Professor of Professional PracticeThe Arts and Sciences has a comprehensive review system for its full-time non-tenure-track faculty that is conducted by designation. Review guidelines for lecturer, professor of professional practice, language lecturer, full professor and professors of practice are listed below.
Lecturer in Discipline
For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link, here.
lecturer ranks
The rank of Associate in [Discipline] is appropriate for individuals who have a special competence in a given field but do not qualify for the title of lecturer. Such individuals will have training in the given field but less than two years of teaching experience.
The rank of Lecturer in [Discipline] is appropriate for individuals who are earlier in their career or have not yet attained that high level of achievement expected of a senior lecturer in discipline. Such individuals will have substantial teaching experience with documented evidence of pedagogical excellence and evidence of professional growth and activity in the given field. Evidence of growth and activity includes, but is not limited to, making contributions in the areas of research, creative or policymaking activity appropriate the lecturer’s specific assignment.
The rank of Senior Lecturer in [Discipline]s 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 teaching fellows and served on department and university committees; shown continued professional growth and activity in the given field. Evidence of growth and activity includes, but is not limited to, making contributions in the areas of research, creative or policymaking activity appropriate to the lecturer’s specific assignment.
procedures for appointment
It is the responsibility of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences to approve the creation of every full-time lecturer-in-discipline 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.
statutory terms of appointment
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, 2021);
(2) not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2020);
(3) at least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2021)
review schedules
Associates in [Discipline] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth, and eighth year of service. Promotion to lecturer in discipline is possible at the time of the second-year review.
Lecturers in [Discipline] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth, and eighth years of service. Promotion to senior lecturer in discipline is possible at the time of the eighth-year review.
Senior Lecturers in [Discipline] undergo a major review prior to appointment or during their first year of service and continuing reviews every five years thereafter.
types of reviews
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, 2021 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2021.
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.
promotion to lecturer in discipline
To recognize strong performance of an Associate in [Discipline] in a program the university will consider conferral of the title Lecturer in [Discipline]. 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 in the areas of research, creative or policymaking activity appropriate to the associate’s specific assignment
promotion to senior lecturer in discipline
To recognize high performance of a Lecturer in [Discipline] in a program the university will consider conferral of the title Senior Lecturer in [Discipline]. No promotions in rank or title are possible beyond Senior Lecturer in [Discipline]. 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 [Discipline]. Candidates not promoted at the eighth-year review may be brought up at the time of the continuing review. If a department elects to bring a candidate up prior to the next continuing review, the next review after the review for promotion will be a continuing review five years after the review for promotion.
procedures for review
In all cases, beginning with the developmental review in the second year, the Promotion and Tenure Committee will require evidence of a full and complete departmental review of the candidate’s work. Reviews must include evaluation by a three-person review committee, appointed by the department chair 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 an expert in the lecturer’s area of research, creative or policymaking activity 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) individual evaluations 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 standing committee. Copies of all student evaluations should be submitted to the standing committee 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 student involvement/attentiveness; 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 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 the discipline; 2) active involvement in the field or profession either at Columbia or nationally; and 3) professional leadership experience and performance.
report to the Promotion and Tenure COmmittee
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 (include no more than 5 samples), 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. Please see Appendix B below for instructions on submitting the dossier in PDF files.
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, 2021. The Executive Vice President will then seek input from the Promotion and Tenure Committee. 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 continuing status no later than June 30, 2021, and in the case of non-renewal no later than May 15, 2021. 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.
review Schedule
Review Schedule for Associates, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in [Discipline]
Review Schedule Consequences
End of year one; A) Recommend for one more year
(internal) B) Notify will not be renewed
End of year two A) Decision to make third year terminal
(internal and external) B) Recommend for three-year contract and promote to lecturer if relevant
End of year five A) Appoint only 1 more year
(internal and external) B) Appoint 3 more years and consider promotion to lecturer if relevant
End of year eight A) Appoint only 1 more year
(internal and external) B) Renew for 5 more years
C) Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant
End of thirteenth and A) Appoint only 1 more year
subsequent five-year B) Renew for 5 more years
intervals (internal) C) Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant.
Professor of Professional Practice
SOA Professional Practice Faculty Guidelines
For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link
SPS Professional Practice Faculty Guidelines
For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this linkA
Promotion to Full Professor of Practice
Language Lecturer
For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link, here.
In July 1987, the University Senate and Board of Trustees approved the creation of a professional career track for full-time associates and lecturers in the less commonly taught languages that allowed the Arts & Sciences to appoint and continue to employ valuable teachers who would otherwise be subject to the “up-or-out” rules and the tenure review system designed for research faculty. In 1995-96 the option of appointing full-time language associates and lecturers in the Language Lecturer system was extended to all relevant departments in the Arts and Sciences. The official University titles for this career track are Associate in [Language], Lecturer in [Language], and Senior Lecturer in [Language]
LECTURER RANKS
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.PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT
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.
statutory terms of appointment
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, 2021);
(2) not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2020);
(3) at least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2021)
review schedules
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.types of reviews
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, 2021 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2021.
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.
promotion to lecturer
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.
promotion to senior lecturer
To recognize high performance of a Lecturer in [Language] in a 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]. Candidates not promoted at the eighth-year review may be brought up at the time of the continuing review. If a department elects to bring a candidate up prior to the next continuing review, the next review after the review for promotion will be a continuing review five years after the review for promotion. 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.
procedures for review
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 must include evaluation by a threeperson review committee, appointed by the department chair 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) individual evaluations 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.
report to the standing committee on language lecturers
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 6 class and examined the student evaluations. Please see Appendix B below for instructions on submitting the dossier in PDF files.
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, 2021. 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, 2021 and in the case of non-renewal no later than May 15, 2021. 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.
review schedule
Review Schedule for Associates, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in [Language]
Review Schedule Consequences
End of year one (A) Recommend for one more year
(internal) (B) Notify will not be renewed
End of year two (A) Decision to make third year terminal
(internal and external) (B) Recommend for three-year contract and promote to lecturer if relevant
End of year five (A) Appoint only 1 more year
(internal and external) (B) Appoint 3 more years and consider promotion to lecturer if relevant
End of year eight (A) Appoint only 1 more year
(internal and external) (B) Renew for 5 more years
(C) Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant
End of thirteenth and (A) Appoint only 1 more year
subsequent five-year (B) Renew for 5 more years
intervals (internal and external) (C) Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant
Full Professor
For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link, here.
procedures
In the fall the departmental chair is provided with the service record of each tenured associate professor in the department. Those who have completed five years or more of service beyond the award of tenure will be identified as potential candidates for review for promotion to full professor. While it is assumed that at least five years will be required to demonstrate the levels of sustained performance expected for promotion, there may be instances of exceptional scholarly achievement or of an offer from another institution that justify review before five years have elapsed.
With the agreement of the faculty member, the department conducts a review according to its by-laws. The candidate will be asked to provide a current curriculum vitae and a statement describing research, teaching, and service activities, and special achievements since the award of tenure. Evidence of scholarship, teaching, and service accomplishments since the award of tenure should also be provided. Only those at the rank of tenured professor1 in the department are eligible to deliberate on the case.
If the case is deemed sufficiently persuasive, a vote on the promotion is taken and recorded in a letter of transmittal from the departmental chair to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The letter should summarize the departmental case for promotion and is accompanied by the candidate’s curriculum vitae, activities statement, and any reading committee report that may have been prepared.
The departmental recommendation and accompanying dossier are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Arts and Sciences. If the Committee deems the dossier incomplete, it will request additional information from the departmental chair. A recommendation on the case is made by the Committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. If the recommendation is negative, the Committee will provide the Executive Vice President with guidance to be communicated to the candidate through the departmental chair.
The recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee is advisory to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, the Executive Vice President makes a decision and notifies the departmental chair (In some instances, the Executive Vice President may solicit external opinions on the case, but will not do so as a matter of general practice). The departmental chair then informs the candidate of the outcome. In cases where the decision is positive, the departmental chair and the Office of the Executive Vice President work together to prepare the recommendation for promotion for submission to the Provost and the Board of Trustees.
If a review is conducted and promotion is not granted, the candidate should be informed of the basis for the declination and be provided guidance on areas for attention. A subsequent review would not be expected before at least two years from the prior review and until the basis for the declination no longer exists.
typical schedule
March 1 Departmental recommendation and materials are forwarded to the Executive Vice President
April 15 Promotion and Tenure Committees recommendations are forwarded to the Executive Vice President
May 1 Executive Vice President informs the department of the decision
June Promotion is considered at Board of Trustees meeting
July 1 Successful promotion takes effect.