Geosciences Guidelines for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

Current Guidelines (PDF)

View Previous Guidelines

When considering a candidacy for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, accomplishments and promise in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service will be assessed. This document outlines the process and criteria for evaluation. Unless otherwise specified, chair refers to the chair of the relevant reappointment, tenure, or promotion committee.

Teaching

Process for Evaluation of Teaching Prior to Reappointment and Tenure

The department chair has primary responsibility for advising tenure-track faculty as they work toward reappointment and tenure. This advising will be done formally through the chair’s evaluation of tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports each year. The chair will draw on formal assessment of teaching by all tenured members of the department as well as any external committee members. As part of this process, the chair will review tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports, personal statements, systematically collected feedback from students, and reports from peer review. The process for peer review is described more thoroughly below. In addition, in the semester prior to submitting reappointment or tenure files, the chair will meet with the candidate to advise on the process.

The Department faculty recognize that implicit bias can be present in many different types of evidence. They will review all evidence with that caution in mind and will look for corroborating evidence for all substantive conclusions.

Standards for Teaching for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

The quality of teaching is the most important criterion for tenure. Effective teaching in the geosciences has several dimensions, and we note that strong teachers will have demonstrated the ability to teach a variety of courses at different levels by the time they are considered for tenure. Strong candidates will employ effective teaching practices, which include:

1. Communicating in a clear and organized fashion;
2. Engaging students in learning;
3. Incorporating current state of knowledge, disciplinary practice, and pedagogy into courses;
4. Challenging students intellectually;
5. Thoughtfully using appropriate pedagogy;
6. Being helpful to students within class;
7. Being helpful to students outside of class;
8. Using pedagogical approaches to promote diversity, equity, assessability, and inclusion;

Evidence from all of the teaching practices above will be used by the committee to assess effective teaching.

Communicating in a clear and organized fashion

• Personal statement: Does the individual align course goals and structure?
• Syllabi and assignments: Is the organization of the course clear? Are guidelines, expectations, and deadlines clear?
• Peer review: Did the review of teaching materials and classroom observation conclude that the course and individual class session was well organized?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students understand the expectations set for them? Do they report that the instructor communicated clearly and in an organized fashion?

Engaging students in learning

• Self-evaluations: Does the individual communicate an awareness of and an effort to creatively engage students in their personal statement and/or meetings associated with peer observations?
• Peer observations: What did peers observe about student engagement during class?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report being interested in the material/thinking about course material?

Incorporating current state of knowledge, disciplinary practice, and pedagogy into courses

• Personal statement: Does the personal statement indicate that the instructor is working to continually refine and improve their teaching?
• Syllabi, readings, and assignments: Does the individual include relevant field-based and/or experiential learning where appropriate? Are courses revised periodically to include updated/more current material and practices in the field? 

Challenging students intellectually

• Personal statement: Does the instructor discuss ways in which they attempt to provide an appropriate level of challenge, with attention to inclusivity and equity in assessment?
• Syllabi and assignments: Are the assignments at an appropriate level for the course?
• Grades: Do student grades, when viewed in the context of the evidence above, suggest that students as a whole are being challenged?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report being challenged?

Thoughtfully using appropriate pedagogy

• Syllabi, assignments, and personal statement: Does the instructor use different and varied types of assignments or pedagogy? Does the instructor seem to be reflective of choices about assignments and pedagogy? Does the instructor report experimentation with pedagogical approaches?
• Peer observations: What did peers observe about the varied pedagogical techniques that the individual employed?

Being helpful to students within class

• Peer observations: Did peer observations indicate that the instructor was able to respond to student questions and manage the mix of lecture, activities, and/or discussions skillfully? Were the instructor’s interactions with students positive and constructive?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report that the instructor was able to answer questions in class? What do students say about the classroom environment?

Being helpful to students outside of class

• Course materials and syllabus: Does the instructor indicate adequate resources for outside-of-class help, such as availability to meet with students during office hours and, when appropriate, arrangements for access to additional resources for students such as TA office hours, QSR, Oral Communications, or Writing Center support?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Was material returned in a timely fashion? Do students report that course expectations and policies and grading standards were clearly defined and equitable? Do they understand the criteria being used to evaluate their work? Is the instructor effective in working with students one-on-one or in small groups outside of class? 

Using pedagogical approaches to promote diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion

• Personal statement: Does the candidate discuss the use of inclusive pedagogy?
• Syllabi and assignments: Are students able to demonstrate their learning and development in multiple modes? 
• Informal review/Annual report: Is the faculty member actively engaged in the continued development of the Geosciences SSIH Senior Seminar?
• Peer review: Is there broad engagement and interaction with all students? Does the faculty member discuss use of inclusive pedagogy in pre- or post-observation meeting?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Is there systematic evidence from student feedback that the faculty member fosters an inclusive learning environment?

Applicability of criteria for evaluating teaching to those who will not be evaluated for tenure

The teaching of all faculty in non-tenurable positions will be evaluated with the same criteria as untenured faculty in tenure-track positions.

A distinguished record of teaching that is required for promotion to Professor will also exhibit evidence that the faculty member has engaged in reflective and iterative growth. Evidence of this will be sought in self-evaluation which reports on this growth, in the development of new courses or the revisions of existing ones, or in other faculty development activities voluntarily undertaken by the individual. The teaching of those who have been promoted to Professor will also be evaluated with this additional criterion.

Peer Review of Teaching Policy

Peer review of teaching will include:

1. A pre-observation meeting in which subjects such as session goals, course goals, pedagogical approaches, and assignments are discussed
2. Review of available course materials to contextualize the session
3. A classroom observation of a single class session
4. A post-observation meeting
5. Written documentation of the review that addresses the pre-observation conversation, review of teaching materials, and observations about various aspects of the class session such as content, clarity, and organization; student engagement; teacher-student interactions; and attention to diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion. The written report will evaluate the extent to which the review provided evidence regarding the instructor’s use of effective pedagogical practices identified in department tenure and promotion guidelines. The written report will be shared with the person reviewed before it is submitted to the department chair and no later than the end of the semester in which the review occurred.

The department/tenure and promotion committee will schedule peer review assignments at the beginning of each semester. The reviewer and reviewee will agree on a mutually convenient date for the observation, and the department chair will ensure that the review occurs by the end of the semester.

Frequency of formal observations will vary by career stage as follows:

Faculty in their first semester of teaching will be reviewed for formative purposes only; no written documentation of the first semester review will be generated unless requested by the reviewee.

All voting members (both departmental and external) will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through the peer review process above before voting on reappointment, tenure, and promotion. The department will submit the written documentation of review with reappointment, tenure, and promotion letters.

Faculty in non-tenurable positions will be reviewed using the same processes as those in tenure lines. Visiting faculty on a one-year contract will be reviewed for formative purposes in their first semester, but may request a written, summative evaluation in either semester.

Scholarship

Process for Evaluating Scholarship for Reappointment and Tenure

The process to nominate an individual for reappointment or tenure will be based formally on the evaluation of faculty members’ annual reports each year and will involve all tenured faculty in the department and external committee members. The department chair has the primary responsibility for advising pre-tenure faculty as they work toward reappointment or tenure.

Process for Evaluating Scholarship for Promotion to Professor

The process to nominate an individual for promotion will be based formally on the evaluation of faculty members’ annual reports each year and will involve all Professors within the department/promotion committee. If the chair of the department is at the rank of Professor, then that person will have primary responsibility for advising tenured faculty as they work toward promotion to this rank. If the chair is not at the rank of Professor, then the primary responsibility for advising tenured faculty as they work toward promotion will be a senior faculty member (at the rank of Professor) in the department. If there is no one who fulfills that role, then the candidate is evaluated by the appointed external committee.

Standards for Scholarship for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

The primary measure of scholarly success is publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals (print or online) or edited volumes. We recognize that collaboration on research projects is common or even essential for many research projects. A candidate must, however, demonstrate intellectual leadership in at least some of their published research.

Other types of published and non-published scholarship contribute to evidence of scholarly activity but do not substitute for publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals. These include:

• Successful grant applications or unsuccessful grant proposals with positive reviews
• Review articles, synthesis papers, or textbooks
• Books, articles, editorials, or presentations that interpret the results of the candidate’s scholarly research to a public audience
• Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, or written materials that have not been peer-reviewed
• Regular attendance at professional meetings and contribution with poster or oral presentations.
• A variety of other measures that demonstrate that the candidate's colleagues value their work (e.g., invitations to collaborate, speak, chair sessions, lead field trips, write book reviews, review proposals and manuscripts, etc.).

Expectations for reappointment

At reappointment, the candidate will show evidence of work towards the above standards of scholarship. An estimation of the long-term research potential of the candidate is a key component of the evaluation process. The candidate’s research record must show a trajectory towards a strong research program and the candidate’s research portfolio must contain a statement that describes the candidate’s post-reappointment research agenda.

Expectations for tenure

The candidate’s research will have progressed beyond the initial stage of promise indicated by a successful third-year reappointment. The candidate will be evaluated both on the quality of their original research and on productivity. The candidate’s publication record must show that their research at Hamilton has contributed to peer reviewed publication(s) on which the candidate is a main contributing author, and the candidate must have a clearly articulated research agenda for their own work going forward. The candidate must also be actively involved in senior project research, either by working with students on a variety of research projects of their choosing or by involving students in the candidate's research. However, working only on a variety of research projects with students without peer-reviewed publication is not enough for tenure.

Expectations for promotion to Professor

In addition to the above, strong candidates for promotion to Professor will be able to demonstrate that the professional community values their work by, for example, invitations to collaborate, leadership in projects or proposals, invitations to speak, chairing sessions at conferences, leading field trips, writing book reviews, reviewing proposals and manuscripts, etc. In addition, the candidate is expected to continue to attend professional meetings regularly and to contribute with poster or oral presentations.

An estimation of the long-term research potential of the candidate is a component of the evaluation process. The candidate’s research record must show a trajectory consistent with continued productivity after promotion, and the candidate’s research portfolio must contain a statement that describes the candidate’s post-promotion research agenda.

Service

Process for Evaluation of Service for Promotion to Professor

Service will be assessed through direct observation of departmental contributions, the individual's CV, and the personal statement.

Standards for Service for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

Expectations for Reappointment

Candidates for reappointment are expected to focus their service efforts in department level service with light exploration of college level service (e.g., minor committee assignments). An incomplete list of department level service includes regular contributions to weekly department meetings, department programming, contributions to curricular discussions, and serving on search committees.

Expectations for Tenure

The candidate must show a continuing contribution to the Department and demonstrate service within the campus community and the larger geosciences community. Service can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. An incomplete list includes managing departmental functions such as coordinating senior project proposals and presentations, maintaining shared equipment, and College committee service. Service may also be to the broader community of the geosciences, such as serving in positions of responsibility in professional organizations or serving as a reviewer or associate editor for a journal. Service can also be to the local community, such as volunteering in schools and working on geoscience projects that affect the community. In addition, being an effective adviser of majors and non-majors is required.

Expectations for Promotion

Promotion to Professor requires significant service. Once a faculty member has attained tenure, they should assume greater responsibility for service to the Department, to the College, and the professional community. Service can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. An incomplete list includes managing departmental functions such as coordinating senior project proposals and presentations, serving as department chair, maintaining shared equipment, serving on College committees, and participating in College programs. Service may also be to the broader community of the geosciences, such as serving in positions of responsibility in professional organizations or serving as a reviewer or associate editor for a journal. Service can also be to the local community, such as volunteering in schools and working on geoscience projects that affect the community. In addition, being an effective adviser of majors and non-majors is required.

---

Approved by COA on 02/13/24