91制片厂

Current Guidelines (PDF)

View Previous Guidelines (PDF)

Candidates for Tenure

When considering a candidacy for tenure, accomplishments and promise in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service will be assessed. While no precise weights can be given to any one of these three areas, the first two are by far the most important. The quality of teaching is the most important criterion for tenure. An outstanding record in one area will not outweigh a poor record in another.

Process for Evaluation Prior to Reappointment and Tenure

The tenured members of the department have primary responsibility for advising tenure-track faculty as they work toward re-appointment and tenure. This will be done formally through the chair’s evaluation of tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports each year. 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 observation. The process for peer observation is described more thoroughly below.  In addition, in the semester prior to submitting promotion, tenure, or reappointment 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 Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor and Promotion to Professor

Teaching

Strong teachers in computer science will have demonstrated the ability to teach a variety of courses and at all levels of the curriculum before they are considered for tenure. Since teaching across the curriculum requires faculty to teach classes outside of their research area, faculty will be evaluated on growth and improvement of rigor and content across multiple teachings. Faculty are not expected to be experts in the subjects of courses they teach outside of their research area. Strong teachers employ effective pedagogical practices that include:

1. Communicating in a clear and organized fashion;
2. Incorporating the current state of disciplinary knowledge and practice into courses;
3. Challenging students intellectually;
4. Thoughtfully using appropriate and inclusive pedagogy;
5. Effectively interacting in the classroom;
6. Effectively interacting outside the classroom.

To assess the extent to which an individual employs effective pedagogical practices, the evidence we examine will include:

Communicating in a clear and organized fashion

• Personal statement:  Does the instructor communicate a coherent approach to the design and implementation of courses?
• Syllabi and assignments: Did the review of teaching materials conclude that the course was well organized? Does the instructor clearly define effective course expectations, policies, and grading standards? Do assignments clearly communicate expectations?
• Peer observation:  Did the review of classroom observation conclude that the course and class unit was well organized and clearly communicated?
• 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?

Incorporating the current state of disciplinary knowledge and practice into courses

• Personal statement:  Does the personal statement indicate that the instructor is teaching state-of-the-art content in their courses?
• Syllabi, readings, and assignments: Do the syllabi indicate current disciplinary content? Do materials indicate that the instructor attends to the evolving nature of content within the field? Are courses revised periodically to include updated/more current material in the field?
• Peer observation: Did the review of classroom observation conclude that the course and class unit incorporated the current state of disciplinary knowledge and practice?

Challenging students intellectually

• Personal statement:  Does the instructor discuss ways in which they attempt to provide an appropriate level of challenge, with attention to equity in assessment?
• Syllabi and assignments: Are the assignments appropriate for the course content and at a suitable level?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report being challenged?
• Grades: Are grades in core computer science classes (over several semesters) broadly consistent with department norms?

Thoughtfully using appropriate and inclusive pedagogy

• Personal statement: Is the instructor mindful of choices about assignments and pedagogy?  Does the instructor report experimentation with pedagogical approaches? Are steps taken to incorporate inclusive pedagogy discussed?
• Syllabi and assignments: Does the instructor use a variety of pedagogical approaches, including different types of assignments and engaging with different modes of learning?
• Peer observation: Is the instructor using effective pedagogy? Does the faculty member discuss the use of effective and inclusive pedagogy in pre- or post-observation meetings?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do the students report that the classroom is inclusive?

Effectively interacting in the classroom

• Personal statement: Does the instructor discuss encouraging effective interactions in the classroom?
• Peer observation: Is the instructor able to effectively answer student questions and manage discussion skillfully? Are the instructor’s interactions with students positive and constructive?  Is there broad engagement and interaction with all students?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report that the instructor was able to effectively communicate course material and answer questions in class? Do students report the instructor fosters an effective learning environment?

Effectively interacting outside the classroom

• Personal statement: Does the instructor discuss encouraging effective interactions outside the classroom?
• Course materials and syllabus: Does the instructor offer sufficient office hours and resources for outside-of-class help, in the context of reasonable work-life balance?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Does the instructor provide helpful and timely feedback on graded assignments? Do students report that course expectations, policies, and grading standards were clearly defined? Do they understand the criteria being used to evaluate their work? Is the instructor effective in working with students outside of class?

The teaching of all faculty will be evaluated with the same criteria as above.

Peer Observation of Teaching Policy

Peer observation of teaching will include:

1. A pre-observation meeting in which subjects such as course unit goals, course goals, pedagogical approaches, and assignments are discussed.
2. Review of available course materials to contextualize the observation.
3. An observation of at least one class.
4. A post-observation meeting.
5. Written documentation of the review that addresses the teaching standards above, which is shared with the faculty member being reviewed promptly after the observation.
6. A comprehensive review of course materials to be completed at the end of the semester and added to the written review. Such reviews will occur during the first teaching of a course and thereafter at the request of the instructor.

The department will coordinate and schedule peer observation assignments at the beginning of each semester. While faculty will be reviewed in their first semester of teaching, the department recognizes that teaching excellence is acquired through experience and expectations in the first semester teaching at Hamilton will reflect the instructor’s level of experience. Pre-tenure and non-tenure track faculty should be observed at least once per semester, and ideally once for each course per semester.

All voting members will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through this peer observation process before voting on reappointment, tenure, or promotion. The department will submit the written documentation of review with reappointment, tenure, and promotion letters.

Scholarship

Candidates for tenure must have established themselves as recognized and respected scholars in their sub-field within the discipline. We view progress on projects beyond those drawn from the dissertation as important evidence that the faculty member will continue to be an active scholar. In their submitted materials, candidates should describe their role in and contributions to any co-authored works.

1. The most tangible criterion for evaluation of scholarship is publication in peer-reviewed conferences, journals, and workshops. Such publications are required for tenure. In evaluating such publications, we consider it important to take quality as well as quantity into account. Because of this, we encourage colleagues to strive for publications in flagship venues and in the top specialized venues. In assessing the quality of a candidate’s scholarship, the views of the outside evaluators constitute important evidence in the overall process.
2. Other secondary indicators of active scholarship include the following (not in order of importance):
   • funded grant proposals,
   • other peer-reviewed publications,
   • other publications,
   • collaborative research with Hamilton students,
   • publicly available software development related to your teaching or research, and
   • invited talks at national or regional conferences; talks at other colleges or universities.

Service

Candidates must have demonstrated a willingness and an ability to be an effective and engaged departmental member. The department expects candidates for tenure to serve the department and college in moderate roles. This standard can be demonstrated in various ways, including participation in faculty searches or involvement in committees aimed at improving the curriculum of the department. We endeavor not to overburden junior faculty with service, but expect them to be willing to take on moderate obligations when the opportunities arise. Some candidates may be engaged in service to the broader intellectual community that is of value to the College, such as participation in external review committees, being a reader for national exams in computer science, serving on working groups and committees of the ACM and related organizations, or other similar activities.

Candidates for Reappointment

Candidates for reappointment will be assessed on the same standards given above for tenure, with the expectation that candidates for reappointment will have not yet met those standards, but will show a clear trajectory toward meeting them.

Candidates for Promotion to Professor

When considering candidacy for promotion to the rank of Professor, accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service will be assessed, with the greatest weight placed on the first two criteria.

Process for Evaluation for Promotion to Professor

The process of nominating an individual for promotion will be formally based on the evaluation of faculty members’ annual reports each year and will involve all Professors within the department (or all members of the candidate’s ad hoc committee, if applicable).

Standards for Promotion to Professor

In assessing a candidate’s record for promotion to Professor, the principal criteria remain teaching effectiveness and scholarship, with scholarship being the most important criterion. There must be compelling evidence that the candidate has achieved a distinguished record as both a scholar and a teacher, as described in this document under the section Candidates for Tenure. A substantial record of service to the department and the college is necessary for promotion to Professor, but service alone cannot be the decisive criterion.

---

Approved by COA: 2/13/25