Standing Committee on Language Lecturers

The rank of Associate in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have native or near-native language proficiency and some training in language pedagogy, but who have had relatively little teaching experience. That experience may range from teaching during graduate training to fewer than two years of full-time teaching at the college level.

The rank of Lecturer in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have native or near-native language proficiency, training in language pedagogy, substantial teaching experience with documented evidence of pedagogical excellence, and evidence of professional growth and activity in the field of language pedagogy either at Columbia or nationally. Evidence of such activity includes, but is not limited to creating textbooks or other forms of instructional materials and making presentations or publishing articles on language pedagogy or language acquisition language pedagogy or language acquisition.

The rank of Senior Lecturer in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have a superlative record of teaching as a lecturer and documented evidence of excellence in carrying out administrative or other department responsibilities such as directing specific courses; have contributed to the training of language teachers and served on department and university committees; shown continued professional growth in support of the department’s teaching mission and capacity for scholarly contributions to the language teaching profession within and outside the University. Evidence of such activity includes, but is not limited to creating textbooks or other forms of instructional materials and making presentations or publishing articles on language pedagogy or language acquisition.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences to approve the creation of every full-time lecturer-in-language position. A department wishing to appoint a new associate or lecturer in this career track must make such a request in writing to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences as part of the unit’s regular Instructional Budget Statement. (The American Langugae Program should make such requests through the Dean of the School of Continuing Education.)

By university statutes, all initial appointments are for one year only. Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years. Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to five years.

The university may choose not to renew an appointment beyond its stated term because of budgetary considerations, changes in staffing or curricular needs, or less than optimal performance on the part of the officer. In such cases, the University must give written notice according to the following schedule:

(1) not later than March 1 before the end of the first year of service (March 1, 2014);

(2) not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2013);

(3) at least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2014).

Associates in [Language] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth and eighth year of service. Promotion to lecturer in language is possible at the time of the second-year review.

Lecturers in [Language] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth and eighth years of service. Promotion to senior lecturer in language is possible at the time of the eighth-year review.

Senior Lecturers in [Language] undergo a major review prior to appointment or during their first year of service and continuing reviews every five years thereafter.

Confirming Review (First Year). The first year of service for all full-time faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period. A decision must be made whether to extend the statutory initial appointment. Those who successfully complete the probationary period will be extended for an additional year. Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2014 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2014.

Developmental Review (Second Year). The developmental review takes place before the end of the second year, at which time a department may decide to make a third year terminal or to recommend continuation for three years. In the case of an Associate, promotion to the rank of Lecturer may be considered at this time.

Critical Review (Fifth Year). The second professional review takes place the end of the fifth year, at which time a department may decide to make the sixth year terminal, or to recommend continuation for three more years into the eighth year.

Major Review (Eighth Year). The third professional review takes place before the end of the eighth year, at which time a department may decide to make the ninth year terminal, or to recommend extension for an additional five years.

Continuing Reviews (Every Five Years). All subsequent reviews are to be conducted at the end of each five-year cycle, with either a recommendation for an additional five years, or a recommendation for non-renewal after a terminal year. Reviews from the thirteenth year on are to be conducted by the department chair and at least two other faculty (either professorial or lecturer track with one member being trained in language pedagogy and the other being external to the department, but not necessarily external to the University).

Confirming Review (First Year). The first year of service for all full-time faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period. A decision must be made whether to extend the statutory initial appointment. Those who successfully complete the probationary period will be extended for an additional year. Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2014 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2014. 

Developmental Review (Second Year). The developmental review takes place before the end of the second year, at which time a department may decide to make a third year terminal or to recommend continuation for three years. In the case of an Associate, promotion to the rank of Lecturer may be considered at this time. 

Critical Review (Fifth Year). The second professional review takes place the end of the fifth year, at which time a department may decide to make the sixth year terminal, or to recommend continuation for three more years into the eighth year. 

Major Review (Eighth Year). The third professional review takes place before the end of the eighth year, at which time a department may decide to make the ninth year terminal, or to recommend extension for an additional five years. 

Continuing Reviews (Every Five Years). All subsequent reviews are to be conducted at the end of each five-year cycle, with either a recommendation for an additional five years, or a recommendation for non-renewal after a terminal year. Reviews from the thirteenth year on are to be conducted by the department chair and at least two other faculty (either professorial or lecturer track with one member being trained in language pedagogy and the other being external.

To recognize strong performance of an Associate in [Language] the university will consider conferral of the title Lecturer in [Language]. Promotion to Lecturer does not alter the review schedule. Proposals to promote an Associate to Lecturer may not be made before the end of the second year. The completion of a successful second-year review does not necessarily entail promotion to Lecturer. A department should propose candidates for promotion to Lecturer only when the following qualities are demonstrated:

1) substantial teaching experience and documented evidence of pedagogical excellence;
2) evidence of professional growth and activity in the field of language pedagogy.

To recognize high performance of a Lecturer in Discipline in a language program the university will consider conferral of the title Senior Lecturer in [Language]. No promotions in rank or title are possible beyond Senior Lecturer in [Language]. Proposals to promote a Lecturer to Senior Lecturer may not normally be made before the eighth year of service. The completion of a successful eighth-year review does not necessarily entail promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Language]. A department should propose candidates for promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Language] only when the following qualities are demonstrated:

1) evidence of continued excellence in teaching;
2) success in carrying out administrative or other department responsibilities such as directing specific courses, contributing to the training of language teachers, or serving on department or university committees;
3) achievement and/or innovation in support of the department’s pedagogical mission, including but not limited to: contributing to the development of existing teaching materials; writing new language textbooks; developing methodological advances in teaching;
4) demonstrated capacity for leadership in the language teaching profession within and outside the University;
5) continuing involvement in the profession as evidenced by presentation of papers on language pedagogy or language acquisition at professional meetings and/or publication of scholarly articles in the field.

In all cases, beginning with the developmental review in the second year, the Standing Committee on Language Lecturers will require evidence of a full and complete departmental review of the candidate’s work. Reviews in the second, fifth, and eighth years should include evaluation by a three-person review committee. The department chair will appoint a three-person committee to conduct a review and make a recommendation to the department for renewal or non-renewal. It is important that at least one member of the review committee be trained in language pedagogy and at least one member of the review committee be external to the department, but not necessarily external to the university. The department will deliberate on the committee’s recommendation. The outcome of those deliberations will be communicated to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences in a letter of transmittal.

The review process should entail:

1) examination of the candidate’s dossier, which includes an updated curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching philosophy, a statement of professional work in progress, and samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts, and supplements;
2) evaluation by each of the three reviewers of classroom performance composed after observing at least two classes, and a review of student evaluations for all classes taught by the candidate since the last review (if applicable). The evaluations composed by the three reviewers should be attached to the letter of transmittal to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. Copies of all student evaluations should be submitted along with the summary data page for each set of student evaluations.

The following will be assessed through a review of the statement of teaching philosophy, classroom observation, and the student evaluations: 1) strategies used to promote target language communication; 2) strategies used to meet the needs of all learners; 3) reflection of pedagogical goals as reflected in the work assigned to students; 4) strategies for engaging students in cultural activities within and outside the classroom; and 5) consonance between pedagogical practices and the candidate’s statement of teaching philosophy.

The following will be assessed through the examination of the curriculum vitae and the statement of professional work in progress: 1) evidence of professional growth in the field of language pedagogy; 2) active involvement in the profession either at Columbia or nationally; and 3) professional leadership experience and performance.

In instances of a positive vote by the department, the chair of the department will prepare a letter of transmittal to be sent to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The letter will record the result of the departmental vote and summarize the basis for the department’s positive recommendation. It will include a discussion of the candidate’s teaching load and course enrollments and be accompanied by an analysis of teaching performance. The statement will analyze the available data and reports of teaching observations as they reflect both the instructor’s strengths and areas in need of attention. The letter should also speak to the department’s recommendations at the last review as well as to the candidate’s responses to them. The letter should be accompanied by the candidate’s full dossier: curriculum vitae, the statement of teaching philosophy, the statement of professional work in progress, samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts and supplements to the text, and written reports of classroom observations and post-visitation discussions from each of the faculty members who observed the candidate’s class and examined the student evaluations.

In instances of a negative vote by the department, the chair of the department will notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the departmental decision. The chair will then notify the candidate in writing of the negative decision. Candidates not being recommended for renewal will be given a terminal year of appointment.

Departments must submit their recommendations to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by March 1, 2014. The Executive Vice President will then seek input from the Standing Committee on Language Lecturers. The committee will review the dossier and make a recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The Executive Vice President will write to the chair of the department regarding the outcome of the review, with a request that the chair inform the candidate in writing with a copy to the Executive Vice President. Candidates must be sent letters informing them of their status no later than June 30, 2014 and in the case of non-renewal no later than May 15, 2014. It is the chair’s obligation to convey to the candidate any concerns about his or her performance as well as any improvement that will be expected at the next scheduled review.