Government Guidelines
The department seeks to tenure and promote outstanding teacher-scholars who are active members of the departmental and college communities. We will give roughly equal weight to performance in teaching and scholarship, and lesser weight to community and professional service. Inadequacy in either teaching or scholarship cannot be offset by strength in the other two categories.
Process for Evaluation Prior to Reappointment and Tenure
The department chair has primary responsibility for advising tenure-track faculty as they work toward reappointment and tenure. This will be done formally through the chair’s evaluation of tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports each year, which will be shared with all tenured members of the department. Through this process, the chair will review not only tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports, but also their syllabi and research material. To evaluate teaching, our goal is that each tenured faculty member will observe at least one of the non-tenured faculty’s class sessions during each probationary period, and write a brief report to the chair, copies of which will be put in the faculty member’s file and given to him/her. The chair will keep track of these classroom visits and will work with tenure-track faculty to arrange the classroom visits each semester.
Teaching
We expect candidates to challenge students intellectually; communicate goals, expectations, and course content clearly; engage students using inclusive pedagogical approaches; incorporate current scholarship and disciplinary practice into their courses; seek to continue to improve and grow as teachers; and contribute to good pedagogical practice within the department, at Hamilton, or in the discipline as a whole. Candidates should demonstrate an ability to teach a variety of courses at different levels of the curriculum.
A candidate’s personal statement is important for us to frame the various aspects of a candidate’s teaching portfolio, as well as understand their own perspective on teaching and their awareness of their own strengths and areas for improvement. Assessment of the quality of teaching will be based on evidence from the personal statement, teaching materials, direct peer observation of classroom teaching, end-of-semester student evaluation of teaching, and student letters (select and random). Note that not all forms of evidence are needed in each category. The department recognizes that implicit bias may be present in different types of evidence and will review evidence with that in mind, seeking corroborating evidence for substantive conclusions drawn about teaching effectiveness. In evaluating evidence in student evaluations and letters, the department will also take into account the level and size of courses taught, as well as if a course is a concentration requirement.
The evidence we will examine includes:
Challenging students intellectually
Personal statement: Does the instructor discuss their efforts to challenge students, while being attentive to the diversity of student backgrounds?
Syllabi and assignments: Are course readings, assignments, and overall workloads at the appropriate level for the course?
Peer observation: Do peer visits indicate class sessions are pitched at the appropriate level? That the candidate asks questions and/or designs activities that challenge students?
Student evaluations and letters: Do students report that courses challenged them to think in analytical, critical, or creative ways? Do they report that the instructor set high standards? That the feedback provided was constructive? Did they report progress in their writing and/or oral communication skills?
Communicating goals, expectations, and course content clearly
Personal statement: Does the candidate articulate pedagogical goals and describe how courses and assignments are designed to achieve them?
Syllabi and assignments: Are course goals, expectations, grading criteria, and deadlines clearly specified? Is the organization of the course clear? Do assignments for writing-intensive and speaking-intensive courses meet college guidelines and are expectations clearly specified?
Peer observation: Are goals for individual class sessions conveyed to students? Were the central concepts and ideas from the session clearly and effectively presented? Did peer visits indicate that the candidate was able to respond effectively to student questions?
Student evaluations and letters: Do students report understanding the goals and expectations set for them? Do they report that lectures, discussions, and/or classroom activities effectively convey course content? Do they report that the feedback on their work is clear and helpful?
Engaging students effectively using inclusive pedagogical approaches
Personal statement: Does the instructor describe efforts to ensure broad engagement within their courses and/or use inclusive pedagogy?
Syllabi and assignments: Does the instructor allow students to demonstrate learning and development in multiple ways?
Peer observation: Do peer visits indicate broad student engagement, interaction, and/or participation within the classroom?
Student evaluations and letters: Do students report that the courses engaged them effectively? Do they describe a welcoming classroom environment? Do they report that the instructor was available to meet with them during office hours and provide effective feedback and advice?
Incorporating current scholarship and disciplinary practice
Personal statement: Does the candidate describe efforts to keep course readings and content up-to-date?
Syllabi and assignments: Do syllabi include recent scholarship? Are syllabi and other course materials revised periodically to include current material in the field?
Seeking to continue to improve and grow as teachers
Personal Statement: Does the candidate describe efforts to experiment with new pedagogical approaches, develop new courses, or revise existing ones in response to feedback? Does the candidate participate in faculty development workshops on pedagogy and/or seek additional pedagogical training within the discipline? Does the candidate reflect on their past teaching performance, the challenges they have faced, and their efforts toward improvement?
Contributing to pedagogical practice
Personal statement: Does the candidate lead or participate in discussions about pedagogy at Hamilton or within the discipline and/or publish on pedagogy?
Syllabi and assignments: Does the candidate, insofar as the department requests, teach courses at all levels of the curriculum to meet student needs within the department? Does the candidate contribute to the teaching of required courses within the department?
The teaching of all faculty in non-tenurable positions will be evaluated by the same criteria as untenured faculty in tenure-track positions.
The teaching of faculty already promoted to Professor will be evaluated with the same criteria as faculty eligible for promotion to Professor.
Scholarship
Candidates for tenure must have established themselves as recognized and respected scholars in their subfield within the discipline. Scholarship will be judged on the basis of quality, quantity, and trajectory.
Quality
Assessment of quality will be based on publication venue, internal reading of scholarly work, and especially reports from external reviewers. Books and articles in refereed journals will receive the greatest weight, followed in descending order of importance by articles in anthologies, articles in non-refereed journals, articles submitted to journals (especially those receiving “revise and resubmit”), other kinds of publications such as book review essays and book reviews, and conference papers.
Quantity
Assessment of quantity depends upon the particular path chosen by the candidate. For those choosing to publish their research in book form, successful candidates will ordinarily have had a book accepted for publication and at least one additional scholarly publication at the time of tenure. For those choosing to publish their research as articles, successful candidates will have approximately four articles in peer-reviewed journals and at least one additional scholarly publication at the time of tenure. These standards are intended as rough guidelines and the Department believes that the quality is more important than any fixed standard of quantity.
Trajectory
Trajectory involves substantial progress on research that extends beyond the dissertation and that demonstrates the potential for continued scholarly productivity. It is most commonly evidenced by scholarly publications, such as articles, book chapters, etc. However, receipts of awards and grants to support scholarly activity, conference papers, and writing aimed at a general audience and published in a nationally-recognized venue is also evidence that a faculty member is an active scholar.
Service
The department expects candidates for tenure to serve the department and college in modest roles beyond their teaching and scholarship. Most appropriate is service within the department itself, including student advising, though limited service to the college as a whole is also encouraged. We especially value service that directly benefits our students’ learning beyond the classroom, such as bringing speakers to campus and advising relevant student groups such as the Model UN. We also value moderate professional service, such as organizing panels or small conferences, or taking on organizational tasks in national or regional professional associations. We endeavor not to overburden junior faculty with service, but expect them to be willing to take on moderate obligations when the opportunity arises.
Standards for Reappointment prior to Tenure
Candidates for reappointment prior to tenure should demonstrate clear evidence of progress toward the standards outlined above for tenure. For teaching, candidates should demonstrate ability to challenge students intellectually, communicate clearly, engage students through inclusive pedagogy, and incorporate current scholarship and disciplinary practices, as well as evidence of improvement or refinement of teaching practices over time. Assessment of the quality of teaching will be based on evidence from the personal statement, teaching materials, direct peer observation of classroom teaching, end-of-semester student evaluation of teaching, and student letters (select and random). For scholarship, this could include one or more publications, several conference papers, articles submitted to journals, or substantial parts of a book manuscript. For service, candidates should have shown a willingness to serve in modest roles when asked.
Standards for Promotion to Professor
Candidates for promotion to Professor should demonstrate sustained achievement in scholarship, teaching and service. The department will look for the same kinds of evidence for this that are outlined above for tenure. For teaching, particular emphasis will be placed on demonstrating reflection and iterative growth. Evidence of this will be sought in reflections on this growth in the personal statement and in syllabi and course materials that demonstrate increasing pedagogical distinction. For scholarship, candidates should complete the second major research project via a number of significant publications, and indicate the direction of future research projects. Candidates will have an established record of publications and will be known and well-regarded by other scholars in the field. For service, candidates should demonstrate greater willingness and ability to undertake more significant service obligations than prior to tenure, as these services are essential to the smooth functioning of the department, college, and profession.
Addendum: Government Department Classroom Observation Policy (view in PDF)
Approved by COA 3/11/2026
