., directing honors theses, capstone papers, IMP students, etc...) with demonstrated impact after graduation;
   • Educational activities or service that garner institutional and external recognition through awards and similar distinctions;
   • Leadership in a professional or accrediting body related to pedagogy;
   • Substantial service with a non-profit or government entity related to pedagogical expertise;
   • Leading a series of pedagogical workshops for campus faculty outside of the home unit;
3. Ordinarily, administrative appointments are not in themselves considered pedagogical leadership, unless they are accompanied by significant initiatives in pedagogy and curriculum.
4. Not every Senior Lecturer is expected to achieve the rank of Teaching Professor. A decision not to pursue promotion should not be viewed as a reason for non-reappointment.
5. A negative promotion decision also should not be viewed as a reason for non-reappointment.

II. Reappointment Decisions

A. Senior Lecturers and Teaching Professors

• Senior lecturers and teaching professors are on long-term contracts with the option for reappointment. Reappointment decisions involve a comprehensive review of faculty accomplishments during the current contract period including preparation of a written committee report that provides an evaluation of the candidate's contributions. Each department should develop written procedures for reappointment reviews.
  • While reappointment reviews are not as comprehensive as promotion reviews, candidates should submit sufficient materials to allow the department to meaningfully evaluate their accomplishments. Please note, units should request appropriate materials that are sufficient to demonstrate excellence and clarify the case for reappointment, but should limit the material requests, because reappointment should not be as thorough or time-consuming as promotion.
• The written procedures should address the following areas: The materials the candidate is expected to submit, the summary of the candidate's materials, committee composition and report preparation, who will vote on the reappointment, and the criteria that will be used to judge the candidate's accomplishments.
• This is one example of a reappointment procedure:
  • The materials the candidate is expected to submit. The College recommends that, at minimum, candidates provide:
    • a written statement that summarizes their teaching accomplishments and challenges during the current contract period (suggested maximum length: 5-7 pages);
    • a summary of student evaluations including course number and title, the number of enrolled students, the number of responses and averages, for example, on the four campus P&T items from the OCQs;
    • a limited sampling of positive and negative student comments;
    • sample syllabi for 2-3 representative courses;
    • 2-3 peer observations of their teaching;
    • a few examples of assignments or activities from those same courses.
  • Summary of candidate's materials. To assist the candidate in writing a summary of their materials, the College recommends that the unit head provide candidates with guidance as early as possible prior to reappointment.
  • Committee composition and report preparation. The College recommends that a three-member committee of vote-eligible faculty review the materials the candidate has submitted. The College recommends that the unit head remind this committee of the need to create a written report in response to the candidate's materials. Candidates should be provided with a copy of the committee review report, with opportunities to correct any errors of fact, prior to the faculty vote on reappointment.
  • Who will vote on the reappointment. The unit procedures should state whether the committee determines reappointment, or whether the decision goes to a faculty vote. The College recommends following rank-appropriate voting eligibility, meaning tenure-track faculty of equal and higher rank, and non-tenure track faculty of higher rank, and using the voting procedures described in unit promotion and reappointment documents.
  • The criteria that will be used to evaluate the candidate's accomplishments. Ideally, detailed criteria would be described in the unit's promotion and reappointment documents and would serve as the basis for reappointment decisions.
• In the case of a decision not to reappoint, it is especially important that candidates be provided with the rationale for the decision. In such cases, candidates may appeal the decision following University policy https://policies.iu.edu/policies/aca-22-reappointment-non-reappointment-probationary-period/index.html).

III. Service Assignments

When assigning service responsibilities, unit heads should make every effort to ensure that any service assigned to faculty members in the lecturer track relates to the instructional mission of the institution.

Examples of appropriate service assignments include (but are not limited to) membership on student affairs committees, curriculum development, student group advising, peer observations of teaching, and lecturer promotion or hiring committees. When assigning service responsibilities, chairs should be mindful that faculty members in the lecturer track carry heavy teaching loads which limit the time they have available for service, and should strive to ensure that faculty members in the lecturer track are not (1) tasked with undesirable service assignments that do not count toward merit, reappointment, or promotion, or (2) frequently tasked with service that requires work outside of normal business hours.

Some faculty members in the lecturer track seek additional opportunities to provide service to the institution, including in leadership positions, or working to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice beyond service that is narrowly aligned with teaching. Much of this service can be conceptualized broadly as contributing to the academic mission of the institution.

Departments are encouraged to provide additional service and leadership opportunities when sought, and to recognize any such service in annual merit reviews, reappointment reviews, and promotions.

IV. Compliance with SEA 202.

The department chair shall append the following statement to the candidate's dossier:

The [department or unit name] chair has reviewed the request for promotion submitted by [candidate name] and has determined that [candidate name] is eligible for promotion in compliance with the criteria and requirements of IC 21-39.5-2-1 and IC 21-39.5-2-4(a)(3).

In the event that the candidate's personnel file contains any violation regarding SEA 202, the chair must append the above statement to the candidate's dossier unless all the following conditions are met:

1. The candidate has more than one SEA 202 complaint in their file that has been fully adjudicated, including all available appeals, and found to be a violation; and
2. The candidate has been provided an opportunity to design and implement a development plan; and
3. The candidate has declined to participate in designing and implementing a development plan in response to the violations documented in their dossier.

SEA 202 allegations in process and which have not yet exhausted all available appeals shall not prevent the inclusion of the above statement.

The College Policy Committee has also clarified the populations within which candidates for promotion are to be evaluated. Evaluations of research in support of teaching, creative activity, and teaching are to be made with respect to individuals who have recently received promotion or are soon to be considered for promotion. The College Policy Committee has formulated a policy for evaluation of classroom teaching stipulating the kinds of information on classroom teaching that must accompany the dossier for promotion.