Environmental Studies Guidelines
The Environmental Studies Program seeks to tenure and promote teacher-scholars who are active members of the program and college communities. Tenure decisions will be based on accomplishment and promise in teaching, scholarship, and service. The first two criteria are the most important, and, in keeping with the Faculty Handbook, the quality of teaching will be the most heavily weighted.
Process for Evaluation Prior to Re-appointment and Tenure
The Program Director and ad hoc committee chair have primary responsibility for advising tenure-track faculty as they work toward reappointment and tenure. This will be done formally through the ad hoc committee chair’s evaluation of tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports each year, which will be reviewed and signed by all members of the candidate’s reappointment and tenure review committee. Through this process, the ad hoc committee chair will review the tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports, highlighting their contributions to teaching, research, and service.
To evaluate teaching, each voting member of the reappointment and tenure review committee will observe the teaching of the untenured faculty member. Each semester, classroom observation visits will be organized by the Program Director, the ad hoc committee chair, the candidate, and the other members of the candidate’s ad hoc committee. Prior to the classroom observation, the candidate will share relevant course materials with the observer, and the candidate and observer will meet to discuss the goals and structure of the sessions to be observed. After the observation, the candidate and observer will meet to discuss the observation. The observer will write a brief report of the observation, including notes about the pre-observation meeting and materials shared with the observer, and share the report with the candidate, normally within two weeks of the observation. The candidate may then request to meet again with the observer if they have any questions about or concerns with the report, and the report may be revised after this meeting. By the end of the semester of the observation, the observer must submit the finalized report to the Program Director/ad hoc committee chair and the candidate. Candidates may choose to include these reports in their submitted materials for reappointment and tenure/promotion. Each voting member on reappointment, tenure, and promotion shall visit at least one session of one class prior to reappointment, and again prior to tenure. Candidates will have at least one observation per semester with the option to arrange for additional observations at the discretion of the candidate and their committee.
Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Teaching Criteria and Evidence
Assessment of the quality of teaching will be based on the following sources of evidence:
- Self-reflection on teaching in annual reports and in personal statements.
- Direct observation of classroom teaching by ad hoc committee members.
- Student comments on teaching, both in course evaluation forms and selected and random student letters. Given the significant, multiple, and systemic biases exhibited in course evaluations, use of evaluations should be limited to identifying general patterns in teaching effectiveness and the classroom environment to assist with highlighting areas for growth and improvement. General patterns in teaching effectiveness and the classroom environment reflected in course evaluations should be identified by the ad hoc committee in consultation with the candidate and discussed in the annual review process.
- The ad hoc committee’s and external reviewers’ assessment of the candidate’s submitted teaching materials.
The criteria evaluated for teaching effectiveness and the common sources of evidence of teaching effectiveness for those criteria are listed below. These criteria apply to teaching at all levels of the curriculum. Sources of evidence may also include other materials available to the ad hoc committee, as allowed by the Faculty Handbook.
- An inclusive pedagogical approach, using methods of instruction that encourage a developing sense of belonging for students marginalized because of factors such as their race, gender, ethnicity, class, and/or diverse ability, and which present students with opportunities to demonstrate their learning and development via multiple modes of instruction. Evidence for this should be found in personal statements and reflections, syllabi, and assignments. Additional evidence may also be found in student letters, comments found in student evaluations, and/or classroom observations.
- Course content current with developments in the field. Evidence for this can be found in personal statements, syllabi and/or assignments.
- Ability to stimulate, evaluate, and effectively communicate with students, which includes clearly articulating course expectations and grading criteria and thoughtfully evaluating and grading student work in a timely manner. Use of methods of instruction that challenge and engage students within the discipline. Evidence for this can be found in personal statements, syllabi and assignment documents, classroom observations, and/or student comments found in student evaluations and letters.
- Engagement of students in research through senior projects, summer internships/research mentorship, or independent study opportunities. Evidence for this can be found in personal statements, annual reports, and/or student letters.
- Articulation of teaching philosophy and goals for students and demonstration of how teaching philosophy is implemented and goals for students are achieved. Evidence for this should be found in personal statements. Additional evidence may be found in syllabi and/or assignments.
- Continued development of courses and course materials that are consistent with research and/or best practice in pedagogy and innovation in pedagogy as appropriate. Evidence for this can be found in submitted materials including personal statements, syllabi and/or assignments.
- Consideration of and response to feedback identified in annual reviews and classroom observations. As stated above, the Program and ad hoc committees recognize the systemic biases present in end-of-course student evaluations, and thus, while they can serve as the basis of reflection, they will not be used on their own as evidence for the consideration of and response to feedback. General patterns in teaching effectiveness and the classroom environment reflected in course evaluations should be identified by the ad hoc committee in consultation with the candidate and discussed in the annual review process. Consideration of and responses to student feedback can include actions such as curriculum development, classroom management, instruction modalities, and assessments. Evidence for this consideration and response should be demonstrated in practice and reflected in subsequent annual reviews, personal statements, submitted materials and/or classroom observations.
Scholarship
We believe that active and rigorous scholarship is both an end in itself, and is the foundation of good teaching; therefore, faculty must demonstrate evidence of the development of a clear research agenda, engagement with scholars in the candidate’s field both within the College and beyond, familiarity with recent developments in the field, and the ability to communicate and/or share the work of research and scholarship with students in practice and/or within their classrooms.
Publication of original scholarship – incorporating the generation of new data or ideas – is required in the record of scholarly productivity. The candidate’s publication record must demonstrate research that has progressed further than that found directly in their dissertation and/or postdoctoral work. This can mean articles on new but related topics, or the substantial revision of a dissertation into a monograph. Given the potential for time-lag in publication, work that has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication without any further revision will be treated as if it were published. Receiving grant funds from external agencies is not required evidence of scholarship in tenure evaluation, but it is valuable evidence of developing/ongoing research and represents positive peer-review of a research program underway. Scholarship will be judged on the basis of quality, quantity, and trajectory.
Quality
Assessment of quality will be based on publication venue, internal reading of scholarly work, and especially reports from external reviewers. We recognize that collaboration is common or even essential for many research projects; a candidate must, however, demonstrate intellectual leadership in at least some of his/her published research. Books and articles in refereed journals, including peer reviewed articles about pedagogy, will receive the greatest weight. Within this criterion, we recognize differences among journals in quality and scope; although no formal measures are calculated (e.g., impact factors), additional evaluative weight is given to papers that appear in more general or widely distributed (i.e., prestigious) journals. In turn, monographs or original volumes published by reputable presses will be given more weight than edited or co-authored volumes. Other types of published and non-published scholarship contribute to evidence of scholarly activity but do not substitute for publication of original research in the form of a book or within books and peer-reviewed journals. These include:
- Successful grant applications.
- Articles in anthologies and edited volumes, review articles, translations, synthesis papers, or textbooks.
- Articles that have been submitted to journals (especially those that have received an invitation to “revise and resubmit”).
- Public Humanities, community-engaged scholarship, or community activism/organization projects that demonstrate engagement with previous scholarship in design and execution, contribute to major lines of inquiry in the field, and which demonstrate an impact on the field and/or on the communities involved.
- Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, conference papers, or written materials that have not been peer-reviewed.
- Excellent reviews of unsuccessful grant proposals. (The Program recognizes variation in funding rates among grant-funding agencies and divisions within agencies and availability of funding opportunities across disciplines.)
- A variety of other measures that demonstrate that the candidate’s colleagues value his/her work (e.g., invitations to collaborate, speak, chair sessions, lead field trips, write book reviews, and review proposals and manuscripts).
Quantity
The Program believes that quality is more important than any fixed standard of quantity. Assessment of quantity depends upon the particular field of contribution chosen by the candidate. For those choosing to publish their research in book form, successful candidates will ordinarily have had a book accepted for publication. For those choosing to publish their research as articles, the primary measure of scholarly success is publication of original research in widely distributed, high quality, peer-reviewed journals or edited volumes. There is no set number of papers that need to be published, as the Program recognizes different field/ data collection methods and timelines that affect time to publication. Although expectations of quantity may vary, candidates should develop a research plan that repeatedly demonstrates completion of published research within the pre-tenure timeframe, as is appropriate for the discipline in question.
Trajectory
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 tenure, and the candidate’s research portfolio must contain a statement that describes the candidate’s post-tenure research agenda.
Service
The program expects candidates for tenure to serve the program, the College, and the larger environmental studies community in roles beyond their teaching and scholarship. We endeavor not to overburden junior faculty with service, but expect them to participate in the shared governance of the College, such as by serving on appointed or elected College-wide committees. We also value service that directly benefits student learning beyond the classroom, such as bringing speakers to campus and advising relevant student groups. In addition, being an effective adviser of majors and non-majors is required. The Program expects pre-tenure faculty to contribute to institutional grant proposals as appropriate to the candidate’s field. The level of involvement in proposal development should be determined in close consultation with the program director and tenured faculty.
We value service to the profession, such as organizing panels or small conferences, taking on organizational tasks in national or regional professional associations, serving in positions of responsibility in professional organizations or as a reviewer or editor for a journal, book series, or edited volume. Service can also be in the local community, such as volunteering in schools, working on environmental projects that affect the community, and sharing one’s expertise in the media.
Process for Promotion to Professor
The Faculty Handbook states that those promoted to the rank of Professor “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.” More specifically, faculty appointed in Environmental Studies should show distinction in teaching, research, and service within the context of our highly interdisciplinary and student-centric program.
Guidelines for Promotion to Professor: Teaching
Candidates should provide evidence of continued dedication to and success in distinguished teaching as demonstrated by continued effectiveness, following the criteria laid out above for tenure, as well as the following criteria:
- the development of new courses and pedagogies; Evidence for this can be found in submitted materials including but not limited to the personal statement, syllabi, and selected assignments.
- the revision of course syllabi; Evidence for this can be found in submitted materials including but not limited to personal statement and syllabi.
- students’ rigorous intellectual or creative engagement in the candidate’s classes and beyond; Evidence for this can be found in submitted materials, classroom observations, and student letters and comments.
Faculty members voting on promotion should observe the candidate’s teaching at least once since tenure, following the same procedures outlined for classroom observations for tenure-track candidates, and provide a written evaluation of the candidate
Promotion to Professor: Scholarship
Candidates must continue to be active scholars, and to have attained some distinction in their field. Although candidates may continue in the same area of scholarly work as before tenure, they must demonstrate that they have moved beyond the body of work submitted during the tenure review. This new work should show sustained progress and result in significant publications. The primary measure of scholarly success is publication of original research in widely distributed, high quality, 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 his/her published research. We especially value work that engages students and reflects the interdisciplinarity that is central to Environmental Studies. In addition, candidates should be able to demonstrate that the professional community values his/her work by, for example, invitations to collaborate, speak, chair sessions at conferences, evaluate grants, write book reviews, review proposals and manuscripts, etc.
Other types of published and non-published scholarship can contribute to evidence of scholarly activity. These include
- Successful grant applications
- Review articles, synthesis papers, or textbooks
- Encyclopedia entries, book reviews, or written materials that have not been peer-reviewed
- Excellent reviews of unsuccessful grant proposals
These examples of scholarship may be considered by the department but do not substitute for publication of original research in peer-reviewed journals.
Evaluation of Fully Promoted Professors
Fully promoted Professors will continue to be evaluated through the same criteria for teaching laid out for tenure and promotion above, through the annual review process.
Process for Evaluation of Non-Tenure Line Faculty
All faculty appointed to the Environmental Studies Program will have the opportunity to have their teaching observed. Lecturers and visiting professors in renewable positions must be observed, while visitors in one-year non-renewable appointments may choose to be observed and may choose whether to receive a written report.
At the start of each semester, classroom observation visits will be organized by the Program Director, in consultation with the faculty members being observed. Non tenure-line faculty may be observed by both tenured and untenured members of the Environmental Studies Program, or by tenured members of the Environmental Studies Program Committee and/or members of other relevant adjacent departments.
Prior to the classroom observation, the faculty member being observed and the observer will meet to discuss the goals and structure of the sessions to be observed. After the observation, the faculty member being observed and the observer will meet to discuss the observation. The observer will write a report of the observation and share it with the faculty member being observed, normally within two weeks of the observation. The faculty member being observed may then request to meet again with the observer if they have any questions about or concerns with the report, and the report may be revised after this meeting. By the end of the semester of the observation, the observer must submit the finalized report to the Program Director and the report must be given to the faculty member being observed. The non-tenure line faculty member may choose whether to include the report in materials evaluated for reappointment. Normally, candidates will not be observed more than once per semester.
Guidelines for Reappointment of Lecturers and Visitors and Faculty of Instruction
Criteria and common sources of evidence of teaching effectiveness are the same as those listed above for consideration for tenure.
Approved by COA 2/2/25
