91制片厂

Previous Guidelines

Teaching 

In considering faculty for reappointment and tenure, Hamilton places its highest premium on excellence in the classroom. The successful candidate will have established a record of excellent teaching. 

The Department recognizes that excellence in teaching may well look different for different professors, as well as within the different disciplines contained within the Literature and Creative Writing Department. Effective teaching may include not only classroom instruction, but also, among other things: the development of engaging courses across multiple levels of the curriculum; contribution to established departmental courses that overlap with their expertise and interests; academic mentoring of students; and advising students on senior projects. 

Teaching will be evaluated based on the candidate’s articulation of their pedagogy, their teaching materials, peer review, and student feedback (course evaluations as well as letters from randomly selected and instructor-selected students). Peer review of teaching (outlined in detail below) will include both classroom observation and review of course materials. We urge newly-hired faculty to become familiar with how Hamilton currently elicits student feedback, and we expect junior faculty to consult regularly with the chair and their department mentor about their teaching, including discussion of various forms of feedback they are receiving, with the understanding that the department is aware of and sensitive to types of bias that faculty may encounter. 

The overall trajectory of a candidate’s teaching record is a consideration in the decision to award reappointment and tenure (a trajectory that includes not only good performance in the classroom and attention to student writing, but also the development of new courses and/or the revision of existing ones). 

All Literature and Creative Writing faculty should: 

• Challenge students intellectually. Create an intellectually challenging environment, foster discussion, and motivate students to develop their own creative and critical voices. Raise questions that encourage students to be more self-aware and flexible with respect to their fundamental values, assumptions, and ideological commitments. Model and encourage careful literary and theoretical analysis appropriate to the course. Evidence of this practice will include the thoughtfulness and clarity of course design as expressed in personal statements and course materials and as observed in classroom visits. Student feedback should demonstrate that courses are designed to challenge students appropriately, while respecting the diversity of preparation and experiences among students. 
• Provide reasonable assistance to students outside of class. This may include the academic mentoring of individual students, as well as intellectual engagement with concentrators and minors, evidence of which may be seen in the candidate’s materials and student feedback. We note, however, that students may make significantly higher demands for assistance from women, faculty of color, and those from other marginalized groups. We emphasize the word “reasonable” here to indicate that not every request for assistance outside of class need be accommodated. 
• Use inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices. As appropriate to the discipline and course, offer multiple ways for students to demonstrate their learning and development. Indicators can be found in assignments and syllabi; classroom observation can assess the extent to which there is broad engagement and interaction with all students. Self-evaluation can reveal steps taken to adapt pedagogy and course materials to be more inclusive of the students in the class. Student feedback may also testify to the faculty member’s inclusive practice. 
• Demonstrate engagement with new developments in the discipline and creative or interdisciplinary pedagogy. Indicators of this can be found in the way syllabi and assignments that are included in peer review incorporate recent scholarship and issues of contemporary relevance, particularly those that address historical inequities and marginalization in the discipline. Classroom observation can reveal how, and to what extent, current disciplinary or interdisciplinary discussions shape course content, assignment design, and pedagogy. Indicators can also be found in self-evaluation that describes the way a faculty member has revised a course or developed a new course based on developments in the field. 
• Involve reflective and ongoing growth. Attend to the ongoing development of pedagogical practice. Indicators of this can be found in self-evaluation, which could report on experimentation with different pedagogical approaches, development of new courses, and/or revision of existing ones. Evidence for these might be found in course materials and from classroom observations. It may also be evident in participation in faculty development activities such as attending workshops about teaching or participating in other forms of peer review. 

Candidates for reappointment will have made demonstrable progress toward fulfilling these expectations, as reflected in their personal statements and course materials, reports from departmental observers, student feedback, and other items mentioned above. Candidates for tenure will have established a record of success. 

Standards and Practices for Peer Review of Teaching 

The Department will review the teaching of all faculty in non-tenurable and untenured positions, and those at the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, using the process and timeline outlined below. 

1. Normally, faculty in their first semester of teaching will be reviewed for formative purposes only; no written documentation of the first semester review will be retained. Faculty in short-term contracts (e.g., one-semester or one-year positions) will be reviewed in their first semester in order to facilitate the writing of recommendation letters. Peer review of tenure track faculty should be spread out over the time preceding major personnel decisions (reappointment, tenure, and promotion). Each faculty member, including those in non-tenure-track positions, will normally be observed once each year. Tenure-track faculty may be observed more frequently to ensure adequate preparation for reappointment and tenure decisions. 
2. Each semester thereafter, a tenured member of the department may conduct a peer review of the candidate’s teaching. The department chair (or designated senior faculty member) will make peer review assignments at the beginning of each semester, the reviewer will take responsibility for scheduling on a mutually convenient date, and the department chair (or designated senior faculty member) will ensure that the review occurs by the end of the semester. When observations are scheduled, pre- and post-observation meetings should also be set up at the same time. 
3. Classroom observation of teaching in Literature and Creative Writing will include a pre-observation meeting, review of select course materials by the observer, an in-class observation of a week’s worth of classes, a post-observation meeting between the observer and the candidate, and written documentation of the observation that is shared with the candidate in a timely manner. Each classroom observation will comprise a week’s worth of class sessions, and no more than two such observations may occur in a single semester. Each observation will be conducted by one colleague only, who will not record the sessions. Observing for a full week gives the tenured faculty member a clear sense of how the candidate organizes class material and interacts with students while removing the pressure on the candidate to produce a single brilliant class meeting. 
4. For observations by colleagues outside the department (for example, in the case of an interdisciplinary hire housed in the department), the department chair and the instructor should consult to determine appropriate observers. The department chair should then contact the agreed-upon colleagues to request their participation and facilitate the scheduling of observations. 
5. The general process for classroom observation is as follows: The candidate shall share select course materials with the observer in advance of a pre-observation meeting. Before the observation, the candidate and observer shall meet in person (or via video conference) to discuss the goals for the class sessions/course to be observed, their teaching philosophy and how it informs said sessions/course, and any specific elements on which the candidate would like feedback. Needless to say, the observer should show up on time, if not early, stay for the whole class, and take detailed notes, but not participate in the class. The observer should follow rules established for students in the class regarding use of technology, eating/drinking, and so on. 
   
   Following the classroom observations, the observer shall draft a report (see the Classroom Observation Report,” below) and share it with the candidate in preparation for a post-observation meeting. This meeting between the candidate and the observer should take place in-person (or by video conference) fairly soon after the observations (preferably within 1 week). The meeting shall center on the specific observation areas listed on the report and should include discussion of the reflection questions. The observer shall strive for a balance between praise, constructive criticism, and self-reflection. The report may be edited after the post-observation meeting, based on the conversation. The observer will then submit the final report to the chair by the end of the semester. 
6. The observer’s report becomes a part of the candidate’s internal departmental file, which will be read by the candidate and other tenured members of the department. Candidates read the report before it is filed and discuss with the observer any concerns they may have and suggest changes; if necessary, the candidate may also bring those concerns to the department chair. Since the report remains at the departmental level (i.e., it is not read by the Dean or by the members of the Committee on Appointments), it may include advice about teaching as well as its evaluation. Candidates are encouraged to work with the department chair to address issues that may arise. All reports may be referenced in the department recommendation letter and in annual reviews. 
7. All voting members of the department should have firsthand knowledge of the candidate’s teaching, gathered either through classroom observation or through an in-depth review and discussion of teaching materials, with the majority of the department having observed a candidate’s teaching. Before reappointment, a candidate should normally be observed by four voting members of the department. An in-depth review and discussion of teaching materials could cover all materials related to a single course, paying attention to course structure, content and sequencing of all assignments in a course, and a sampling of student work. Alternatively, it could focus on a more select set of materials that have been newly designed or overhauled as part of a course redesign (e.g., if an existing course is reimagined as an experiential learning or SSIH course, or structured around team-based learning).
   
   Peer review of teaching materials (sans classroom observation) will follow the same general process: faculty members will meet to have a conversation and the reviewer will submit written documentation of the review of teaching materials to the candidate and then to the Chair after the candidate has a chance to respond. The review will be guided by the observation areas most relevant to the materials at hand. 
8. Annual department reviews should verify that observations were performed for all non-tenurable faculty and tenure-track Assistant and Associate professors and untenured faculty. If the peer observation system is extended to all faculty, annual department reviews should reflect this expansion. 

See the PDF for a copy of the two-page observation report. 

Scholarly/Creative Work 

The Department of Literature and Creative Writing offers concentrations in the study of literature and the art of creative writing, and we have full-time faculty in both fields. The department is aware of the differences in scholarly and creative venues and procedures for publication, and our standards for publication in scholarly and creative work take those structural differences into account. As literary study has become increasingly interdisciplinary, work in cognate fields (e.g. art history, film studies, music) and work that expands the boundaries of the discipline are encouraged and count toward tenure and promotion in the same way that work focused on a more traditional conception of literary study would count. 

While the department does not demand “the tenure book,” candidates in Literature and Creative Writing will not be recommended for tenure without a record of publication and strong evidence that continued publication is likely. The file should demonstrate that the candidate has a clear professional trajectory. 

An acceptable record of publication for reappointment in literary study could look like this: 

1. 2 scholarly essays in peer-reviewed journals (print or online), or in edited collections published by university or commercial scholarly presses that employ peer review; or: a completed book manuscript under review at a university or recognized commercial scholarly press. 
2. an article in print as in item 1, with another article or articles under review and/or a substantial manuscript in progress, or some other scholarly work, such as an edited translation of a text, development of a digital archive, etc. 

All written or published work must be judged by the department to be of sufficiently high quality. Given the time-lag in publication, work accepted will be treated as if it were published. Also, recognizing changes in publication venues, digital publication and work in the digital humanities will be judged in the same manner as print publication. 

Presentations at conferences are certainly part of any successful candidate’s research portfolio. They are not, however, a substitute for publication. Encyclopedia entries and book reviews may count towards publication but should not constitute the bulk of the candidate’s file. 

In creative writing, an acceptable record of publication for reappointment could involve: 

1. publication of 1-2 stories or 4-5 poems of substantial length (over 2,000 words in fiction, 10 lines in poetry) in nationally distributed journals or in edited collections published by university, commercial, or respected small presses; or: 
2. a completed book manuscript (short story or poetry collection, or novel) under review at a university, commercial, or respected small press. 

Given the time-lag in publication, work accepted will be treated as if it were published. 

Also, recognizing changes in publication venues, digital publication will be judged in the same manner as print publication. 

Again, all written or published work must be judged by the department to be of sufficiently high quality. As in literary scholarship, a book manuscript nearing completion is also acceptable. Scholarly essays and conference presentations by creative writing candidates, as well as items such as encyclopedia entries and book reviews, may enhance a file; such material is not, however, a substitute for creative work. 

Since it is not difficult to imagine acceptable records of publication different from the ones outlined above, we urge candidates for tenure who have questions or concerns to consult with the chair. 

For tenure in literary study, such a record could be demonstrated in this manner: 

1. publication of 4 or more scholarly essays in peer-reviewed journals (print or online), or in edited collections published by university or commercial scholarly presses that employ peer review. A publication record consisting only of essays published in collections may be acceptable if the quality of the essays and the collections (taken as a whole) is judged sufficiently high by the department and external reviewers; or: 
2. a book published by, or under contract with, a university or commercial scholarly press that employs peer review; or: 
3. a record consisting of fewer than 4 published essays combined with a high-quality book manuscript nearing completion, or with some other scholarly work, such as an edited collection of essays or primary texts, an edited translation of a text, a digital archive, etc. Given the time-lag in publication, work accepted will be treated as if it were published. 

Also, recognizing changes in publication venues, digital publication and work in the digital humanities will be judged in the same manner as print publication. Publication of creative nonfiction, essays about pedagogy, or essays focused at a general public, and editorial work at a journal will count as part of the record but should not constitute the bulk of the candidate’s production. 

Whatever the candidate’s profile of publication, in all cases the quality of the work must be judged sufficiently high by the department and the external reviewers. 

For tenure in creative writing, we would expect a record of publication resembling this: 

1. publication of 4 or more stories or 8 or more poems of substantial length (i.e., over 2,000 words in fiction, 10 lines in poetry) in nationally distributed journals or in edited collections published by university, commercial, or respected small presses. A publication record consisting only of stories/poems published in collections may be acceptable if the quality of the creative work and the collections (taken as a whole) is judged sufficiently high by the department and external reviewers; or: 
2. a book (short story or poetry collection, or novel) published by, or under contract with, a university, commercial, or respected small press; or: 
3. a record consisting of fewer than 4 published stories or 8 poems combined with a high-quality book manuscript (short story or poetry collection, or novel) at an advanced stage of production. 

As with scholarly work, creative pieces accepted will be treated as if they were published. 

Also, recognizing changes in publication venues, digital publication will be judged in the same manner as print publication. Scholarly essays and conference presentations by creative writing candidates, as well as items such as encyclopedia entries and book reviews, may enhance a file; such material is not, however, a substitute for creative work. 

Whatever the candidate’s profile of publication, in all cases the quality of the work must be judged sufficiently high by the department and external reviewers. Since it is not difficult to imagine acceptable records of publication different from the ones outlined above, we urge candidates for tenure who have questions or concerns to consult with the chair. 

Service 

The Faculty Handbook makes clear that college service, while a necessary aspect of any successful tenure case, is distinctly less important than good teaching and a solid record of publication. Thus, the department protects its untenured faculty from unduly heavy service both inside and outside the department. We expect, though, that candidates will have established a record of academic good citizenship. Before reappointment, this is accomplished by good attendance at, and participation in, department meetings and activities and events (which would include readings and presentations by students as well as visiting scholars, poets, or novelists), and by good attendance at the college’s monthly faculty meetings. We also expect that, if asked to participate on a job search committee, the candidate will give thoughtful, reliable service. The successful tenure candidate will have accepted his or her fair share of work within the department, such as organizing events and reviewing entries for various departmental writing prizes, and will have served on one or a few appropriate appointed or elected committees. As faculty members grow in their fields, it is to be expected that they will participate in the larger professional community through activity at conferences and in professional organizations. 

Standards for Promotion to Professor 

The quality we most value as a standard for promotion to the rank of Professor is distinction, as articulated in the Faculty Handbook in section VI.C.10. “Those appointed to the Faculty with this rank or promoted into this rank are expected to provide distinction to the Faculty as teachers, to have demonstrated sound, continuing growth as scholars, and to serve as leaders of the academic community.” 

In teaching, distinction is expressed via continuing excellence in the criteria described above and through participation in formal and informal departmental conversations about pedagogy. It means innovation, developing new courses or new ways of teaching older courses—a continual reconsideration of what we do. It implies holding one’s students and one’s self to high standards. And it implies mentoring: exchanging ideas with colleagues to improve the quality of teaching in the department and the college. Professors’ teaching will be evaluated in their annual reviews on the basis of the faculty member’s articulation of their pedagogy, their course materials, and student feedback. 

In scholarship, distinction implies engagement, achievement, and recognition. A scholar or creative writer worthy of promotion to the rank of Professor shows evidence of continuing engagement with scholarly or creative work over a considerable time. Current and past work is part of something larger: a body of work devoted to the discipline or genre in which the scholar or writer is engaged, developed over a sustained period of time. The quality of the scholarship and writing is important. The department’s evaluation of the work has weight, but we also look for evidence of a scholarly or creative reputation beyond Hamilton: recognition by one’s peers at other institutions, acceptance of one’s work in refereed or nationally distributed journals, and publication by well-regarded presses. In evaluating scholarship, we believe that journal articles can be as significant as a monograph. In evaluating creative writing, we believe that individually published stories and poems can be as significant as a novel or a collection. Similarly, we accept the MLA’s stipulation that work that is complete and in press be considered equal to work already published and that completed work under review by a publisher be taken into consideration by the department; we judge digital publication in the same way that we judge print. 

In the community, distinction means not merely service on committees but taking an active and prominent role in guiding the department and the institution in defining its goals and achieving them. It also implies mentorship of colleagues. 

To enumerate the specific ways in which these qualities can manifest themselves—for example, by specifying a number of publications or committee memberships—would be a mistake: it would reduce the flexibility to recognize merit when it appears in unexpected or innovative forms. We recognize that no member of the faculty has all these qualities in equal measure. Some excel in one category and some in another, and at different times in one's life and different stages in one’s career one may emphasize one area of leadership over another. But in all cases, demonstrated leadership is the fundamental and irreducible requirement for promotion to the rank of Professor. 

---

 Approved by COA on 10/30/24