Guidelines for Merit/Promotion Evaluation for Professors of Teaching

UC Irvine faculty in the Professor of Teaching (PoT) series are Academic Senate members who devote the majority of their effort to teaching. They also play an important role in the research/creative activity and the service mission of the University.

APM 210-3 contains general instructions to review committees, which advise on actions concerning the Lecturer with Security of Employment Series. The criteria set forth in the APM are documented as minimum standards by which to judge the candidate in the UC merit and promotion process (APM 210-3c). The UCI Campus formally adopted the working title of Professor of Teaching for this series in 2018.  What follows are campus wide guidelines that clarify the areas of review, effort, and expectations in the merit and promotion process for PoT faculty at UC Irvine. The process used in development of guidelines is detailed in the Background section of this page. All items listed in the general Guidance for Faculty on Preparing Files page are relevant for both Professors of Teaching and Professor series.

Background

The UCI campus and school guidelines were developed in a multistage process.

  • The Academic Planning Group 2020-21, co-chaired by the Vice Provost of Academic Planning and the Chair-Elect of the Academic Senate, appointed an APG Workgroup charged with reviewing the Professor of Teaching series and making recommendations for workload and achievement expectations for faculty in this series. The workgroup was comprised of 5 Professors and 9 PoTs, and was co-chaired by a Professor (Vice Provost, Academic Personnel) and a PoT (Chair, Committee on Faculty Welfare).
  • APG workgroup submitted recommendations to the Provost on April 1, 2021.
  • Recommendations accepted by the Provost (August 31, 2021) were shared with each school (Fall 2021) with the charge to develop guidelines that adhere to the campus wide standards but provided additional specificity as appropriate for each discipline.
  • Each school submitted draft guidelines (Winter 2022) that were reviewed by a campus wide guidelines committee, comprised of 7 PoTs and 6 Professors representing all 13 schools with faculty in the PoT series. The committee requested revisions from all submitting schools.
  • Revised school guidelines (May 2022) were reviewed by CAP.
  • CAP recommended approval with minor revisions for 7 schools, and requested major revision prior to recommending approval for 6 schools (August 2022).
  • CAP requested to review again revised proposals from the 6 schools with major revisions, and Vice Provost, Academic Personnel reviewed revisions from the 7 schools with minor revisions.
  • Provost had final authority of approval. All documents were finalized and approved in Fall 2022.
Campus-wide Guidelines
  1. Each school with faculty in the PoT series will develop a single guideline document that covers the areas as outlined below. Expected length of 5 pages or less.
  2. Areas that must be included:
    1. Distribution of effort expected in 3 review areas:
      1. Ranges are recommended, minimum in any one area 15%
      2. Teaching workload expectations should be included (#classes, upper/lower div, SCHs, or whatever makes most sense in school context)
      3. Teaching release policies
    2. Teaching
      1. Examples of activities that count toward teaching excellence expected such as classroom innovation, use of evidence-based practices, mentoring (grads, undergrads, TA, other faculty), curriculum development, use of inclusive teaching practices.
      2. Evidence that will be used to document teaching excellence (e.g. student evaluations, peer evaluations, reflective teaching statements, awards, student placement/learning outcomes)
    3. Research/Creative Activity
      1. Examples of activities that count toward research/creative activity need to meet all three of the criteria below:
        1. Represents new knowledge, innovation, and/or analysis in the discipline/pedagogy – as judged by peer or other external review
        2. Publication/dissemination and public accessibility of the work beyond the university
        3. Impact and influence on the field, the academy, or the wider society
      2. Type of evidence used to document excellence (such as peer reviewed publications, grants that support activities, citations or use statistic for papers, conference proceedings, text books, book reviews, performances/exhibitions)
    4. Service
      1. Include examples of the types, quantity, and impact of service activities at the department, school, campus/systemwide, public and professional level that meet expectations.
  3. Appendix: Not required but an appendix can be attached that describes activities or evaluation evidence in more detail that are specific to a particular department/area.
  4. Other school policies that can be addressed as appropriate:
    1. Teaching workload management: Schools are encouraged to evaluate the teaching workload of PoTs and to make adjustments as appropriate to ensure they are in a position to successfully execute their work, not just in teaching but research/creative activity, and service. Adjustment may include:
      1. Increase stability in course assignments year to year,
      2. Provide opportunities to teach multiple sections of same class/quarter/year,
      3. Provide opportunities to stack classes to have an open quarter periodically,
      4. Assign courses related to PoTs research area,
      5. Involve PoTs in course scheduling decisions.
    2. Voting rights: Departments are encouraged to provide PoTs the same opportunity to review and vote on all promotion and merit cases as faculty in the Professor series, as is the practice currently in 75% of the departments at UCI. If there is a change in voting rights these should be documented by updating the Department voting rights procedures and submitting to AP.
    3. Sabbaticals: description of school wide policy for sabbaticals for PoTs. APM 740 dictates that PoTs accrue sabbatical credits at the same rate as Professors. As PoTs have significant teaching expectations, a clear process for request for sabbatical leave should be implemented. Departmental deadlines and timelines will facilitate request submissions.
School specific Guidance for Merit/Promotion of Professors of Teaching