Audience Tools

Faculty Affairs

Resources:

Faculty Promotion Criteria & Guidelines

Criteria and guidelines for promotion from associate teaching professor to teaching professor 

Approved by the faculty on May 16, 2014. Revised and approved by the faculty on June 5, 2020. Revised and approved by the faculty on June 2, 2023.

Introduction 

This document lays out the criteria for promotion from associate teaching professor to 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.

UW Faculty Code 24-34 3 C outlines the qualifications for teaching professor as follows:

“Appointment with the title of teaching professor requires a record of excellence in instruction, which may be demonstrated by exemplary success in curricular design and implementation, student mentoring, and service and leadership to the department, school/college, University, and field.” 

Expectations for promotion 

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 judged, 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 associate teaching professors who are being considered for promotion to teaching professor. 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. 

Promotion to the rank of teaching professor represents the ultimate  achievement of a career dedicated to serving students, providing leadership in the development of, and innovation with, curricula (moving beyond individual coursework), while increasingly focusing on leading and mentoring other faculty on their path to teaching excellence.

The promotion also entails significant impact beyond the iSchool, contributing to the broader community of teacher scholars at the both the university and national or international levels. A teaching professor should be viewed by their disciplinary community as an expert and leader in their field.

Teaching and Mentoring

The iSchool expects a sustained record of excellence in teaching, as well as innovation in teaching and learning, from associate teaching professors. This baseline standard of excellence is also expected of teaching professors, with additional standards for leadership in teaching, curriculum development and the development of colleagues. To meet the teaching and curriculum development standard of a teaching professor, the promotion case must provide evidence of the faculty member’s sustained excellence in instruction, thought leadership/innovation in curriculum development, contributions to the broader community through scholarship of teaching, and development of other instructors through leadership and mentoring. Participation in, and contributions to, the professional community are an essential component of the level of professional development expected of a teaching professor. Such participation and contributions provide important grounding for their ongoing development of curriculum and pedagogy and enable them to connect theory to practice in their work as instructors and leaders.

Examples of evidence of leadership in teaching include:

  • Leading a significant curriculum or program development/revision initiative
  • Serving as an Academic Program Chair, advancing the program’s mission, continuously improving the curriculum and student experience
  • Conducting and publishing peer-reviewed research about teaching and/or curriculum development in their discipline
  • Leading national or international workshops, working groups, symposia and/or SIGs on teaching and/or curriculum development
  • Publishing a text and/or other educational materials that make a significant contribution to their discipline
  • Consulting with other academic units or universities on curriculum and/or academic program development
  • Mentoring multiple instructors, contributing significantly to their development as teachers over an extended period of time
  • University and/or discipline specific awards from recognized academic and other scholarly institutions for demonstrating thought leadership and excellence in teaching and curriculum development
  • Receipt of grant funds to pursue research in the area of teaching, learning and curriculum development

Additional 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 at least every three years 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  iSchool holistic teaching rubric. 

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 

Per Faculty Code 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 evaluation of the new knowledge or methods
  • creation or use of innovative pedagogical methods; including evidence of evaluation of the methods
  • development of new courses, curricula, or course materials; 
  • participation in professional conferences; 
  • evidence of student performance; 
  • receipt of grants or awards; 
  • contributions to interdisciplinary teaching; 
  • participation and leadership in professional associations; 
  • 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;
  • leading national or international practitioner workshops, working groups and/or symposia.

While teaching track faculty may choose to do so 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, the School expects that 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).  The School expects candidates for promotion to have demonstrated, year over year, a commitment to the iSchool and University community, and a commitment to leadership. 

Leadership in service to the iSchool, University, and discipline are essential evidence of a teaching professor’s depth and breadth of contribution as a steward of their institution and their field. Teaching professors are expected to serve as role models in the teaching and curriculum development community, leading initiatives inside the iSchool and beyond.

Examples of evidence of leadership in service at the School level are:

  • Serving as program chair for undergraduate or graduate programs
  • Serving as a mentor and/or coach to multiple teaching faculty over an extended period of time
  • Membership in interdisciplinary committees charged with curriculum development
  • Serving as faculty advisor for student associations
  • Development of student services related to teaching and learning (e.g., study centers, computing laboratories)
  • Creation of or leadership within labs or centers that provide new academic or pedagogical resources at the School level
  • Directing clinics or special academic training programs in the School
  • Other activities deemed to be significant evidence of excellence in this area 

Examples of evidence of leadership in service at the University level are:

  • Leadership in University Programs focused on teaching, learning and curriculum
  • Membership in or chairing of faculty councils related to teaching
  • Membership in the faculty senate, specifically on instruction-related matters
  • Participation in university-level advisory groups or committees related to teaching
  • Creation of or leadership within labs or centers that provide new academic or pedagogical resources at the University level
  • Directing clinics or special academic training programs in the University
  • Other activities deemed to be significant evidence of excellence in this area

Examples of evidence of leadership in service at the discipline level are:

  • Leadership roles in discipline-specific academic organizations focused on teaching, learning and curriculum development
  • Participation and thought leadership in teaching, learning and curriculum development in the community beyond the school and university
  • Membership in, and leadership of, discipline-level scholarship of teaching and learning associations
  • Creation of or leadership within labs or centers that provide new academic or pedagogical resources at the discipline level
  • Leadership and recognition in the professional community, including professional organizations, conferences, receipt of grants, gifts, or publications
  • Other activities deemed to be significant evidence of excellence in this area

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty  

The Information School values diverse voices.  We acknowledge that not everyone on the faculty comes from the same lived experience. We all do not share the same assumptions about generational and systemic constraints and affordances. Where candidates have done work informed by contemporary best practice in building a more diverse and inclusive environment, or where equity and accessibility have been driving forces in scholarship, course design, and in leadership and service should be described in the narrative. This allows the reviewers and the faculty above rank to see both intention and actions in the record provided. 

Timing of Promotion

Sustained, exemplary leadership and impact in the above areas is generally expected to be exhibited for a minimum of 6 years beyond the promotion to or initial appointment at the rank of associate teaching professor. 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 at least every three years 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. For candidates being considered for promotion from associate teaching professor to teaching professor, all reviewers must be external to 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 qualities and characteristics that should be considered when preparing documentation for promotion. 

Section 1: The Curriculum Vitae

University minimum requirements for the CV are:

  • Date when CV is prepared 
  • Education — including institutions, degrees granted, dates
  • PhD dissertation title and primary PhD advisor, if applicable
  • Employment — including institutions (UW, as well as others), appointments, dates 
  • UW committees and other duties 
  • Research projects, grants, contracts — including funding agencies, dates, amounts of funding, individual’s role (PI, co-PI, other) 
  • Bibliography of publications with entries listed in full bibliographic format, including page number range where publication appears, or number of pages of publication 
  • Professional offices and awards, with dates 
  • Talks, papers, or presentations — including dates, type of presentation (invited, contributed, and/or refereed) 
  • Any additional supporting information (e.g., election to office or committee status in national or international scholarly or professional organization; appointment as consultant or editor; invitation to review or evaluate the work of others; selection for grants, fellowships, or awards; achievements of former students; and significant service to the state or nation) 

 [Academic HR. (2022). Part 1: Assembly of the Promotion/Tenure Record]. 

The Information School requirements for the CV, on top of the above, are: 

  • Teaching, advising, and mentoring should be listed 
  • Service to the school, the university, the profession, and other service should be listed 
  • All non-English publications should be translated into English in brackets beneath the original citation 
  • If a non-English publication is a translation of an English publication, that should be noted. The two should be linked on the CV 
  • All theses and dissertations should list title and primary advisor(s), but also what field the work is in 
  • Items not published through a peer review process or through a peer reviewed press should be noted as “self-published” or “non-peer reviewed” as appropriate 
  • All honors and awards should be linked to the accomplishment.  For example, if a best paper is listed as an award, the award should be clearly linked to the appropriate citation 

Section 2: Self-Assessment (up to 15 pages)  - To be used for both internal and external review of the promotion case

As regards the self-assessment, the University says: 

“In addition to the CV, the candidate should prepare a written self-assessment of academic accomplishments as well as future plans and career trajectory. Candidates are referred toFaculty Code Section 24-32 and Executive Order 45, which outline pertinent scholarship and professional qualifications of particular importance at the University of Washington. 

In the self-assessment, the candidate should reflect on the significance, independence, influence, and promise of completed and in-progress scholarship and/or creative work. The focus should be on achievements in rank or title at the University of Washington, but it is important to place those achievements in context with how it fits into a larger body of work or program. Candidates holding ranks or titles with a primary emphasis in research or teaching should particularly reflect upon accomplishments and experiences that are consistent with their rank or title. All candidates should outline contributions to the profession, the University, and public service,” [Academic HR. (2022). Part 1: Assembly of the Promotion/Tenure Record]. 

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. 

Research and Scholarship

Evidence of scholarship may overlap with portions of the record pertaining to teaching. The candidate should state the field or fields they are contributing to.  When discussing research and scholarship, the self-assessment should include: the candidate’s scholarly contributions, scholarly impact, and if publishing their works, a discussion of high quality venues for research dissemination and how they published 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 google scholar metrics are expected, we encourage other forms of scholarly impact to be discussed, including, but not limited to, quality of venue for dissemination, effect on systems design, policy, law, etc.  We also expect some comparison within a peer group, when possible. 

Service, Leadership, and Professionalism

Quality service to the school, university, and profession is a sign of a good community member.  We value the presence of our community members in the school, working toward common aims to improve scholarship, teaching, and learning. 

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, and Sovereignty Work 

Where the candidate has done work in IDEAS in any area, we encourage 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 June 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 June 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 Promotion Case Committee (PCC) Charge 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.

Resources: