First Major Reappointment for a Teaching Assistant Professor
Required materials, who prepares each one, and the fall deadlines. Department of Biological Sciences, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh.
Who this is for, and the short version
This guide is for a Teaching Assistant Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences, appointment stream, on a two-year probationary first contract, approaching the first thorough reappointment review. Under the CBA, that review now falls in the fall at the start of the second year, though the handbook still describes it as the year-3 review.
The deadline that drives everything: your own materials go to your OneDrive folder, and your peer-letter writers email their letters to the Academic Operations Manager (AOM), by September 15. The package then goes to the Dean by October 15.
You prepare your own teaching documents and CV, three or more peer letters come from other faculty, and the Chair supplies the administrative pieces and the cover letter. Each of those is detailed below, including two requirements the handbook’s checklist does not surface clearly.
The timeline that governs
The department handbook was written before the CBA, so where its schedule conflicts with current guidance from the Chair’s office, current guidance wins.
The handbook says materials are due November 15 and the package reaches the Dean between December and February. That timeline predates the CBA. The current fall schedule, below, moves the materials deadline up to September 15.
| Milestone | Deadline (fall cycle) | Who acts |
|---|---|---|
| Your materials uploaded to the OneDrive folder | September 15 | You |
| Peer letters emailed to the AOM | September 15 | Your letter writers |
| Advisory Committee meeting | Last week of September | Committee |
| Faculty meeting | First week of October | Voting faculty |
| Faculty vote on reappointment | By October 8 | Voting faculty |
| Package sent to the Dean’s office | By October 15 | Chair |
Because the process finishes in October, before any fall OMETs exist, the handbook’s provision about updating the OMET file in January does not apply here. The handbook calls the reviewing body the “steering committee” while the Chair’s office calls it the “Advisory Committee”; treat these as the same body unless the AOM says otherwise. You do not need to wait for a OneDrive invitation the way the handbook describes, because the Chair creates and shares the folder for you. Since the CBA rollout is recent, confirm these dates with the AOM each cycle rather than assuming they are frozen.
Where and how to submit
The Chair creates and shares a personal OneDrive folder for each candidate, named in the pattern “Lastname, Firstname Chair Dropoff.” Access is set to you and the AOM, with the Chair able to add and edit files; no one else can see it. Files you upload stay there so you can confirm what went in, and nothing gets deleted. Upload your own documents to that folder as PDFs.
Peer letters are the exception: to keep them confidential, your letter writers email them directly to the AOM rather than uploading them. You can ask the AOM at any point which letters have arrived, and the handbook points to a Google Sheet that tracks letter submissions.
Every file must be a PDF, both so the package prints and collates cleanly and so formatting displays correctly. Filenames matter more than you might expect, because several reappointments are processed at once and the office relies on exact, consistent naming. The filename for each item appears with the item below and in the checklist at the end.
What you prepare
For OMETs, syllabi, and course materials, the handbook asks for the most recent iteration of each different course number, not every section and not every repeat of a course you taught more than once. Keep the courses in the same order across those three PDFs so the committee can read them side by side.
By September 15 you will have completed both terms of your first year, each with OMETs, and just begun the fall term of your second year, which has syllabi but no OMETs yet. That is why the fall-of-year-two syllabi are included while its OMETs are not.
CV
Filename per the handbook table: Lastname_CV_YYYY.MM.DD.pdf.
The CV must be current, including courses and activities for the fall term now beginning. Beyond the usual contents, the handbook requires a per-year list of teaching assignments with course names and numbers, any co-instructors, and course enrollments for at least the last three years. Build that teaching table into the CV itself; it is separate from the enrollment sheet the Chair pulls from a data request.
OMET Summaries, the redacted file
Filename: Lastname_OMETSummary.pdf.
This is the first of the two commonly missed items, and you owe it in addition to the full OMET file. The handbook requires every teaching faculty member, at every renewal, to submit a redacted OMET document for the formal package sent to the Dean. Build it from the same evaluations as the full file, but for each course keep only the first two pages of content (not counting the cover page) plus the last page, with the student comments removed. The Dean’s office does not need the comments, so this stripped-down version is what travels in the official package.
Full OMET Evaluations
Filename: Lastname_FullOMETs.pdf.
Assemble one PDF with the most recent complete OMET, comments included, for each different course you have taught since your appointment. This full version is the one the reviewing committee reads. For a candidate at the start of year two, that means your first-year fall and spring courses.
Teaching statement
Filename: Lastname_TeachingStatement.pdf
The handbook’s dossier checklist does not list a teaching statement at all, because the handbook was never updated after the CBA, yet the current DSAS plan requires one for your category.
The statement is sometimes described loosely as “a narrative for your materials,” but the DSAS plan requires it to include a response to peer and student feedback. In practice, summarize the recurring themes from your OMETs and peer letters, then describe the specific changes you made and what resulted. DSAS Appendix A lists what a statement can contain (teaching philosophy, evidence-based approaches, efforts to improve teaching and their results, evidence of student learning, professional development in pedagogy, and translation of your research into teaching) and shows what a feedback response looks like.
Course syllabi
Filename: Lastname_Syllabi.pdf.
One PDF with a syllabus from the most recent iteration of each different course you have taught, including the courses you are teaching in the fall term now beginning. Those syllabi exist even though their OMETs do not.
Course materials
Filename: Lastname_CourseMaterials.pdf.
Course materials is a short, curated set of teaching artifacts submitted as its own PDF. It is not the teaching portfolio described below; it is one ingredient a portfolio would bundle, submitted here on its own. The aim is a small, selective set that illustrates your teaching, not a full record of any course, and both the handbook and current guidance warn that voluminous materials work against you. The two sources differ on what to include.
The handbook’s default is a sample exam from the most recent iteration of each different course, or a small sample of other materials where an exam is not the right fit. Current guidance follows the DSAS approach in Appendix A, which asks instead for a few targeted artifacts that your teaching statement points to directly. Appendix A’s list of qualifying materials includes quizzes, sample exams, activities, worksheets, assignments, lecture materials, and lesson plans, along with anything else that documents teaching effectiveness; it also lists syllabi, but in this process syllabi are submitted as their own file (see above), so they do not need to be repeated here.
A concrete sense of the right scale: two slides showing an evidence-based technique, one active-learning exercise that reinforces the concept, and a single exam question written at a higher level of Bloom’s taxonomy, rather than a full lecture slide deck. The approach that satisfies both sources is to choose a small number of short artifacts and make sure every one of them is something your teaching statement refers to by name.
The one point the sources genuinely disagree on is coverage. The handbook wants each distinct course represented by at least one artifact, while current guidance says “one or more of your courses,” which allows a few strong examples overall.
Teaching portfolio, optional but recommended
Filename: Lastname_Portfolio.pdf.
This one is not in the handbook table, as with the teaching statement. The DSAS plan recommends a teaching portfolio for reappointment but does not require it, and it notes that a recommendation can strengthen a file. The portfolio is less a new pile of work than a way of binding material you already have into a single argument about your teaching. Where the course materials, the teaching statement, and the response to feedback are each submitted as separate items in this process, the portfolio gathers them into one document, with the teaching statement as the argument and everything else as its supporting evidence. Appendix A lists the typical components, and you are already producing most of them.
Table of contents. A brief front section, ideally one to two pages, with annotations that describe what the portfolio contains. The annotations should say which part of the teaching statement each item is there to illustrate.
Teaching statement. A narrative of your teaching that can reference your CV, your evaluations, and your teaching materials. Appendix A suggests it may draw on some of the following, though rarely all: a teaching philosophy; evidence-based approaches to teaching; efforts to improve your teaching and the results; evidence of student learning, such as quoted student comments or concept-inventory data; professional development in pedagogy; the translation of research or scholarship into your teaching; and any out-of-classroom teaching or student mentoring.
Teaching materials. A selection chosen to support the statement rather than to be exhaustive. Appendix A’s examples are syllabi from roughly the last three years, using only the most recent where a course was taught more than once, together with quizzes, sample exams, activities, worksheets, assignments, lecture materials, or lesson plans, plus anything else that documents teaching effectiveness.
Response to student and peer evaluations. A short reflection that need not rebut every comment. Appendix A suggests responding to recurring comments or to comments you agree with, summarizing the major themes that emerge, pointing to evidence that your teaching goals succeeded, and naming the specific changes you made and their results.
Because your required items already include a teaching statement with the feedback response built in, plus curated course materials, assembling the portfolio mostly means combining those, drawing your syllabi in as evidence, and adding the annotated table of contents on top. If you have the time, that is a modest investment for a document that can strengthen the file; if not, the required items above stand on their own.
Peer letters: written by others, driven by you
You do not write these, and the referees send them to the AOM directly, but you recruit the writers and get the observations scheduled, so the requirements are yours to manage. Both the handbook and the DSAS plan add conditions that go past “three letters, different courses, different people.”
Number. At least three letters for a Teaching Assistant Professor, per the handbook. This is stricter than the DSAS minimum of two, so three is the binding target.
Seniority. The handbook says to solicit from senior faculty and names the eligible ranks: Teaching Associate Professor, Teaching Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor. Aim for all three writers at one of those ranks; treat a majority as the floor and all-senior as the safe reading.
Both streams. The handbook wants letters from both the tenure stream and the appointment stream, so do not let all three come from one stream. The senior ranks span both: Teaching Associate Professor and Teaching Professor on the appointment side, Associate Professor and Professor on the tenure side. One writer from each side plus a third from either satisfies both conditions at once.
What each letter must contain. DSAS requires every letter to include both a classroom observation and a review of your course materials. The handbook reinforces this, asking that evaluations rest on more than a classroom visit and address course materials, teaching philosophy, teaching innovations, course design and objectives, and methods of student assessment.
Fact-based claims. The handbook is explicit that letters must justify their claims with concrete, observable evidence rather than bare praise. Its own example contrasts a bare “great in the classroom” with a version that names what the instructor does: checks understanding, answers questions clearly, and mixes lecture with discussion.
Salutation. Address the letters to “To whom it may concern,” not “Dear Chair.” The DSAS sample letter opens with “Dear CHAIR,” but the handbook overrides that, because the letters serve the Chair, the advisory committee, and the voting faculty at once.
Recency. Letters should come from within the last three terms, and recent letters that fold in perspectives from earlier evaluations are especially useful. They may come from faculty who have recently left the department, and they need not come from within Biological Sciences.
What cannot count. A Center for Teaching and Learning formative observation cannot serve as a peer letter; per CTL policy, those reports are developmental only and may not be used as evaluations in a review file.
Delivery. If a letter is handed to you directly, collate it into Lastname_Reviews.pdf and upload that; otherwise writers email letters straight to the AOM, which is the cleaner path.
Both your materials and your peer letters are due September 15, and the fall term only begins in late August. A letter based on a fall-of-year-two observation, which the DSAS default assumes, would need the observation and the written letter done in the term’s first two or three weeks. Realistically the three letters draw on first-year observations, which fall inside the “last three terms” window and satisfy the count. Schedule any observations you still need immediately, and confirm with the Chair that first-year letters are acceptable given the compressed timeline.
What others prepare
The Chair prepares the items you never touch, and none are distributed to faculty: the employee record form, the annual evaluation letters for your contract period, and the cover letter to the Dean. The course enrollment sheet also comes from the Chair or a data request. The steering or advisory committee writes its own report, which the Chair uses to draft the cover letter and which is not shared with you or the Dean. Filenames for the Chair’s items are in the checklist below.
Master checklist
Items you upload to the OneDrive folder yourself, by September 15:
| # | Item | Filename | Required? | Key requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Current CV with date | Lastname_CV_YYYY.MM.DD.pdf |
Yes | Per-year teaching table with course numbers, co-instructors, enrollments |
| 2 | OMET Summaries (redacted) | Lastname_OMETSummary.pdf |
Yes | First two content pages plus last page per course, comments removed |
| 3 | Full OMET Evaluations | Lastname_FullOMETs.pdf |
Yes | Most recent full OMET per distinct course, comments included |
| 4 | Teaching statement | Lastname_TeachingStatement.pdf |
Yes | Must respond to peer and student feedback |
| 5 | Course syllabi | Lastname_Syllabi.pdf |
Yes | Most recent per distinct course, include the new fall term |
| 6 | Course materials | Lastname_CourseMaterials.pdf |
Yes | Brief; sample assessment per course (confirm) |
| 7 | Teaching portfolio | Lastname_Portfolio.pdf |
Optional | Recommended by DSAS |
Written by others, emailed to the AOM by September 15:
| # | Item | Filename | Who | Key requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Peer letters (3+) | Lastname_Reviews.pdf if you collate |
Senior faculty you recruit | Both streams; each with observation and materials review; “To whom it may concern” |
Prepared by the Chair or committee, not your responsibility:
| # | Item | Filename | Who |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Employee record form | Lastname_Record.pdf |
Chair |
| 10 | Annual evaluation letters | Lastname_Evaluation.pdf |
Chair |
| 11 | Cover letter to the Dean | Lastname_Cover.pdf |
Chair |
| 12 | Course enrollment sheet | data request | Chair / data |
| 13 | Steering / advisory committee report | not distributed | Committee |
Sources and precedence
Three documents govern the file, and knowing which wins where prevents most confusion. Current guidance from the Chair’s office is the latest word on timeline, filenames, and submission mechanics, and it controls where it conflicts with the handbook. The DSAS Teaching Assessment Plan is the CBA-era authority on the substance of teaching evaluation, including the required teaching statement and the content expected of the statement and the letters, and it supplies the sample rubrics and letter templates in its appendices. The department Faculty Handbook remains the source for filenames, the redacted OMET rule, the peer-letter seniority and stream requirements, and the dossier structure, but its pre-CBA timeline is superseded.
A faculty offer letter also points to the Provost’s university-level handbook as a condition of appointment, which sits above all of this, but the three documents above are what you work from in practice. When genuine ambiguity remains, the AOM is the right person to ask, since she assembles the package and holds the confidential letters.
The department treats this thorough review as a once-per-contract requirement, so the work you put in now, especially the teaching statement and the curated course materials, becomes the foundation for your year-6 promotion file.
Appendices
Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences (DSAS) Teaching Assessment Plan
This document was last updated and approved by the DSAS Council on December 3, 2025.
DSAS is committed to highly effective teaching. Teaching evaluation is a central pillar of effective teaching because it serves both the summative purpose of verifying that teachers are effective as well as the formative purpose of helping teachers improve. In keeping with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)’s new requirements on teaching assessment (Article 23.1.a), DSAS here provides a framework by which teaching at the school will be assessed. We see this as an opportunity to consider our teaching evaluation philosophy, needs, practices, and supports more broadly, with the goals of: (1) making both teaching and teaching evaluation in DSAS more effective, (2) fostering a culture in which instructors feel comfortable pursuing pedagogical innovations without fear that any setbacks will threaten their chances of promotion, and (3) broadening and deepening the evidence regarding each instructor’s teaching, to provide a holistic perspective and make any single piece of evidence less important.
Effective teaching provides all students strong opportunities to acquire important content, skills, and attitudes that will support them in future education (e.g., next courses, next degrees), careers, and life. Effective teaching creates a climate in which all students learn and are engaged; it uses high-quality teaching practices; and it is continually improving, based on reflection, evidence, and feedback. Assessment of teaching involves evaluating teaching goals, learning outcomes, teaching practices, student engagement, classroom climate, inclusiveness, and use of reflection and feedback to improve teaching.
DSAS recognizes that departments and programs foster and hone cultures of teaching excellence within a particular discipline. At the same time, cross-unit collaboration enriches teaching. Teaching takes many forms in DSAS, including lecture courses of over 400 students, seminars of under 20 students, graduate seminars, laboratories, on-line classes, art studios, music rehearsals, theatre classes in design and performance, etc. Classes can be basic or advanced, for majors or non-majors, required or optional; some occur at unpopular times or in ill-suited classrooms; some have never been taught before, whereas others have been taught for decades. Some instructors have complete control over their curricula; others have very little. It is therefore critical that evaluation be flexible and take the full context into account to be fair. To this end, this plan is designed to present a framework of general guidelines that units can adapt to suit their individual needs.
Note that when materials are described as “recommended” in the current document, these are suggestions for clearest possible documentation of excellence in teaching and may in some cases strengthen a promotion case. “Recommendations” exceed requirements, which are the threshold that candidates must meet in each relevant section.
Teaching Evaluation Processes and Products
Multiple kinds of evidence can support teaching evaluation. DSAS places particular emphasis on peer evaluations (including class observations), but teaching materials (e.g., syllabi and methods of student assessment), student surveys, and statements of teaching philosophy/portfolios are also carefully considered. Observations can benefit everyone; observers benefit from being exposed to alternative ways of teaching and instructors benefit from feedback. For this reason, faculty are expected both to be observed and to observe others. (Part-time instructors are not required to write peer letters unless as part of a service role they hold.) DSAS’s goal is that the exchange of ideas and problem solving that happens during interactions around observations will create a strong community dedicated to mutual support and effective teaching.
Multiple kinds of products can be generated from a teaching evaluation. DSAS encourages the use of formative products like discussions, informal write-ups, self-assessments, and checklists because they drive pedagogical development. But DSAS prioritizes summative peer letters in this plan because they are required for major faculty review processes like first renewal, tenure, and promotion (see “Documents Required for Faculty Processes” for how many letters are required when). It is important to be aware that evaluators often bring bias to the process of teaching evaluation in the form of preconceived notions, e.g., about what good teachers look like and what good teaching looks like. Bias is a well-known issue in student evaluations, but it can happen in any kind of evaluation. To minimize bias, evaluators should strive to understand as much of the context as possible and focus on directly observable evidence. In addition, the collection of evaluations from a wide variety of sources reduces the power of any single evaluation.
Observations and Peer Letters
Best practices for peer teaching observations and assessments
Class visits often form the core of a peer teaching evaluation, but visits are not always possible (e.g., in asynchronous on-line courses) or adequate (e.g., in some flipped classes). For classes with on-line components, observers can use the course management system (e.g., Canvas) to assess the quality and organization of course materials, the timeliness and depth of feedback to student assignments and assessments, as well as the degree of instructor presence and engagement with students via discussion board activities, group work support, reminders and announcements, Q&A sessions, virtual office hours, and direct outreach via email.
All observations should take into account the local context of an instructor’s course design, objectives, assignments, and assessments, as well as broader context regarding what might be out of the instructor’s control. Before a class visit, observers should request a syllabus, the day’s reading (or assignment), and any other relevant course materials, and they should ask about the instructional context. During any observation, it is good practice to use a rubric to guide attention (see the materials in the appendix for examples, including one specifically designed for online teaching). After every observation, the observer and instructor should have a discussion. Discussions can be powerful mechanisms for sharing and generating ideas and often result in pedagogical improvement for both the instructor and the observer. They also give the instructor the opportunity to rebut aspects of the review or to provide critical context the observer missed. And an instructor’s reaction to feedback can be a key piece of a teaching evaluation, in that it can show depth of thought about pedagogy and enthusiasm for continued learning.
When observing and assessing an instructor of a co-taught course, it is especially important to consider the co-teaching context and what is in versus out of that instructor’s control. Because co-teaching delivery and interactions might be more likely to vary across classes, evaluators should consider observing the class dynamic more than once. Co-teaching can be a catalyst for pedagogical development and co-instructors can have unusual insight into each other’s teaching. This can make it useful for them to write letters for each other. But it is still best practice to have an external observation as well.
Best practices for peer letters
DSAS encourages periodic letters generated by a diverse set of evaluators. Evaluators need not be from the instructor’s home unit. Because peer teaching letters are required as early as the first semester for some positions and periodically from then on, unit heads and faculty should discuss how best to procure letters early in a faculty member’s appointment. In some units, teaching evaluation is organized centrally, while in others, faculty are responsible for soliciting visits and letters. Units may wish to consider a “buddy system” in which two faculty pair up and discuss their teaching and observe one or more sessions of each other’s classes during an academic year; at the end of the year, each one can write a peer letter for the other that documents substantial interaction over time. Peer letters can be from faculty of any rank; letters for a tenure file, for instance, do not all have to be from tenured evaluators. However, in all streams, a majority of the required letters should normally be from faculty who are at associate or higher rank. Likewise, letters may come from any stream: teaching professors’ pedagogical expertise can make them highly valuable evaluators.
Most letters in a review or promotion file should include insights from a class observation. Strong peer letters will go beyond commentary on single class visits, e.g., by assessing course design and teaching materials, by including material from post-observation discussions, or even by incorporating multiple observations over time or across classes. Letters should help readers connect specific observations to larger pedagogical principles, such as the use of evidence-based techniques, modeling of problem-solving strategies, steering of discussions, and establishing norms of respect and engagement. Evaluators can include a completed rubric with a narrative cover letter if desired. Letters should not exhaustively recount all details of a class, nor should they make assertions without providing supporting evidence.
Note that the Center for Teaching and Learning offers formative observations, but per its policy the reports generated from these observations cannot be included as evaluations in promotion files. The Center also offers those conducting peer evaluations training on peer review, mitigating bias, and providing constructive feedback.
If a faculty member has significant responsibilities that replace teaching (e.g., advising), evaluation letters may also address those duties.
OMET Student Surveys
Student surveys administered by the Office of Measurement and Evaluation of Teaching (“OMETs”) are a useful tool for gathering anonymous feedback from students and therefore instructors must have every course they teach surveyed through the OMET system at the end of term. However, in no case should OMETs be the sole or primary mode of teaching evaluation (see CBA 23.1.f). The Center for Teaching and Learning provides resources supporting the design, administration, reading and interpretation of OMETs: https://teaching.pitt.edu/omet/
Best practices for using OMETs
It is good practice to customize OMETs by adding items specific to an instructor’s teaching. Carefully choosing questions that target observable aspects of instruction can reduce bias and maximize utility. The OMET system offers a comprehensive question bank; if instructors choose to provide their own questions, they should seek to minimize feedback bias by designing specific, narrowly targeted prompts that students are qualified to answer.
Beyond required end-of-term surveys, OMET pre- and mid-semester surveys allow instructors to identify and fix issues early, lead to higher participation and more meaningful feedback in end-of-term surveys, and are especially helpful in the online classroom, where instructors cannot see the students’ reactions in real time.
Instructors should aim to achieve response rates over 50% in all courses. Effective ways to increase response rates include dedicating in-class time for OMET completion, explaining that OMET surveys are important and how they are used, and offering a small bonus to the entire class if the response rate reaches a given threshold. Nevertheless, students may decide to opt out of participating, in spite of faculty member efforts, so no specific response rate is required.
Best practices for evaluating OMETs
The most useful data from OMETs are areas of consensus among students that form patterns and trends both within and across semesters. It can be worthwhile to track outliers across different classes and multiple semesters to determine whether a certain feedback point represents an emerging trend or an isolated instance. But note that bias is a well-documented problem in student evaluations and can be present in both open-ended and numerical responses.
Self-assessment / Responding to feedback from peers and students
Self-assessment and reflection are essential to pedagogical development and thus teaching evaluation. Peer and student feedback can provide guidance regarding a particular day or semester’s execution of teaching practice, but most instructors feel most strongly driven by internally generated long-term goals. It is critical to encourage instructors to reflect on the match between their goals and their practice; this can be done through self-assessments and/or through responses to peer evaluations and OMETs. Annual reports are an excellent opportunity for this reflection. Each academic year, instructors should engage in some form of self-assessment informed by external evaluation data that they have (peer evaluation discussions, OMETs, assessments of student learning, etc.) and comment on their teaching successes, matches and mismatches between their goals and practice, and specific plans for improvement. Self-assessment tools and checklists with specific prompts and clear criteria can help focus instructors’ attention, reduce reticence, and encourage balanced reflection on both strengths and areas needing improvement (see Materials appendix for examples). These annual products can become the foundation of future statements of teaching philosophy.
Other Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness / Investment
Instructors are encouraged to continuously document their investment and success in teaching over the course of their careers. Here are a few possible sources of such evidence: professional development related to teaching (e.g., workshops, classes, working groups, conferences); engaging in education materials development and/or research (e.g., via Innovation in Education Awards, Open Educational Resource Grants, or dB-SERC Course Transformation Awards); publishing educational work; demonstrating student learning via validated tools like concept inventories or even informal end-of-semester surveys asking about the most important and/or useful things learned in the course; and documenting the use of evidence-based practices. This material is often spread across CVs, teaching statements, and annual reviews; it should be consolidated into a teaching portfolio for promotion.
Teaching Portfolios
Faculty who will be up for non-presumptive renewal, tenure, or promotion should assemble a teaching portfolio that consolidates evidence across time and contexts. Teaching portfolios are an opportunity for an instructor to distill an argument/narrative about their teaching journey (e.g., What are their goals? How have they used feedback, reflection, and professional development over time to drive improvement towards attaining those goals?) and support it with evidence. The teaching statement expresses the argument/narrative, and the rest of the portfolio serves as evidence. Portfolios should focus on the period under review: e.g., the portfolio of someone going up for promotion to professor should not include material from the candidate’s time as an assistant professor. A guide to the typical components of a teaching portfolio is available in the Materials appendix.
The evaluator should consider: (1) how the goals in a candidate’s teaching statement align with the goals of effective teaching, (2) how the evidence from the portfolio supports the claims in the teaching statement, and (3) how evidence from the portfolio relates to larger pedagogical principles of effective teaching. A sample rubric for evaluating teaching portfolios is available in the Materials appendix.
Documents Required for Faculty Processes—Grouped by Evaluation Product
The teaching evaluation documentation required differs for faculty according to rank, process, and time since hire. This section is organized by evaluation product to make it easier to identify, e.g., everyone who would need a peer letter. The next section includes a subset of this same information organized by faculty process to make it easier to see what is needed for a specific review/renewal/promotion. Anticipated deviations from these guidelines should be discussed with the Dean’s Office.
Peer Letters
Both minimum and suggested numbers of letters are provided in the following sections. The assumption is that additional letters beyond the minimum will strengthen the file by adding to the documentation of breadth, growth, or innovation, or by providing a substantially different viewpoint. If additional letters will not do this, or the file is already exceptionally strong in these areas, the minimum will be adequate.
For annual review: One peer letter per academic year can enhance an annual review and is therefore suggested for all instructors periodically. Specific suggestions about timing are noted below.
For part-time instructors in their first two semesters of teaching at the University of Pittsburgh: At least one letter should be generated by the end of the second semester of teaching.
For renewal of visiting faculty: Visiting faculty in their first year of an appointment should have at least one letter generated.
For consideration for reappointment (appointment stream faculty with a two-year, probationary first contract): A minimum of one letter per academic year is required for a reappointment file, one letter from the first year and one letter from the fall semester of the second year. Letters must be from two different courses (if possible), from two different people, and should each include an observation as well as materials review. A total of three peer letters is strongly recommended by the time of review.
For contract renewal for faculty covered by presumptive renewal: No peer letter is required.
For third-year reviews (assistant professors in the tenure stream): A minimum of two peer letters is required, but three is strongly suggested. Letters must be from at least two different people, and (if possible) at least two different courses and written in different academic years. At least one of the two required letters must include an observation.
For promotion cases for all ranks (including endowed chairs and professorships): For all promotions, letters should be generated during the period under review and within the past six years, with at least one letter generated within 18 months of dossier submission.
If the candidate was hired from an external institution, letters from the previous institution may be included, but at least one letter must be from a University of Pittsburgh evaluator assessing a course taught at the University of Pittsburgh.
For promotion cases in the instructor ranks, a minimum of two letters is required. Both letters must include an observation. Letters must be from at least two different courses (if possible) and should be written in different academic years.
For all other promotion and tenure cases, a minimum of three peer letters is required. However, four to five letters are suggested. Letters must be from at least two different courses (if possible) and should be written in different academic years and by at least two different people. Optimally, teaching should be evaluated across a variety of types of courses (as applicable: low-level courses, mid-level courses, advanced courses for majors, graduate courses, on-line courses). At least two of the three required letters must include an observation.
After final promotion; It is recommended that faculty at the rank of Professor, Teaching Professor, and Senior Instructor have a peer letter generated at least every five years.
OMET End-of-Term Student Evaluations
For annual reviews, non-presumptive contract renewals, third-year reviews (assistant professors in the tenure stream), and considerations of tenure and promotion at all ranks (including distinguished professorships and endowed chairs), all OMETs must be submitted for all courses in the period under review. In the case of a faculty member being considered for promotion who has been in rank more than ten years, OMETs can be limited to the most recent ten years in rank. If the candidate was hired from an external institution, student evaluations of teaching from the previous institution may be included.
Teaching Statements, Course Materials, and Portfolios
For annual review: At a minimum, a reflection on teaching is required. Such reflections should be much more concise than teaching statements used for tenure and promotion files. They may include a review of teaching accomplishments for the year; goals for the following year, such as new courses; a response to peer and student feedback and evidence of student learning; and/or planned revisions to course materials. Instructors may use these reflections to assess innovations in their pedagogy, whether or not they went as planned, and how to develop in response. Units may use targeted questions to solicit this information (see example in the Materials appendix). It is important to remember that OMETs cannot be the sole or primary mode of evaluation of teaching for an annual letter.
For considerations for reappointment (appointment stream faculty in their initial, probationary appointment), third-year review (assistant professors in the tenure stream), appointment stream promotion in the teaching track, and promotion in the tenure stream (including endowed chairs and professorships): Course materials and a teaching statement (including a response to peer and student feedback) are minimally required, but a teaching portfolio is recommended. For faculty in the instructor track, these documents may be submitted but are not required.
Documents Required for Faculty Processes—Grouped by Faculty Process
For consideration for reappointment (appointment stream faculty with a two-year, probationary first contract)
A minimum of one letter per academic year is required for a reappointment file. This normally means one letter from the first year and one letter from the fall semester of the second year. Letters must be from two different courses (if possible), from two different people, and should each include an observation as well as materials review. A total of three peer letters is strongly recommended by the time of review. All OMETs must be submitted for all courses in the period under review. Course materials and a teaching statement (including a response to peer and student feedback) are minimally required, but a teaching portfolio is recommended.
For contract renewal for faculty covered by presumptive renewal
No peer letters, OMETs, or teaching statements are required.
For third-year reviews (assistant professors in the tenure stream)
A minimum of two peer letters is required, but three is strongly suggested. Letters must be from at least two different people, and, if possible, at least two different courses and written in different academic years. At least one of the two required letters must include an observation. All OMETs must be submitted for all courses in the period under review. Course materials and a teaching statement (including a response to peer and student feedback) are minimally required, but a teaching portfolio is recommended.
For promotion and tenure cases (including endowed chairs and professorships)
For all promotions, letters should be generated during the period under review and within the past six years, with at least one letter generated within 18 months of dossier submission.
If the candidate was hired from an external institution, letters from the previous institution may be included, but at least one letter must be from a University of Pittsburgh evaluator assessing a course taught at the University of Pittsburgh.
For promotion cases in the instructor ranks, a minimum of two letters is required. Both letters must include an observation. Letters must be from at least two different courses (if possible) and should be written in different academic years. All OMETs must be submitted for all courses in the period under review. Course materials and a teaching statement (including a response to peer and student feedback) are minimally required, but a teaching portfolio is recommended.
For all other promotion and tenure cases, a minimum of three peer letters is required. However, four to five letters are suggested. Letters must be from at least two different courses (if possible) and should be written in different academic years and by at least two different people. Optimally, teaching should be evaluated across a variety of types of classes (as applicable: low-level courses, mid-level courses, advanced courses for majors, graduate courses, on-line courses). At least two of the three required letters must include an observation. All OMETs must be submitted for all courses in the period under review. In the case of a faculty member being considered for promotion who has been in rank more than ten years, OMETs can be limited to the most recent ten years in rank. Course materials and a teaching statement (including a response to peer and student feedback) are minimally required, but a teaching portfolio is recommended.
Collective bargaining agreement
The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) from the Pitt Faculty Union details “Appointment, Promotion, and Renewal of Full-Time Appointment Stream Faculty” in Article 17.
17.1 Appointment of Full-Time Appointment Stream Faculty
- Appointments contingent on external funding will be for a period equivalent to the duration of the funding, and subject to termination based on lack of funding. Notice of such contingency will be provided in the Notice of Appointment.
- Length of Appointment
Full-time appointment stream faculty appointments shall normally be for a period of either:
- twelve (12) months;
- ten (10) months; or
- nine (9) months (August 15 — May 15).
Those full-time appointment stream faculty on eight (8) month appointments at the time of ratification of this Agreement shall be transitioned to nine (9) month appointments at the time their appointment term renews, as applicable, and subject to the terms of this Agreement. Bargaining unit faculty members may request to remain on eight (8) month appointments, subject to approval by their Dean or regional campus President, as applicable. For bargaining unit faculty hired on or after the ratification of this Agreement, appointments shall be only for a length of twelve (12) months, ten (10) month or nine (9) months, unless otherwise approved for a different appointment term by their Dean or regional campus President, as applicable.
The length of appointment of a bargaining unit faculty member encompasses the calendar period of the appointment plus whatever time may be necessary for preparation and grade reporting.
At the time of reappointment, bargaining unit faculty members may request to change between nine (9), ten (10), or twelve (12) month appointments. The Employer shall make a good faith effort to accommodate such requests, but shall not be required to grant the request.
All Appointments in this Section shall be subject to the funding contingencies in Section 17.1.1 of this Article.
- Appointment Term
- Initial appointments of bargaining unit faculty members to the rank of Assistant Professor — Appointment Stream, Associate Professor — Appointment Stream, Full Professor — Appointment Stream, or Librarian I-IV who have not previously held a full-time faculty appointment with the Employer, shall be for a two (2) year term, except for initial appointments in the University Library System (ULS) and Barco Law Library (BLL), which shall be for a three (3) year term. Any subsequent appointment by the Employer shall be presumptively renewable for the term period for their position as set forth in Sections 17.1.3(d), 17.1.3(e) and 17.1.3(f) of this Article.
- With regards to initial appointments for Health Sciences bargaining unit faculty under this Article, such initial appointments shall coincide with the fiscal year cycle, and may be as short as one (1) year and six (6) months or as long as two (2) years and six (6) months.
- Bargaining unit faculty librarians who have been previously appointed as expectation-stream faculty shall remain on their current appointments in the expectation stream, consistent with ULS and BLL guidelines for appointments for expectation stream faculty. The Employer has no obligation to appoint additional bargaining unit faculty to the expectation stream in the future.
- Bargaining unit faculty members appointed to the rank of Assistant Professor — Appointment Stream or Librarian I following a previous fulltime faculty appointment with the Employer shall be appointed on presumptively renewable two (2) year term appointments (or if a Librarian I in the ULS or BLL, a presumptively renewable three (3) year term appointment), subject to Section 17.1.4(c) of this Article.
- Bargaining unit faculty members achieving the rank of Associate Professor — Appointment Stream or Librarian II, either through a promotion or following a previous full-time faculty appointment with the Employer, shall be appointed on presumptively renewable three (3) year term appointments, subject to Section 17.1.4(c) of this Article.
- Bargaining unit faculty members achieving the rank of Full Professor — Appointment Stream or Librarian III or IV, either through a promotion or following a previous full-time faculty appointment with the Employer, shall be appointed to presumptively renewable five (5) year term appointments, subject to Section 17.1.4(c) of this Article.
- Bargaining unit faculty members of the rank Instructor shall be appointed to presumptively renewable one (1) year term appointments, subject to Section 17.1.4(c) of this Article. In schools or departments with guidelines that provide for longer terms of appointment, those guidelines would apply, subject to a maximum term of appointment of five (5) years.
- Effective upon ratification of this Agreement, the academic units and regional campuses shall convert Lecturer ranks to appointment stream faculty ranks of Assistant/Associate/Full Teaching Professor — Appointment Stream, as appropriate.
- Bargaining unit faculty members who have been appointed to a longer term period than provided for their position in this Article shall remain on such appointment through the completion of the appointment term. Any subsequent appointments shall presumptively renew for the term period for the bargaining unit faculty member’s position as set forth in Sections 17.1.3(d), 17.1.3(e), 17.1.3(f), and 17.1.3(g) of this Article.
- All Appointments in this Section shall be subject to the funding contingencies in Section 17.1.1 of this Article.
- Renewal
- Except as provided in this Agreement, appointments shall be made in accordance with the Bylaws of the University. Appointment terms for fulltime appointment stream bargaining unit faculty members shall presumptively renew for a period equal to the duration of the initial or current appointment term length (as applicable), unless they are appointed to a different rank or notice is provided by the Dean, Regional Campus President, Director of the ULS or BLL or Associate Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences Library System to such bargaining unit faculty that they shall not be reappointed, as set forth below: >
- Less than five (5) full years of continuous service: Three and one-half (3 1/2) months prior to end of appointment
- At least five (5) full years of continuous service: Five and one-half (5 1/2) months prior to end of appointment
- All renewals in this Section shall be subject to the funding contingencies in Section 17.1.1 of this Article.
- Bargaining unit faculty member appointments may not be renewed for the following reasons: insufficiency of enrollment, curriculum change, restructuring, reorganization or discontinuance of academic programs, lack of work, lack of funding for funding-contingent appointments, or misconduct involving theft (not of a de minimis nature), workplace violence, discrimination, harassment, or sexual misconduct in violation of University policy. The non-renewal of any bargaining unit faculty member for the reasons set forth herein shall not be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure. Within thirty (30) days of the notice of non-renewal, the Union may request information relied upon by the Employer in connection with the reason for non-renewal provided in the notice. The Union may only file a grievance on the basis that the reason provided was untrue. It cannot grieve whether the Employer’s reason was sufficient to support the non-renewal. For example, if the reason for non-renewal was insufficiency of enrollment and information provided by the Employer demonstrates that enrollment declined by 5%, the Union cannot grieve whether or not the decline in enrollment was sufficient to support the nonrenewal decision.
- Renewals are subject to satisfactory performance as set forth in Article 23. >
- Except as provided in this Agreement, appointments shall be made in accordance with the Bylaws of the University. Appointment terms for fulltime appointment stream bargaining unit faculty members shall presumptively renew for a period equal to the duration of the initial or current appointment term length (as applicable), unless they are appointed to a different rank or notice is provided by the Dean, Regional Campus President, Director of the ULS or BLL or Associate Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences Library System to such bargaining unit faculty that they shall not be reappointed, as set forth below: >
- Presumptive appointment renewals and minimum terms of appointments shall not apply to bargaining unit faculty who have been (1) subject to disciplinary action in excess of a written warning within the twelve months prior to their renewal date or discharged for just cause in accordance with Article 9 [Discipline and Discharge], (2) retired from the University, (3) subject to a performance improvement plan in accordance with Article 23 [Faculty Evaluations] and determined by the Employer to not be making significant progress towards achieving the performance goals set forth in the performance improvement plan, or (4) who are appointed as Visiting Faculty. Bargaining unit faculty members who are not eligible for presumptive appointment renewals and minimum term appointments may not be renewed or may have their appointment term renewed by the Employer, in its sole discretion.
- Bargaining unit faculty members who are under investigation for misconduct as set forth in 17.1.4(c) shall not be eligible for presumptive renewal during the pendency of such investigation. In cases where a bargaining unit faculty member’s term of appointment will expire while they are under such investigation, their term of appointment shall be extended until the investigation is complete. If the bargaining unit faculty member is renewed following the investigation, the term of the renewed appointment shall be deemed to start on the date it would have started had the prior appointment term not been extended.