91制片厂

Current Guidelines (PDF)

Previous guidelines (PDF)

According to 91制片厂’s Faculty Handbook, decisions regarding reappointment, promotion and tenure are based on accomplishments and promise in teaching, scholarship, and professional service.¹ EALL faculty members are urged to examine the relevant sections of the current version of the Handbook as well as these specific EALL Departmental guidelines, which are meant to provide clarification to (1) members who will stand for reappointment, promotion, and tenure; and (2) department members, deans, and outside evaluators who will evaluate members who are standing for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Candidates should use the guidelines to help assemble their files for reappointment, promotion, and tenure; department members and others should use the guidelines to assess candidacies. 

This document contains two main sections, the first pertaining to candidacy for the granting of tenure, and the second pertaining to candidacy for promotion to the rank of professor. 

I. Candidacy for Granting of Tenure 

Teaching 

1. Commitment to teaching 

As outlined in the Faculty Handbook (p. 30), “Teaching is a complex task. Its evaluation requires consideration of several characteristics that should be reflected in an instructor’s performance: commitment to teaching; knowledge and mastery of the discipline; and the ability to communicate with, stimulate, and evaluate students.”²

The EALL Department interprets “commitment to teaching” as a firm determination to develop and advance our programs (Chinese/Japanese) by offering language, linguistics, literature, film, pedagogy, and culture courses. A commitment to teaching also includes efforts to engage and challenge students. Members of the department, tenure-line and non-tenure track, can demonstrate their commitment to teaching by the following activities: 

1. Curricular Development: This is evident in the candidate’s syllabi and personal statements, where the candidate must articulate how they integrate curricular planning into their courses. Attendance at pedagogical workshops or conferences is encouraged. Moreover, candidates are expected to detail any newly designed courses and their contributions to the department in their annual reports and personal statements. Adjunct or visiting faculty members utilizing the curriculum developed by their colleagues should acknowledge this and should clarify the authorship of the teaching materials in their personal statement. 
2. Engagement in Co-Curricular Development and Team Teaching (when needed): Evidence of this should be noted in syllabi and personal statements. Candidates should explain their collaborative teaching approaches and their specific contributions to team-taught courses. Peer observations and evaluations by department colleagues and/or their tenure/promotion committee members can also serve as indicators of this engagement. 
3. Ongoing Pedagogical Reflections: Candidates should regularly partake in pedagogical self-reflection through various activities such as revisions of syllabi, participation at pedagogical conferences, and discussions with colleagues. Such reflective practices should be documented in personal statements and can also be observed by colleagues. 

Through concerted efforts mentioned in areas A, B, and C, instructors should aim to invigorate and challenge students through their teaching, equipping them with the skills to navigate and excel in their academic pursuits and beyond. 

2. “Knowledge and mastery of the discipline” 

Faculty in EALL are expected to have a wealth of knowledge and mastery of their discipline to keep abreast with and employ up-to-date pedagogical practices. Indicators of this can be found in syllabi (assignments), personal statements, and peer observation. Indicators of knowledge and mastery may be found in the instructor’s scholarship as well. 

3. “The ability to communicate with, stimulate, and evaluate students” 

Faculty should clearly define learning objectives for their courses and design assignments and assessments that will help students meet those learning goals. Students should be engaged by classroom activities and by assignments that present a level of challenge appropriate to the course level. Enhancing students' ability to read, write and listen are all important, as is the improvement of students' conversational skills. Faculty should return student work in a timely fashion and with effective feedback. 

Indicators of this are assessments made by students and department members in such forms as course evaluations, solicited letters, peer observation, syllabi, assignments and peer observation. The organization of the course, guidelines, expectations, and deadlines should be clear in the syllabi. Teaching materials and classroom observation also provide evidence of how the course is organized. In their personal statements, candidates should also explain how they communicate with students. 

Instructors should implement a range of inclusive teaching strategies and techniques, evidenced in assignments and course syllabi that give students multiple avenues to exhibit their learning, growth, and knowledge. Classroom observations are key in assessing active engagement, interactions, and peer support within each class. Faculty engage in self-reflection to continually refine their teaching methods, ensuring they resonate with the increasingly diverse experiences and perspectives of their students. Moreover, student feedback, accumulated over various terms, provides essential insights into the effectiveness of these inclusive measures in enriching the educational experience and the concrete advantages students gain. 

Peer evaluation procedures: 

• Pre-tenure faculty’s teaching should be observed by at least one tenured member once a semester. All voting members are expected to do at least one classroom observation before a candidate comes up for reappointment and another one before they stand for tenure. 
• Faculty in non-tenure-track positions should be observed by tenured or pre-tenure faculty at least once a year. 
• For Associate Professors standing for promotion, all voting members of their promotion committee must do one classroom observation before voting on the case. 
• The department chair will discuss peer review assignments with faculty members at a departmental meeting at the beginning of each semester. The observer will take responsibility for scheduling on a mutually convenient date, and the department chair will ensure that the review occurs by the end of the semester. 
• To visit an instructor's class, observers should contact the instructor at least two weeks prior to the visit. 
• Before the class observation, the instructor should inform the observer of the session's goals, course objectives, pedagogical approaches, and related assignments. The pre-observation meeting is required and will help the observer better understand the points of the lesson, especially if it is a foreign language class where the observer does not know the target language. 
• After the class observation, the instructor should write a self-evaluation of the class and send it to the observer within two weeks. The observer will write an evaluation that will provide feedback on the self-evaluation in addition to their observations made in the classroom. The written evaluations will be shared with the instructors within one month of the class observation. The candidate and the observer should also meet and use the self-evaluation and the peer evaluation to discuss suggestions for future improvements. 
• Full professors do not need to be observed but are encouraged to invite colleagues to observe their teaching. All the criteria also apply to evaluations of fully promoted professors. 

Written documents such as self-evaluation and peer-reviews by department colleagues will be included in the candidate’s file for submission to the COA and Dean of Faculty at the time of  reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Peer reviews by department colleagues should also be stored in candidates’ files in the shared drive for EALL. Note that the teaching evaluation criteria described above are applied to all, including tenured faculty and faculty in non-tenurable positions. 

Scholarship 

In line with the scholarship criteria stated in the Faculty Handbook, the Department ³ views sound and developing scholarship as necessary for promotion to Associate Professor because such scholarship is a sign of sustained learning, creativity, and professional growth. The Department expects to see publication of research in peer-reviewed articles, books and/or digital scholarship. Note that the EALL members work in diverse disciplines (e.g., film, literature, linguistics, and language pedagogy) and the numbers of articles and other publications differ. In film/literary studies and linguistics/language pedagogy, the nature and specifics of collaboration also differ. Therefore, the candidate must clarify the role/contributions of the collaborative works in the candidate’s personal statement. For scholarly journal publications in a foreign country, the department also recognizes the journal evaluation system commonly used in the academia of that country (e.g., the Core Journal List in China). It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide accurate ranking information of the journal in the academia of the country. 

If a candidate expects to have a large portion of their peer-reviewed output consist of digital scholarship then they should communicate early with the department chair to be sure that such work falls within the department’s definition of serious peer-reviewed scholarship. 

Digital media and scholarship have expanded the objects and forms of inquiry of modern language departments to include images, sounds, data, kinetic attributes like animation, and new kinds of engagement with textual representation and analysis. Here we set forth criteria for assessing scholarly work in digital media by members of the department. 

Digital scholarship includes, but is not limited to, the following undertakings: 

• Digital preservation and/or annotation of historical materials 
• Digital recreation/restoration of historical materials 
• Digital curation of contemporary materials 
• Creation of digital instructional materials and environments 
• Creation online databases resulting from digital research 

Digital scholarship will be evaluated according to the following criteria and principles: 

• Scholarly impact as demonstrated by presentation and/or discussion in conference presentations, published articles, and other vehicles of scholarly communication, as well as citations in other projects, blogs, tweets, social media, reports, and media coverage 
• Pedagogical impact or effectiveness as judged by peers 
• Creativity in the application of existing digital tools for designing pedagogical and scholarly resources 
• Intellectual contribution and substantive research contribution in the humanities 
• Evidence of platform/tool use by communities of practice 
• Peer-review of the project including internal or external funding, pre-publication review, and post-publication review 

Other kinds of scholarship, such as invited scholarly talks, publications in popular venues, development of language teaching materials (including textbooks and digital resources), and curation of public humanities events or other outreach efforts, are also highly valued scholarly outputs. Work-in-progress, such as progress reports (e.g., to agency sponsors, grant reports), papers delivered at professional conferences, grant and research proposals, papers circulated among colleagues for review, or unpublished teaching materials, indicate progress in a faculty member’s research projects and also form part of a member’s scholarly portfolio. In the absence of peer-reviewed publications, however, these kinds of scholarship do not constitute an adequate record of scholarly activity. 

A candidate should offer a self-evaluation of their scholarship using the criteria outlined above. For the purposes of evaluation, the candidate should separate published from unpublished works (including ongoing projects). Candidates should present scholarly output as follows: 

Published works: 

• List publications in reverse chronological order, with clear and complete bibliographic information 
• Indicate whether or not the publication is peer-reviewed 
• Give a brief description of the work and its contribution to the field 
• The candidate must clarify the role/contributions of the collaborative work in the personal statement 

Unpublished works and ongoing projects: 

• Give the context and/or setting for its presentation or anticipated presentation 
• If the work is destined for publication, indicate whether or not it will be peer-reviewed and give a brief description of the work and its contribution to the field; add an expected publication date if one can be reasonably stated 

Service 

Service takes several forms including contributions to the department, to the College, to the community, and to one’s profession. The Department expects that during a faculty member’s first years at Hamilton (prior to the third-year review) the greatest effort will be devoted to course development, the refinement of teaching skills, and research and scholarship. During this time, the Department encourages service on the departmental level (such as participation in departmental activities, including serving as a language program coordinator); service on an interdisciplinary program, if appropriate; and, starting in the second year on the faculty, participation as an academic advisor. 

The Department encourages, but does not require, that a member stand for election, or accept an appointment to a College committee following their third-year review. Contributions to the Department or interdisciplinary programs, such as serving on a hiring committee, may constitute departmental service. 

Members of the Department should be mindful of the importance of service responsibilities to Hamilton’s traditions of shared governance. Nonetheless, as much as the Department and the College need the dedicated service of its faculty, a member’s contribution to service, as indicated above, no matter how substantial, will not substitute for continuing achievement in teaching and scholarship. 

II. Candidacy for Promotion to Professor 

Teaching 

Distinguished teaching, the foremost requirement for tenure, should continue to remain at a high level of effectiveness, reflecting the growing maturity and scholarly imagination necessary to challenge all types of students. The candidate’s self-evaluation of teaching should be written using the same criteria and format as outlined in the tenure section above. Such maturity can be demonstrated through the creation and/or refinement of new and existing courses, or other pedagogical efforts that involve the development of innovative teaching materials, including digital resources, that reflect the latest insights from particular fields relevant to the departmental mission. 

Scholarship 

In line with the scholarship criteria stated in the Faculty Handbook, the Department ⁴ views sound and developing scholarship as necessary for promotion to Professor because such scholarship is a sign of sustained learning, creativity, and professional growth. The Department expects to see publication of research in peer-reviewed articles, books and/or digital scholarship. Note that the EALL members work in diverse disciplines (e.g., film, literature, linguistics, and language pedagogy) and the numbers of articles and other publications differ. In film/literary studies and linguistics/language pedagogy, the nature and specifics of collaboration also differ. Therefore, the candidate must clarify the role/contributions of the collaborative works in the candidate’s personal statement. For scholarly journal publications in a foreign country, the department also recognizes the journal evaluation system commonly used in the academia of that country (e.g., the Core Journal List in China). It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide accurate ranking information of the journal in the academia of the country. 

If a candidate expects to have a large portion of their peer-reviewed output consist of digital scholarship, then they should communicate early with the department chair to be sure that such work falls within the department’s definition of serious peer-reviewed scholarship. 

Digital media and scholarship have expanded the objects and forms of inquiry of modern language departments to include images, sounds, data, kinetic attributes like animation, and new kinds of engagement with textual representation and analysis. Here we set forth criteria for assessing scholarly work in digital media by members of the department. 

• Digital scholarship includes, but is not limited to, the following undertakings: 
• Digital preservation and/or annotation of historical materials 
• Digital recreation/restoration of historical materials 
• Digital curation of contemporary materials 
• Creation of digital instructional materials and environments 
• Creation online databases resulting from digital research 

Digital scholarship will be evaluated according to the following criteria and principles: 

• Scholarly impact as demonstrated by presentation and/or discussion in conference presentations, published articles, and other vehicles of scholarly communication, as well as citations in other projects, blogs, tweets, social media, reports, and media coverage 
• Pedagogical impact or effectiveness as judged by peers 
• Creativity in the application of existing digital tools for designing pedagogical and scholarly resources 
• Intellectual contribution and substantive research contribution in the humanities 
• Evidence of platform/tool use by communities of practice 
• Peer-review of the project including internal or external funding, pre-publication review, and post-publication review 

Other kinds of scholarship, such as invited scholarly talks, publications in popular venues, development of language teaching materials (including textbooks and digital resources), and curation of public humanities events or other outreach efforts, are also highly valued scholarly outputs. Work-in-progress, such as progress reports (e.g., to agency sponsors, grant reports), papers delivered at professional conferences, grant and research proposals, papers circulated among colleagues for review, or unpublished teaching materials, indicate progress in a faculty member’s research projects and also form part of a member’s scholarly portfolio. In the absence of peer-reviewed publications, however, these kinds of scholarship do not constitute an adequate record of scholarly activity. 

A candidate should offer a self-evaluation of their scholarship using the criteria outlined above. For the purposes of evaluation, the candidate should separate published from unpublished works (including ongoing projects). Candidates should present scholarly output as follows: 

Published works: 

• List publications in reverse chronological order, with clear and complete bibliographic information 
• Indicate whether or not the publication is peer-reviewed 
• Give a brief description of the work and its contribution to the field 
• The candidate must clarify the role/contributions of the collaborative work in the personal statement 

Unpublished works and ongoing projects: 

• Give the context and/or setting for its presentation or anticipated presentation 
• If the work is destined for publication, indicate whether or not it will be peer-reviewed and give a brief description of the work and its contribution to the field; add an expected publication date if one can be reasonably stated 

Service 

The Department expects service responsibilities of all faculty members to increase following the granting of tenure. A faculty member should contribute at least one significant service commitment to the College on an annual basis. Examples of such include (1) participation on a standing committee, an ad hoc curricular committee, or a College-wide search committee; or (2) acting as department chair. The Department also recognizes the value of service to the profession, including officer or chair duties in professional organizations. The candidate’s self-evaluation of service should be written using the same criteria and format outlined in the tenure section above. 

---

¹ 91制片厂 Faculty Handbook, July 2019 edition, accessed May 4, 2020, at /documents/July%202019%20Faculty%20Handbook%20(3).pdf. Sections regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion criteria, and principles of evaluation for teaching, scholarship, and service are on pages 27-29 of this version. 

² 91制片厂 Faculty Handbook, pg. 27, July 2019 edition, accessed May 4, 2020, at /documents/July%202019%20Faculty%20Handbook%20(3).pdf. 

³ 91制片厂 Faculty Handbook, pg. 28, July 2019 edition, accessed May 4, 2020, at /documents/July%202019%20Faculty%20Handbook%20(3).pdf. 

⁴ 91制片厂 Faculty Handbook, pg. 28, July 2019 edition, accessed May 4, 2020, at /documents/July%202019%20Faculty%20Handbook%20(3).pdf. 

Approved by COA: 9/25/24