Biology Guidelines

Current Guidelines (PDF)

View Previous Guidelines

A primary goal of the Biology Department is to promote outstanding teacher-scholars who are active members of the department and college community. To work toward this goal, we have established this set of guidelines that we consider an informative document for Biology faculty, the Committee on Appointments, the Dean of Faculty, and the President.

I. Evaluation Criteria for Tenurable Positions

A. Reappointment in Tenurable Positions

Candidates for reappointment prior to tenure should demonstrate clear evidence of progress toward the standards for tenure outlined in the next section, especially regarding teaching and scholarship. We also expect candidates for reappointment to meet the criteria for service described in the next section, but we do not require service on college-wide committees before reappointment.

B. Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

1. Evaluation of Teaching;

a. General teaching criteria

• Candidates should recognize the ideal of the liberal arts setting and strive to meet that ideal as outlined in the section on Teaching in the Faculty Handbook under Tenure criteria. In sum, the Department looks for effective communication, intellectual stimulation, and thoughtful evaluation of students in all teaching.
• We expect demonstrated success in teaching. Expertise and success in teaching should be developed and maintained during the pre-tenure years.
• All tenure-track faculty are expected to contribute across all curricular levels, with priority given to Biology Department courses.
• We require engagement of students in the research program of each tenure-track faculty member. This will occur primarily through the senior thesis, but may also occur through a variety of other avenues, such as summer and academic year internships, work study, and independent study opportunities.

For all faculty in the Biology Department, effective teaching includes the following, in no particular order:

• Communicating in a clear and organized fashion;
• Incorporating the current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice;
• Challenging students intellectually;
• Constructively interacting with students both in and outside of the classroom;
• Providing constructive and timely feedback on student work;
• Using appropriate and inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices;
• Encouraging a welcoming and inclusive environment
• Motivating students to think deeply about Biology; and
• Demonstrating empathy and enthusiasm in teaching (e.g., listening to students, being available, and interacting constructively).

b. Materials used for evaluation.

The Department will review multiple components of the file as evidence that candidates have met the criteria in section IB1a above.

• A personal statement in which the candidate reflects on their teaching methods and effectiveness, demonstrating continued growth in teaching, course modifications, and commitment to student learning;
• Course materials (e.g., exams, assignments, syllabi) that provide evidence of effective and inclusive pedagogical practices, and that show appropriate adjustments over time;
• Peer reviews based on formal classroom visits, course material review, and discussions of pedagogy (detailed in section IB1c below), and informal observations of activities such as engagement of students in a variety of learning experiences, including office hours, supervised research, and the Senior Project;
• Student teaching evaluations, both numerical and narrative (detailed in section IB1d below);
• Select and random student letters, solicited by the Dean of Faculty at the time of review.

We acknowledge and will take into consideration that many of these methods of evaluation are inherently biased. In particular, student evaluations have been shown to have a negative bias toward women and people of color.

Note: The Department looks for evidence of enthusiasm and empathy (e.g., listening to students, being available, and interacting constructively) in student letters and evaluations, in personal statements (including reflection/discussion of any changes made in response to peer or student feedback), and during peer observations (e.g., responsiveness and rapport with students in the classroom).

In addition to these ways of demonstrating a strong record of teaching, the Department expects faculty to be successful in teaching a range of courses across the Biology curriculum. Finally, when such opportunities arise, the development of courses new to the curriculum may also contribute to a strong record of teaching.

All types of evidence listed in section IB1b above will be used to evaluate the extent to which the faculty member exhibits the components of effective teaching defined above, with the following exceptions:

• We do not expect students to be able to assess whether a faculty member is incorporating the current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice.
• We do not expect that classroom observations or course materials can be used to assess faculty feedback on student work or faculty interactions with students outside of the classroom.
• We do not expect that course materials can be used to assess whether faculty demonstrate empathy and enthusiasm.
• In some cases, a file component might contain no evidence about a particular criterion of effective teaching; we will not interpret that absence as an indication that the faculty member does not meet that criterion.

c. Use of peer evaluations

The Department maintains a policy on departmental faculty visitations to the candidate's courses (Appendix 1). As stated in the policy, faculty visitations and evaluations are designed to be constructive and mentoring in nature. They are also used for evaluative purposes at the time of reappointment, tenure, and promotion. As with student evaluations, candidates should consider and respond (in practice, in annual reports, and in personal statements) to comments and advice in their faculty evaluations.

This response should be reflected subsequently in student and faculty teaching evaluations and possibly in development of course syllabi and development of new courses.

d. Use of student evaluations

The Department uses student evaluations of teaching (end-of-course evaluations and letters solicited by the Dean of Faculty at the time of review) to ascertain the success of the candidate in meeting the criteria listed above, and candidates should treat these assessments seriously as reflections on their classroom and laboratory performance.

The Department considers the trajectory of course evaluations over time to be a key indicator of a candidate’s attentiveness and responsiveness to student feedback (see details of student evaluations below). Candidates should consider and respond to patterns that emerge in end-of-course student evaluations. This consideration and response should, most importantly, be demonstrated in practice and reflected in subsequent student evaluations. Additionally, this consideration and response should be communicated to and discussed with department and college colleagues through the faculty visitation, annual review, and reappointment and tenure processes (see below and Appendix 1).

We will give greater weight to written comments than numerical summaries. We will not include references to criteria that either implicitly or explicitly compare the nature or quality of student feedback across faculty.

e. Student research

Engagement of students in the research program of all tenure-track faculty is required via the senior thesis. Although not required, student engagement may also include summer and academic-year internships, work study, and independent study opportunities. These opportunities are increasingly sought by our students. They are recognized by the Department as valuable experiences for our students and are encouraged.

The Department anticipates that a faculty member will supervise student research during the summer, however, only when the faculty member's personal research program is advanced by the student internships. We recognize that supervising student research outside of the senior thesis involves teaching above and beyond the normal institutional, contractual teaching load. Supervising summer student research is therefore not required. A willingness to participate in the summer program at least occasionally is, nonetheless, recognized as an important contribution to the mission of the Department and College, and we encourage our faculty to supervise summer student internships at least periodically, when appropriate.

2. Evaluation of Scholarship

a. General scholarship criteria

Publication of original research—incorporating the generation of new data or ideas—in peer-reviewed journals (online or print) is required in the record of scholarly productivity.

• It is anticipated that peer-reviewed journal articles will form the most significant component of the candidate’s record of scholarly productivity, but other types of communication of original research, such as in book chapters, books, or other media, are also acceptable, but will be weighed less heavily. These publications should reflect research originating at Hamilton and extend beyond dissertation and postdoctoral studies.
• Within this criterion, we recognize differences among journals in quality and scope; while no formal measures are calculated (e.g., impact factors), additional evaluative weight is given to papers published in prestigious journals and for which the candidate has intellectual leadership.
• No set number of papers need to be published, as the Department recognizes that different data collection methods affect time to publication. While quantity is not the primary criterion, candidates should develop a research plan that will produce multiple publications within the pre-tenure timeframe, as is appropriate for the subdiscipline in question.

Other types of publications contribute variously to the record of scholarly productivity but are not required.

• Peer-reviewed review papers and textbooks may be very significant scholarly contributions. We recognize that some scholarly products in book form or that may be characterized as “synthetic” may, in fact, represent original research as described above.
• Editorship of a scholarly journal, book series, or contributed volume has both scholarship and service components. These may be significant. The relative contribution of the resulting publications to the candidate's professional record must be considered and weighed carefully by both the candidate and Department.
• Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, abstracts, and other published contributions that receive minimal or no peer-review contribute to the record of scholarly activity but are considered lesser contributions than those above to the record of scholarly productivity.

Non-publication scholarship demonstrates activity but is not evidence of productivity.

• Poster and oral conference presentations and invited lectures are important indications of ongoing research, engagement with the scientific community, and future potential and engagement in the scholarly process. They do not in themselves constitute sufficient evidence of scholarly productivity.

b. Establishing an active research program

Establishment of a research program at, and published from, Hamilton College is required.

• Collaboration is recognized as often an important and sometimes an essential component of scientific endeavor and can enhance a candidate's scholarship and productivity; however, intellectual leadership of some published research created and developed at Hamilton College is required.
• As stated above under “Teaching,” we expect engagement of students in the research program of all tenure-track faculty members, primarily through the senior thesis but perhaps also through summer and academic year internships, work study, and independent study opportunities. Publication with students as co-authors is not required, but it is encouraged because it demonstrates student research involvement at a high level.

Estimation of long-term potential is a component of the evaluation process.

• The candidate should develop a research program that indicates development and continued activity post-tenure. In addition to publications, non-publication scholarly activities (discussed in section IB2a above) may contribute to this.

c. Role of grants

Personal research grants should be pursued as appropriate for the field.

• Receiving grant funds from external agencies is not required evidence of scholarship in tenure evaluation, but it is valuable evidence of developing/ongoing research and represents positive peer-review of a research program underway.
• The Department recognizes variation in funding rates among grant-funding agencies and divisions within agencies and availability of funding opportunities across subdisciplines. We understand and take into consideration that some faculty, therefore, may have greater funding success than others.

3. Evaluation of Service

The Department expects candidates to engage in service at the department, college, and professional levels. The Department and College rely upon faculty to contribute to the smooth running of our shared educational mission. Naturally, levels of service will increase through the candidate’s career. Balance must be struck throughout, but particularly so during the pre-tenure phase.

Major service, such as committee work on larger College committees (e.g., CAP, CAS, COA, AC, etc.), should be done only in close consultation with senior colleagues and the Chair, and should generally be avoided except after full discussion of its effect on scholarship and teaching development.

Examples of typical pre-tenure service at various levels include:

• Department: participation in department meetings and events, website development, equipment management, assistance in development of institutional grant proposals, curricular planning and development, etc.
• College: minor committee service such as LITS committee, Animal Care and Use Committee, Alumni Council, etc.
• Scientific Community: school science fair judging, ad hoc journal manuscript review, session organization at a conference, etc.

C. Promotion to Professor

The Department recognizes the pre-tenure phase of a faculty member’s career as a developmental one. This is not so after tenure. A candidate is expected to be able to demonstrate a strong post-tenure trajectory of original published research, to have become well-established and well-regarded in the relevant field(s), and to show promise for continued research productivity in the future. The candidate will be evaluated both on the quality of the original research and on productivity. The candidate must also continue to be actively involved in student research. In addition, further engagement with the disciplinary field of the candidate, primarily through scholarship but also through service, should be demonstrated.

1. Evaluation of Teaching

Candidates should demonstrate a well-developed approach to teaching, as expressed in the expectations inherent in the General Criteria listed above under IB Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure. Such maturity in teaching should be consistent at all curricular levels.

• The Department expects Associate Professors to accept a greater responsibility for the curricular needs of the Department, such as providing flexibility in course offerings to meet the curricular needs required of the concentrations offered by the Department.
• Student evaluations of teaching are used to reflect the teaching success of candidates for promotion, as described in sections IB1a, IB1b, and IB1d in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure. In addition, all voting members should have firsthand knowledge of the teaching of Associate Professors while they are at the Associate level, as described in Appendix 1.
• The statement about Summer Student Research, within the Guidelines for Tenure, applies equally to all tenurable faculty ranks within the Biology Department.

2. Evaluation of Scholarship

• Active and ongoing peer-reviewed publication of original research, as described in section IB2a in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, is required for promotion
• Other types of publications that may contribute to a record of scholarly productivity include peer-reviewed synthetic and review works, textbooks, and edited publications.
• Publications receiving minimal or no peer review and non-publication scholarship, as described under Scholarship in the Guidelines for Tenure, demonstrate activity but are not sufficient for promotion.
• As described under section IB2b in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, the value of collaboration is recognized, while intellectual leadership and maintenance of a Hamilton College-based research program, with student involvement, is required.
• The Department expects a continuing trajectory in the scholarly record, building on that recognized at the time of tenure.
• Tenured faculty are expected to continue to seek grants as appropriate for their field, as described under section IB2c in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure. While personal research grants are encouraged, it is expected that once tenure is attained, greater responsibility will be assumed for institutional grants (e.g., equipment, facility, and curricular grants that benefit the Department more broadly than the individual's lab).

3. Evaluation of Service

• In contrast to the pre-tenure phase of a faculty member’s career, when service should be limited to allow maximal development of teaching and scholarship, faculty members at the Associate Professor and Professor levels should assume greater responsibility for service to the Department and College once tenure is attained. This may include leading departmentally-based institutional grants or curricular initiatives, service on major elected or appointed college committees and/or serving as the Chair or Associate Chair of the Biology Department or as Director of associated programs. The Department encourages the development of leadership in this way, as planning and progress of the Department and its supported concentrations are best served by the active engagement of all its faculty.
• National and international service, in the form of holding office in professional societies, editorship of journals and books, and serving on external review committees of institutions, departments, and faculty at other institutions, strengthens the service component of the candidate's case. Such service reflects on the professional reputation of the candidate and enhances the recognition of Biology at Hamilton College by the larger professional community.

II.Evaluation Criteria for Instructional Faculty Positions

A. Reappointment in Instructional Faculty Positions

In Professor of Instruction (POI) positions, candidates for reappointment prior to promotion should demonstrate clear evidence of progress toward the standards for promotion outlined below, especially regarding teaching and administrative duties if applicable. As outlined in the Faculty Handbook, Assistant POIs shall stand for reappointment at rank every three years. Standing for promotion from Assistant to Associate POI rank shall typically occur during the sixth year of full-time service. Associate POIs shall stand for reappointment at rank every three years. Standing for promotion from Associate to Professor of Instruction rank shall typically occur during the sixth year of full-time service at the Associate level. Reappointment at the rank of Professor of Instruction shall occur every four years.

B. Promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction

1. Evaluation of Teaching

• Teaching by Professors of Instruction (POIs) will be evaluated with the same criteria and using the same sources of evidence as those used for untenured faculty in tenure-track positions (see sections IB1a, IB1b, IB1c, and IB1d in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure).
• All POIs are expected to contribute to the departmental curriculum with priority given to supportive instruction that requires the development of disciplinary skill through practice (e.g., laboratory instruction). POIs are not required to teach at all levels of the curriculum, but rather are required to provide flexibility in course offerings to meet the curricular needs of the Department. They are also not required to mentor senior thesis projects (BIO 550-551).

2. Evaluation of Scholarship

There is no expectation of scholarship for reappointment or promotion of professors of instruction. Although professors of instruction may participate in scholarship, it will not be used as a criterion upon which reappointment or promotion are based. However, faculty in these positions should keep abreast of new technologies and pedagogies so that their teaching remains current.

3. Evaluation of Service

• The Department and College rely upon all faculty to contribute to the smooth running of our shared educational mission. Professors of Instruction do not have service responsibilities at the level of college-wide committees or in student academic advising, but are expected to participate in faculty meetings and contribute to Department planning and curricular development.
• The Department expects POIs to show engagement in the regular meetings and decision-making of the Department, and to demonstrate a willingness to serve on Department subcommittees, particularly where their expertise and experience are needed. Some other examples of routine service include participation in retreats for curricular development, planning and organization of departmental events, contributing to departmentally-based institutional grants, participation in faculty and staff searches, and voting on appointment, reappointment, and promotion of colleagues when eligible.
• Service on larger college committees outside the Department is not required. It will not be used as a criterion upon which reappointment or promotion are based.

4. Evaluation of Administrative Duties

For Professors of Instruction who receive a course release for administrative duties, as referenced in the letter of appointment from the Dean of Faculty, the performance of those duties will also be evaluated. Because these duties will differ for each position, only general criteria are described here. To help evaluate the candidate’s administrative performance, the Chair will invite feedback from faculty and staff in all departments with direct experience of the Professor of Instruction’s administrative work. The Chair will specifically evaluate the faculty member’s administrative work in the areas of organization, communication, and management.

• Effective organization is evidenced by maintaining a safe and orderly workspace, independent planning, scheduling, and conducting job-related activities in a timely manner.
• Effective communication is demonstrated by clear, timely and responsive communications, both written and oral, with the Chair and stakeholders; demonstrated accessibility through holding of regular office or open facility hours; and timely conveyance of information about the day-to-day and long-term operation of facilities and equipment for which the Professor of Instruction has oversight.
• Effective management is demonstrated by ensuring safe operations and that all users of facilities and equipment for which the Professor of Instruction has oversight have had necessary safety training; coordinating the efforts of supervised staff or student workers; scheduling and delegating project tasks as appropriate; and identifying, budgeting, procuring and managing necessary resources to maintain operations.

The evaluation of such responsibilities will be based on the following sources:

• Annual Reports from the candidate
• Annual Reviews from the Department
• Comments collected from departmental and other relevant colleagues
• A Personal Statement from the candidate.

Professors of Instruction should address these contributions in their annual reviews and personal statements.

C. Candidates for Promotion to Professor of Instruction

Promotion to Professor of Instruction requires outstanding teaching as discussed in section IB1b in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, using the same sources of evidence, as well as outstanding performance in administrative duties, if applicable. Criteria for promotion fall in the same categories as for promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction detailed in section IIB in Promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction. The Chair of the Department will provide ongoing feedback about the faculty member’s progress toward promotion. Successful candidates for promotion will contribute to departmental discussions and decision-making.

III. Evaluation Criteria for Renewable, Term, and Adjunct Positions

A. Reappointment in Renewable, Term, and Adjunct Positions

Teaching will be evaluated with the same criteria as discussed in section B1b. in Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure. However, there is no expectation of teaching across all curricular levels or mentoring students in research.

Appendix 1: Biology Department Visitation Policy

Visitation serves both diagnostic and evaluative functions. In order to make the peer review policy systematic yet unobtrusive, the Biology Department has agreed on the following procedures:

1. The chair will ensure that each continuing Assistant faculty member is observed at least once (and normally only once) per semester.

1. Normally, before a reappointment decision, tenure-track Assistant Professors should be visited in four of their first five semesters by voting members of the department. Because they submit their reappointment materials earlier, Assistant POIs should be visited in three of their first four semesters by voting members of the department (POIs at a higher rank or tenure track faculty). Candidates for reappointment may request observations by additional voting members if desired.
2. Normally, before a decision about promotion to the Associate rank, every voting member should have either formally observed or have first-hand experience with the teaching of each faculty member being evaluated. Further explanation of first-hand knowledge can be found in item #17.
3. All assignments for faculty visits should be made within the first two weeks of the semester.
4. Out of courtesy, all classroom visitations should be coordinated in advance between the instructor and the visitor with dates satisfactory to both.
5. No visitations should be conducted during the first or last weeks of the semester, and when an instructor is responsible for part of a team-taught course, no visitation should be held right at the beginning or end of that person's section.
6. Visitations may be accomplished during team-teaching, but as in statement 4 above, the dates for the visitation should be agreed upon in advance; visitations are distinct from simply being in the class as a co-instructor.
7. A visitation normally covers one week’s worth of classes, including all lectures and lab.
8. Typically, the visitor and instructor should meet before the visit to discuss course and class goals, pedagogical approaches and/or assessments, and to specify anything about which the instructor would like specific feedback. Related course materials including syllabi, lecture or lab materials, and/or assignments should be provided by the instructor to the visitor in advance of the visitation.
9. Within three weeks of the last visited class, the visitor should write a letter about the visit for the departmental files. The letter should be dated and should refer to the dates of the visitation and the material covered.
10. The visitor and instructor should discuss the visit within three weeks following the visitation. The two parties will meet to discuss the visitation and letter. The observer will provide the faculty member with written documentation of the review that addresses the pre-observation conversation, review of teaching materials, and observation about various aspects of the class session such as content, clarity, and organization; student engagement; teacher-student interactions; and attention to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access.
11. The observer may update their letter with information from the post-observation discussion with the instructor and share this final version with the instructor and chair.
12. Normally, this letter should be completed and submitted to the chair no later than four weeks following the observation. The chair will retain a copy of the evaluation for the faculty member’s file.
13. Faculty members being evaluated are encouraged to write a response to the chair if they consider the written evaluation to be inaccurate, unfair, or inappropriate.
14. Quotes from the peer observation letters may be included in the Department letter for reappointment/tenure/promotion, but the Department will not include the letters themselves. Candidates may elect to include any peer observations they choose when they submit their file for consideration.
15. A member of the Department may ask any other member to visit his or her class at any time to provide diagnostic comments, apart from required visitation.
16. Non-tenured members are invited and encouraged to visit the classes of tenured members.
17. In addition to the formal visitation process described above, the Department also recognizes less formalized observations of teaching to provide first-hand knowledge including co-instruction, guest lectures, and seminars or other talks.

Although not required, the chair will also offer non-continuing faculty members the opportunity to be observed, as possible given time constraints.

---

Approved by COA 3/10/2026