Chemistry
As a department, we support faculty for reappointment, tenure, and promotion who are outstanding teacher-scholars and are engaged members of the department, College, and professional community. We actively mentor colleagues with the expectation that all of our faculty will earn reappointment, tenure, and promotion. In accordance with the Faculty Handbook, candidates are evaluated in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service with the first two being of greatest importance for tenured and tenure-track faculty, and teaching being the most important for instructional faculty. While the exact balance of a candidate’s strengths in these areas may vary, an outstanding record in one area will not outweigh a poor record in another area.
Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching
We support colleagues for reappointment, tenure, and promotion who are effective classroom teachers. As chemistry is an experimental discipline, faculty are also expected to effectively teach in the laboratory, both in course-based laboratories and, for tenure-line faculty, in the research laboratory. We recognize that teaching is complex and multifaceted; we expect that individual candidates may exhibit differing degrees of competence and excellence across the various aspects of teaching.
Strong teachers employ effective pedagogical practices that include:
- Communicating in a clear and organized fashion
- Engaging students and challenging them intellectually
- Incorporating the current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice and pedagogy into courses
- Being helpful to students within and outside of class/lab
- Using inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices
- Mentoring students in the practice of scientific research
To assess the extent to which an individual employs effective pedagogical practices, the standards and evidence used for evaluation will include the following. The set of standards for excellence in teaching described here are to be considered holistically and not viewed as a prescriptive list.
Communicating in a clear and organized fashion
Evidence may be found by looking for:
- Syllabi that clearly describe course goals and indicate that courses are well-organized with a structure that is likely to facilitate student success
- Student assessments that align with course goals, provide students with opportunities to practice key skills, and include problems and/or activities that are clearly written
- Peer observations that report that the goals of the class/lab session were consistent with the overall goals of the course, that class/lab sessions were well-organized with ideas and concepts clearly and accurately presented, and that information was presented at the appropriate level and pace for the level of the course, and with effective use of examples, activities, illustrations, or models
- Statements from students in course evaluations and letters solicited by the Dean of Faculty that indicate students understand the expectations set for them and that the instructor communicated course content and expectations clearly and in an organized fashion
Engaging students and challenging them intellectually
Evidence may be found by looking for:
- Reflections in the instructor’s personal statement on efforts to creatively, inclusively, and with attention to equity, engage students and on the ways in which the instructor attempts to provide an appropriate level of challenge through course assessments
- Syllabi and assessments that demonstrate that courses explore the depth and breadth of chemistry, are rigorous, challenging, and intellectually stimulating, while being taught at a level appropriate for the course, and that encourage students to think critically and independently
- Peer observations that report that the instructor conveys enthusiasm for chemistry in the classroom/lab and through their teaching materials, that students from a variety of backgrounds and levels of preparation were engaged throughout the class/lab session
- Statements from students in course evaluations and letters solicited by the Dean of Faculty that indicate that they were engaged with the course material and being challenged
Incorporating the current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice and pedagogy into courses
Evidence may be found by looking for:
- Reflections in the instructor’s personal statement on choices about pedagogical approaches in the classroom/lab and in assessing students
- Syllabi and assessments that expose students to current content
- Periodic revision of course syllabi and assessments to include updated/more current content and pedagogy
- Syllabi that show that lab curricula provide students with exposure to appropriate laboratory practices
- Peer observations that report that the instructor provides students with appropriate training in laboratory techniques and conscientiously enforces departmental and College safety rules and regulations
Being helpful to students within and outside of class/lab
Evidence may be found by looking for:
- Reflections in the instructor’s personal statement on efforts to provide support to students
- Syllabi that demonstrate that the instructor provides office hours appropriate to the courses and, when appropriate, facilitates access to additional resources for students such as TA office hours, QSR, Oral Communication Center, or Writing Center support
- Peer observations that report that the instructor responded effectively to student questions and encouraged discussion, as appropriate, and that report that the instructor’s interactions with students were productive and constructive
- Statements from students in course evaluations and letters solicited by the Dean of Faculty that indicate that course expectations, course policies, and grading standards were clearly defined and equitable; the classroom, lab, and office hour environment was positive and constructive; the instructor was able to effectively answer questions; students understood the criteria being used to evaluate their work; and that graded work was returned in a timely fashion with constructive feedback.
Using inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices
Evidence may be found by looking for:
- Reflections in the instructor’s personal statement on their incorporation and development of inclusive pedagogy to encourage a developing sense of belonging for students marginalized in science because of factors such as their race, gender, ethnicity, class, and/or diverse ability
- Syllabi and assessments that present students with opportunities to demonstrate their learning and development via multiple modes
- Peer observations that report broad engagement by and interaction with a range of students during class or lab
- Statements from students in course evaluations and letters solicited by the Dean of Faculty that provide evidence of systematic use of inclusive pedagogy or practices
Mentoring students in the practice of scientific research
Evaluation of this may be done by looking for:
- Reflections in the instructor’s personal statement describing their approach to mentoring research students during the academic year and/or the summer research program
- Statements in student letters solicited by the Dean of Faculty that show that research students feel supported in the development and execution of their academic year and/or summer research projects, and that senior thesis students received constructive feedback in drafting and revising written theses and in preparing oral presentations
- Projects that were made available for senior projects in chemistry and appropriate cognate disciplines
Expectations for Application of the Standards
For Tenure-track Faculty
At the time of reappointment, the evidence should show that an instructor is establishing themself as an effective and developing teacher. In their personal statements written annually and at the time of reappointment, they should describe how they plan to address any aspects of their teaching record in need of improvement.
At the time of evaluation for tenure and promotion, the evidence should show that an instructor is an effective teacher according to the standards outlined above and has demonstrated continual improvement.
For promotion to Professor, the evidence should show that an instructor has demonstrated continued effectiveness in meeting the standards described above. In particular, annual reports and the personal statement submitted when standing for promotion should show continued striving for improvement in teaching effectiveness through experimentation with new approaches to pedagogy, revising existing courses and/or teaching new ones, and engaging in formal and informal faculty development activities.
For Faculty of Instruction
All of the general standards above apply to faculty of instruction except for mentoring students in the research laboratory, since faculty of instruction are not normally expected to supervise student research.
At the time of the first reappointment for an Assistant Professor of Instruction, the evidence should show that an instructor is establishing themself as an effective and developing teacher. In their personal statements written annually and at the time of reappointment, they should describe how they plan to address any aspects of their teaching record in need of improvement.
At the time of evaluation for promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction, the evidence should show that an instructor is an effective teacher according to the standards outlined above and has demonstrated continual improvement.
For subsequent reappointments and for promotion to Professor of Instruction, the evidence should show that an instructor has demonstrated continued effectiveness and development in meeting the standards described above.
For Non-tenure Track and Adjunct Faculty
Faculty in continuing visiting and adjunct positions will be evaluated using the standards above except for mentoring students in the research laboratory. In addition, adjunct faculty do not typically have responsibility for course design, so specific aspects of the standards above that apply to course design do not apply.
Peer Observation Policy
Peer review of teaching will include:
- Review of available course materials (a course syllabus and any materials relevant to the class session) to contextualize the class session to be observed
- A pre-observation meeting between the faculty member being observed (“the instructor”) and the observer to discuss the instructor’s goals for the class session and how those goals fit into the course framework. The instructor may also want to point out any specific areas for which they desire feedback.
- A classroom observation of at least a single class session. For tenure-line faculty and continuing visiting faculty this will usually be a lecture class but occasional observation of a lab section may be appropriate. For faculty of instruction and adjunct faculty, observations will normally be done in a lab section. For lab observations, the observer should be present from the start of the lab to observe the pre-lab lecture and should stay for at least half an hour of the working part of the lab session.
- A post-observation meeting during which the instructor and observer discuss the session observed.
- Written documentation of the review that reports on 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; instructor-student interactions; and the use of inclusive pedagogy. The written documentation will focus its evaluation on the Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching, as described above. The report will be written after the post-observation meeting and will be shared with the instructor within two weeks of the post-observation meeting, and then submitted to the department chair.
The department chair (or a designated senior faculty member) shall oversee the scheduling and coordination of peer observations, including who will observe which courses and confirming that the observations have been completed. The plan for classroom and laboratory visits will be set within the first four full weeks of the semester. Instructors and observers should communicate with one another to determine appropriate dates for the observations. Observations should be planned to capture the breadth of courses taught by an instructor and also allow for multiple observations of individual courses to observe growth over time.
Written reports of observations and feedback are departmental documents of which the faculty member has full knowledge. These documents will be shared at the time of reappointment, tenure, and promotion by the department as an appendix to the departmental letter. These reports may be referenced in annual reviews, candidate personal statements, and the departmental letter for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.
The frequency of observation will be as follows:
For Tenure-track Faculty
Tenure-track faculty will normally be observed at least once, but not more than twice, each semester beginning in the second semester of their appointment. All tenured members of the department (or members of a candidate’s ad hoc tenure and promotion committee) should do at least one observation of each tenure-track faculty member before reappointment and at least one additional observation before tenure and promotion. Tenure-track faculty in their first (or any subsequent) semester are encouraged to invite colleagues to observe their teaching. These voluntary observations are strictly informal and meant to be formative and do not include written documentation.
For Tenured Faculty
Associate Professors will be observed at least once per year by a member of the group who will be evaluating them for promotion (Professors within the Department or the members of their ad hoc promotion committee). Each member of the evaluating body should observe at least one class taught by a candidate in the two years prior to standing for promotion. Professors are encouraged to invite colleagues to engage in the peer review process at least once every two years.
For Faculty of Instruction
Assistant and Associate Professors of Instruction will normally be observed at least once each semester beginning in the second semester of their appointment. Assistant Professors of Instruction should be observed at least once by each voting member before reappointment and by each voting member at least one additional time before promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction. Assistant Professors of Instruction in their first semester are encouraged to invite colleagues to observe their teaching. These voluntary observations are informal and include no written documentation. Associate Professors of Instruction should be observed at least once by each voting member of the department before reappointment and at least one additional time by each voting member before promotion to Professor of Instruction. Professors of Instruction will be observed at least once per year such that at least four voting members have observed during each reappointment cycle.
For Non-tenure Track and Adjunct Faculty
Faculty in one-year visiting positions are encouraged to invite colleagues to observe them but observations are not required. Faculty in visiting positions that are likely to extend beyond one year will be observed at least once per year prior to the final year of their appointment. Adjunct faculty who teach on a regular basis, and will thus be evaluated for reappointment, will be observed at least once per year.
Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship
We support colleagues for tenure and/or promotion who have established themselves as active and productive scholars. Faculty are expected to develop a research program that engages Hamilton students and to mentor students through the Senior Project in Chemistry or other cognate programs whenever possible. Faculty may choose to mentor non-senior research students during the academic year and/or work with students through the summer research program but neither of these are required for tenure and promotion.
Faculty are expected to engage with the broader scholarly community by sharing their work through publications, grant proposals, and presentations. Forms of evidence that demonstrate scholarly engagement may include (listed in general order of importance):
- articles on original research, conducted after appointment to a Hamilton faculty position, in peer-reviewed journals, including collaborative papers in which the faculty member played a significant intellectual role
- manuscripts under active review or revision
- successful grant applications for funding for research activities and instrumentation
- review articles, book chapters, textbooks, etc.
- collaborative papers where the candidate has played only a supporting role (the candidate’s role in the work should be made explicit in their personal statement)
- articles published after appointment reporting on work completed prior to arrival at Hamilton
- presentations at professional meetings/conferences
- manuscripts posted to preprint servers (e.g. ChemRxiv, advanced draft of work nearing completion)
- presentation of invited seminars at other colleges/universities
- submission of grant proposals for research and research instrumentation
- postings to databases (crystallographic databases, for example)
- publication of encyclopedia entries, book reviews and other items that receive minimal peer review
Both quality and quantity of scholarly output are important. Quality will be judged primarily by an internal assessment by the department and through the assessment of external reviewers solicited at the time of review for tenure and/or promotion. Expectations of quantity may vary, depending on the nature of the candidate’s research. Faculty are encouraged to pursue research problems that excite them and that will lead to ongoing projects with intellectual depth. Collaborative publications, regardless of author order, are seen as equal in importance to publications generated solely by the faculty member’s research group, as long as the candidate has played a significant intellectual role in the work. The candidate’s role in each collaborative work should be made explicit in their personal statement submitted at the time of the review.
Expectations for application of the standards for scholarship
For Tenure-track Faculty
By the time of reappointment, faculty should have established an independent research program involving Hamilton students as collaborators. Start-up funds should have been used to set up functional lab space and research should have been initiated on one or more projects with the potential to produce publishable results.
For candidates for tenure, a record of continuing engagement with the candidate’s scholarly community through publication, proposal submission, and/or presentation beyond the Hamilton community is expected. Recognizing differences in sub-disciplines and in the pace of different research topics, no specific guideline is set for the quantity of scholarly output. However, successful candidates should normally have at least two peer-reviewed publications from work conducted primarily after the start of their Hamilton appointment in print or at an advanced stage of review at the time of the tenure review. In extraordinary cases, one peer reviewed publication of exceptional scope combined with a portfolio of other public work that demonstrates evidence of additional productivity, as defined above, may be sufficient. Candidates must show in their personal statement that the trajectory of their research program is such that the pattern of scholarly engagement will continue into the future.
For Tenured Faculty
After receiving tenure, faculty should maintain an active research program that involves students, and demonstrate a record of continued research productivity, as defined by the forms of evidence listed above. As with candidates for tenure, no specific guideline is set for the quantity of scholarly output for candidates standing for promotion to Professor. Successful candidates for promotion should normally have produced at least two peer-reviewed publications after tenure, although in extraordinary cases, one peer-reviewed publication of exceptional scope combined with a portfolio of other public work that demonstrates evidence of additional productivity may be sufficient.
For Faculty of Instruction, Non-tenure Track, and Adjunct Faculty
There is no expectation of scholarship for faculty of instruction, non-tenure track, and adjunct faculty.
Standards for the Evaluation of Service
Across their careers, faculty must demonstrate a willingness and an ability to effectively serve Hamilton students, the Chemistry Department, the College, and the broader professional and local community. Demonstrating service is possible through a combination of the following activities:
- advising pre-concentration students and concentrators
- attending and contributing to Departmental meetings and associated Departmental business
- assuming a Departmental responsibility whether short- or long-term (e.g. organization of the seminar program, mentoring student organizations)
- writing letters of recommendation for students (graduate school, professional schools, summer programs)
- serving as department or program chair
- attending 91制片厂 faculty meetings
- serving on an appointed or elected college committee
- serving on a committee or board of a professional organization
- serving as a reviewer for journals, scholarships, fellowships, proposals
- outreach to schools, admissions office, and alumni groups and broader community in a professional capacity
Expectations for application of the standards for service
For Tenure-track Faculty
Prior to evaluation for tenure and promotion, the priority is for the establishment of effective teaching and of an active and successful research program with students. Prior to reappointment, tenure-track faculty should be fully engaged in departmental discussions and decision making but no extra-departmental service is expected. Following reappointment, junior faculty should keep their faculty service survey up to date and demonstrate willingness to serve on at least one elected or appointed College committee or in an equivalent service role before standing for tenure. Pre-tenure service should support the candidate’s interests and career goals. Service to the local community and/or the discipline is valued pre-tenure but not expected.
For Tenured Faculty
Candidates for promotion to Professor must demonstrate active engagement in the life of the College as well as the Department. This can be done, for example, by serving a full term on one of the major committees of the faculty, serving on multiple elected or appointed College committees, serving as department or program chair, and/or by taking on an appointed administrative role within the College. Serving as an officer in a regional or national professional organization, on a journal editorial review board, on grant proposal review panels, or on external review committees of other institutions, departments, or individuals are also recognized as valuable service contributions likely to be available to tenured members of the department. Continued service to the College, community, and/or profession following promotion is expected.
For Faculty of Instruction
Faculty of instruction do not have service responsibilities at the level of college-wide committees or in student academic advising. They are expected to attend college-wide faculty meetings and to attend department meetings when the meeting agendas include items that pertain to their job responsibilities. Faculty of instruction are expected to contribute to departmental planning and curricular development.
For Non-tenure Track and Adjunct Faculty
Faculty in non-tenure track and adjunct positions have no service obligations, although they are welcome to attend college-wide faculty meetings and department meetings and contribute, as appropriate.
Approved by COA 2/4/2025
