Faculty Promotion Criteria & Guidelines
Promotion Guidelines from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor
Revised and approved by the faculty on May 1, 2026
Introduction
This document lays out the criteria for promotion from assistant teaching professor to associate teaching professor. It also describes evidence considered and timing of promotions. The guidelines included here are intended to offer a framework for meaningful feedback, guidance on performance and career development, and to provide clarity on the path toward promotion.
outlines the qualifications for associate teaching professor as follows:
“Appointment with the title of associate teaching professor requires extensive training, competence, and experience in the discipline.”
Expectations for promotion
The decision about promotion from assistant teaching professor to associate teaching professor is an important decision for the Information School and for the individual faculty member. It is a decision that combines an assessment of the record to date and a projection of a career into the future. While the precise opportunities and expectations vary, they all involve some measure of quality, quantity, and trajectory in the record.
At the Information School, we value interdisciplinary work and collaborative work with other units and disciplines within UW, nationally, and internationally. Work that is integrated and cross-disciplinary is very important in the information field. Nonetheless, we recognize that Information School faculty members work within a variety of disciplinary styles and traditions, and that the teaching and scholarly record of each of us may reflect a particular style or tradition. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the faculty member to articulate within what field(s) their record of accomplishments in teaching, scholarship and service is to be assessed, to convey which scholarly forms and venues the faculty member has pursued, and to provide evidence their record meets the school’s, the University’s, and the field’s expectations.
What follows are criteria the iSchool expects to see from assistant teaching professors who are being considered for promotion to associate. Recommendation for promotion is based on an overall picture of teaching, service, and scholarship, not any one performance element or a specific combination of criteria.
Teaching and Mentoring
To be promoted from assistant teaching professor to associate teaching professor, the faculty member should demonstrate a sustained record of excellence in teaching, as well as innovation in teaching and learning that embodies the five core elements of effective teaching as outlined in Faculty Code 24-32 C. These core elements are:
Aligned: Effective teaching is intentionally designed and organized to help learners meet learning objectives.
Inclusive and equitable: Effective teaching considers learners’ experiences and creates opportunities for each learner to thrive.
Active and engaged: Effective teaching creates opportunities for learners to critically engage with ideas and each other.
Growth-oriented: Effective teaching creates opportunities for learners to learn through practice and provides feedback that helps them grow their knowledge and abilities.
Relevant: Effective teaching helps learners understand why what they are learning matters and prepares them for future learning and life after the UW.
Evidence of excellence in teaching and innovation in teaching and learning are not limited to the items listed below; rather these items indicate suggestions and common points for consideration.
Excellence in teaching may be demonstrated through the following activities among others:
Excellence in course management and student communication;
Use of active learning approaches;
Instruction and practices that meet the needs of students with disabilities;
Excellence in student engagement;
Development of new course(s);
Honors or awards for teaching
Maintaining an excellent teaching portfolio
Mentoring and advising of students and student activities, including independent studies (particularly when beyond regular teaching load)
Innovation in teaching and learning may be demonstrated through a record of the following activities among others:
The development of new courses or significant revision of existing courses
The development of new online course offerings
Use and development of innovative pedagogical practices
Sharing your course materials with colleagues as benchmarks for instructional standards
Evidence of success in these areas will be judged using the following materials:
Student evaluations of teaching: Candidates are expected to have course evaluations for all of the courses taught at the UW;
Peer evaluations of teaching: The Faculty Code calls for peer review every year for assistant teaching professors, and these reviews are an important part of the candidate's record;
Syllabi of all courses taught at the University of Washington.
Optional: A self-review of teaching in the form of the.
There is a fundamental interest in the trajectory of teaching quality. Most faculty show marked improvement during their first years as they gain experience and support. For courses with student evaluations of teaching at or below a 3.0, we ask faculty to reflect on what reasons might bring about such a score, and what measures the candidate took to improve. If there are non-scored course evaluations reflecting a common theme in areas for improvement, these course evaluations should also be discussed. This is done in a separate document appended to the self-assessment.
Scholarship
Scholarly activities can be and often are deeply integrated into a teaching track professor’s teaching activities. The core distinction is that scholarship contributes knowledge and impact beyond the immediate context of one’s teaching activities in the classroom. Therefore, it is important to document how you have disseminated your knowledge contributions and the impact of your work outside of your classes.
Per the Faculty Code Section 24-32, teaching track faculty may demonstrate their scholarship in a variety of ways, including but not limited to:
introduction of new knowledge or methods into course content, including evidence of dissemination/evaluation of the new knowledge or methods
creation or use of innovative pedagogical methods, including evidence of dissemination/evaluation of the methods
development of new courses, curricula, or course materials;
participation in professional conferences;
participation in teaching innovation workshop panel(s);
evidence of student performance;
receipt of grants or awards;
contributions to interdisciplinary teaching;
participation and leadership in professional associations and in the editing of professional journals;
significant outreach to professionals at other educational institutions;
publication of industry or academic articles, chapters, textbooks, and/or compilations (or anthologies);
consulting work conducted in relevant practice areas;
serving on professional advisory boards, boards of directors and other professional leadership groups;
research publications related to teaching, learning, or education;
community-engaged research and/or teaching activities that involve reciprocal community engagement and advance public impact
The University of Washington recognizes community engagement as a core component of its public mission. Further, the UW Faculty code explicitly recognizes community-engaged research as a form of scholarly achievement (). The contains resources for defining and evaluating community-engaged scholarship and research, as distinct from other community-engaged activities. Community-engaged scholarship includes not only original research but also the integration of knowledge across disciplines, the application of knowledge to real-world problems, and the study and improvement of teaching. High-quality community-engaged scholarship is intellectually rigorous, involves reciprocal and non-extractive engagement with community partners, and yields demonstrable public impacts beyond individual encounters. In addition to providing evidence of impactful and ethical community-engaged work, candidates are encouraged to demonstrate how their community-engaged research has advanced knowledge in their scholarly field.
While teaching track faculty may choose to demonstrate their scholarship through publication, such publication shall not be required. However, evidence of scholarship should be documented so that this can be submitted for consideration by the faculty above rank during the review of the promotion case. Evidence of scholarship may overlap with portions of the record pertaining to teaching.
Service and Leadership
Communities thrive when all members contribute to the common good. Thus, candidates for promotion will have been involved in the life of the Information School, and hopefully in the life of the University and their professional community. The University and the Information School have also made engagement with the broader public one of our institutional goals. It is desirable to show evidence of contributions to or engagement with the broader community (in some cases this may be part of the job expectations), but this must be put into conscientious relation to quality service provided to the School and University.
Faculty lead by example. Leadership is showing up, fully, to work on service that benefits the whole. Signaling an informed presence in faculty meetings and traversing the committee work of the year with compassion signals professionalism (caring for the work and caring for those who do the work). We expect candidates for promotion to have demonstrated, year over year, a commitment to the iSchool and University community, and a commitment to leadership.
Contributions to Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty
The Information School values diverse voices, and our commitment to IDEAS is explicitly affirmed as one of our core values. We recognize that faculty in the iSchool come from a wide range of backgrounds, geographies, histories, and lived experiences. As a result, we do not all share the same assumptions about the generational and systemic forms of oppression and privilege that shape constraints, opportunities, and experiences of recognition and belonging in academic contexts. Our community and our processes are open to all, and we strive to ensure equitable access and participation throughout.
We invite, but do not require, candidates to demonstrate how their research, teaching, and service engage with contemporary best practices for supporting a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. In teaching, this may include careful attention to creating classroom formats and modes of participation that are accessible to all students (e.g., international students, students with disabilities, first-generation students), as well as designing course content that reflects diverse viewpoints and approaches (e.g., readings from the Global South or place-based education). In research, this may involve working with communities (e.g., “Radical Partnerships”), intentionally engaging with issues affecting marginalized populations, or practicing citational justice. Where equity and accessibility have guided scholarship, course design, leadership, or service, candidates should describe this clearly in their narrative. Doing so allows reviewers and faculty above rank to understand both the intentions and the actions demonstrated in the candidate’s record.
Timing of Promotion
Promotion from assistant teaching professor to associate teaching professor recognizes outstanding quality and performance of teaching over a sustained period of time, generally six years. Consideration will be given to accumulated years of teaching for the Information School and previous teaching appointments at other institutions.
Evidence Considered in the Promotion Process
Evidence Prepared by the Candidate
A complete and error-free Curriculum Vitae (CV) (See Appendix 1, Section 1)
Self-assessment (up to 15 pages) discussing teaching, scholarship, service, optionally IDEAS work (See Appendix 1, Section 2)
A co-authorship document that details the roles in authorship and the relationships between co-authors (optional)
A reflection on student evaluation of teaching for scores at or below 3.0 and non-scored course evaluations where common themes for areas for improvement are evident
Holistic teaching rubric (optional)
Documented evidence of scholarship
Summer addendum (See Appendix 1, Section 3)
Evidence Prepared by the School on behalf of the Candidate
Student evaluations of teaching: Candidates are expected to have course evaluations for all of the courses taught at the UW;
Peer evaluations of teaching: The Faculty Code calls for peer review every year for assistant teaching professors, and these reviews are an important part of the candidate's record;
Syllabi of all courses taught at the University of Washington.
Evidence Requested by the School
Three to six non-conflicted “arm’s length”, confidential reviews are required for promotion consideration. When evaluating assistant teaching professors who are candidates for promotion to associate teaching professor, it may be appropriate for the School to solicit letters from experts who are external to the candidate’s academic unit, but who are internal to the UW. All external reviewers should be recognized contributors to their field, as indicated, for example, by tenure and/or an academic rank senior to the candidate at a peer university, frequent citation of their work, or major awards. Members of the professional or governmental community may also serve as appropriate external reviewers. Reviewers should be able to assess scholarly and teaching achievements as well as service contributions. Requests soliciting external reviews should be tailored to the expectations of the professorial teaching track and should include representative materials (e.g., self-assessment, CV, syllabi, student and peer teaching evaluations) to assist reviewers in their evaluation.
Reviews of exhibition work or other installations described in the CV and/or the self-assessment (See Appendix 2)
Appendix 1
In this appendix, we outline resources that should be consulted and qualities and characteristics that should be considered when preparing documentation for promotion.
Section 1: The Curriculum Vitae
When preparing their CV for promotion, faculty candidates are encouraged to consult the following resources:
(from UW Office for Academic Personnel and Faculty)
and (from ̳)
Faculty are encouraged to share and seek feedback from their mentors (formal and informal)
Section 2: Self-Assessment (up to 15 pages) - To be used for both internal and external review of the promotion case
With respect to the self-assessment, UW Office for Academic Personnel and Faculty says:
“The self-assessment is one of the most important documents in the promotion packet. It provides a narrative storyline of the faculty member’s accomplishments while in rank. The self- assessment is not meant to be a retelling of what is listed on the CV. Instead, this is the document that the faculty candidate writes to contextualize, highlight, and synthesize their significant, high-quality, and impactful accomplishments in the domains of research/scholarship, teaching, and service, ensuring that this addresses their current and potential impact to their field.” (APF: )
The self-assessment, while comporting with the University guidelines, must cover scholarship; teaching and mentoring; service, leadership, and professionalism; and where appropriate IDEAS work.
Teaching
The candidate should demonstrate a sustained record of excellence in teaching, as well as innovation in teaching and learning. This can be presented within the self-assessment through a statement on teaching practice, innovations in teaching, preparation and delivery of curricula, reflection on student and peer evaluation, experiences in advising and mentoring, and the candidate’s future trajectory of teaching practice.
For courses with student evaluations of teaching at or below a 3.0, we ask faculty to reflect on what reasons might bring about such a score, and what measures the candidate took to improve. If there are non-scored course evaluations reflecting a common theme in areas for improvement, these course evaluations should also be discussed. This is done in a separate document appended to the self-assessment. This is done in a separate document appended to the self-assessment.
Scholarship
Evidence of scholarship may overlap with portions of the record pertaining to teaching. As noted above, a key distinction between the two is that scholarship contributes knowledge and impact beyond the immediate context of one’s teaching activities in the classroom. The candidate should state the field or fields they are contributing to. When discussing scholarship, the self-assessment should include: the candidate’s scholarly contributions, scholarly impact, and if published, a discussion of high-quality venues for dissemination and how they published/presented in relation to those venues.
Scholarly contributions should be arranged thematically, not chronologically. The narrative should synthesize the work for the reader. Scholarly impact can and should be demonstrated in a variety of ways. While citation measures, journal impact factors, conference acceptance rates, and bibliometrics are expected for published scholarship, other forms of scholarly impact can be discussed, including, but not limited to, quality of venue for dissemination, effect on systems design, policy, law, etc. It is expected that there is some comparison within a peer group, when possible. See section on Scholarship above for further examples of scholarly output.
Service, Leadership, and Professionalism
Quality service to the school, university, and profession is a sign of a good community member. The School values the presence of our community members in the school, working toward common aims to improve research, teaching, and learning.
Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty Work
Where the candidate has done work in IDEAS in any area, the School encourages them to provide either a description that is integrated into the other sections of the self-review, or a stand-alone section.
Section 3: Summer Addendum
All materials, except the summer addendum, are due by July 15 in the year of the intended promotion. However, it is understood that noteworthy accomplishments, related to faculty work, may be announced or come to fruition between when the documentation is submitted and when the faculty above rank deliberate the case. In order to account for these accomplishments from July 15 to September 15, candidates are invited to submit a one-page summer addendum. This addendum is due September 15 in the year of the intended promotion deliberation.
Appendix 2
This appendix describes the process by which the Information School reviews exhibition work.
In the case where faculty members list exhibitions in their CV, a review shall be conducted by a chosen expert. The process for choosing an expert follows the in form, but with two changes. Instead of six names provided by both the candidate and the PCC, they are to provide three each. Further, a single PCC is struck for each exhibition to be reviewed, and then dissolved when the names are delivered to the Dean’s office (via Faculty Affairs). That is, the exhibition PCC is not intended to be made up of the same faculty above rank as the PCC that is outlined in the Promotion Case Committee Charge. The PCC process provides both candidate and faculty input into the choice of reviewers for the exhibition, and that is why the School follows this process.