UCLA Policies

A tenured faculty member’s teaching shall be deemed incompetent if it meets either of the following standards:

(a) Intellectual Content

The intellectual content of the faculty member’s teaching as judged from such sources as evaluations by current and former students, colleagues’ assessments, and teaching portfolios, is so far below the professional standards of university-level instruction in the discipline that it is a disservice to students to permit the faculty member to continue to teach; or

(b) Pedagogical Skills

The pedagogical skills of the faculty member, judged from sources such as evaluations by current and former students, assessments by faculty colleagues, and teaching portfolios, are so far below the professional standards of university-level instruction that it is a disservice to students to permit the faculty member to continue to teach.

In evaluating teaching, reviewers shall use APM - 210-1-d(1) as a guide.

Appointment and Promotion: APM - 210: Review and Appraisal Committees

Policy: http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-210.pdf

Criteria for Appointment, Promotion, and Appraisal

The criteria set forth below are intended to serve as guides for minimum standards in judging the candidate, not to set boundaries to exclude other elements of performance that may be considered.
(1) Teaching - Clearly demonstrated evidence of high quality in teaching is an essential criterion for appointment, advancement, or promotion. Under no circumstances will a tenure commitment be made unless there is clear documentation of ability and diligence in the teaching role. In judging the effectiveness of a candidate’s teaching, the committee should consider such points as the following: the candidate’s command of the subject; continuous growth in the subject field; ability to organize material and to present it with force and logic; capacity to awaken in students an awareness of the relationship of the subject to other fields of knowledge; fostering of student independence and capability to reason; spirit and enthusiasm which vitalize the candidate’s learning and teaching; ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students, to encourage high standards, and to stimulate advanced students to creative work; personal attributes as they affect teaching and students; extent and skill of the candidate’s participation in the general guidance, mentoring, and advising of students; effectiveness in creating an academic environment that is open and encouraging to all students, including development of particularly effective strategies for the educational advancement of students in various underrepresented groups. The committee should pay due attention to the variety of demands placed on instructors by the types of teaching called for in various disciplines and at various levels, and should judge the total performance of the candidate with proper reference to assigned teaching responsibilities. The committee should clearly indicate the sources of evidence on which its appraisal of teaching competence has been based. In those exceptional cases when no such evidence is available, the candidate’s potentialities as a teacher may be indicated in closely analogous activities. In preparing its recommendation, the review committee should keep in mind that a redacted copy of its report may be an important means of informing the candidate of the evaluation of the candidate’s teaching and of the basis for that evaluation.

It is the responsibility of the department chair to submit meaningful statements, accompanied by evidence, of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness at lower-division, upper-division, and graduate levels of instruction. More than one kind of evidence shall accompany each review file. Among significant types of evidence of teaching effectiveness are the following: (a) opinions of other faculty members knowledgeable in the candidate’s field, particularly if based on class visitations, on attendance at public lectures or lectures before professional societies given by the candidate, or on the performance of students in courses taught by the candidate that are prerequisite to those of the informant; (b) opinions of students; (c) opinions of graduates who have achieved notable professional success since leaving the University; (d) number and caliber of students guided in research by the candidate and of those attracted to the campus by the candidate’s repute as a teacher; and (e) development of new and effective techniques of instruction, including techniques that meet the needs of students from groups that are underrepresented in the field of instruction.

All cases for advancement and promotion normally will include:

(a) evaluations and comments solicited from students for most, if not all, courses taught since the candidate’s last review; (b) a quarter-by-quarter or semester-by-semester enumeration of the number and types of courses and tutorials taught since the candidate’s last review; (c) their level; (d) their enrollments; (e) the percentage of students represented by student course evaluations for each course; (f) brief explanations for abnormal course loads; (g) identification of any new courses taught or of old courses when there was substantial reorganization of approach or content; (h) notice of any awards or formal mentions for distinguished teaching; (i) when the faculty member under review wishes, a self- evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching; and (j) evaluation by other faculty members of teaching effectiveness. When any of the information specified in this paragraph is not provided, the department chair will include an explanation for that omission in the candidate’s dossier. If such information is not included with the letter of recommendation and its absence is not adequately accounted for, it is the review committee chair’s responsibility to request it through the Chancellor.

Non-Senate academic appointees are expected to maintain a standard of academic responsibility that requires service consistent with the objectives of the University. Non-Senate faculty appointees are also subject to the standards set forth in the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM - 015).