Teaching and Learning Academy

Teaching Rewards

Recognition by the provision of teaching awards is a fitting way to recognize excellence in instruction. To reward quality teaching, the Academy bestows the title, Distinguished Teaching Professor to faculty members who demonstrate exceptional teaching ability and extraordinary value to the college. In recognizing these individuals with this prestigious title, existing faculty are incentivized to strengthen their teaching skills. It also serves as a recruitment tool to attract other qualified individuals to the CHCS. Such recruitment and retention plans are consistent with the CHCS Strategic Plan. The Academy offers a maximum of three Distinguished Teaching Professorship awards each year. Awardees receive a one-time $1,000 bonus and a plaque that is awarded at an annual ceremony.

Criteria for Teaching Rewards

The intent of this award is to interpret distinguished teaching broadly to include, as noted below, significant contributions to professional, graduate, and/or undergraduate instruction. Since this is designed to recognize continued quality instruction, nominations are limited to individuals who hold continuing contract faculty positions.

Faculty must be nominated by the Department Chair of the program of which he/she is a member. Once nominated, the Chair and faculty member must submit the following documentation as part of an e-portfolio:

A written statement must be provided by the Department Chair justifying the faculty member's nomination. The written statement must be prepared by the Department Chair and should be no more than five pages in length. It should state clearly the candidate's teaching load, and how it compares to the typical teaching load in the candidate's department; it might also address the variety and levels of courses the candidate teaches. It must clearly and explicitly address each of the three following questions:
1. How well does the nominee engage and stimulate students?
  This involves meeting responsibilities to students (e.g., well prepared for class, available for consultation, responsive to student questions and needs, provides clear instructions for assigned materials and assessments), and challenging students intellectually (e.g., stimulating ideas and interchange which provoke students to learn more, demanding quality performance in a responsible manner, and causing students to rethink their values and epistemologies). Documentation might come, for example, in the form of carefully designed surveys of students, in-depth review with representative students, solicitation of testimony from successful former students, and/or faculty evaluation of syllabi or other indicators of content organization and course objectives. These examples are intended to be illustrative, not prescriptive or exhaustive.
2. How well is the nominee intellectually prepared for and dedicated to quality instruction?
  This can be addressed with information obtained from peers here and elsewhere. It might include, for example, instructional awards from professional societies or other groups, thoughtful observations from faculty colleagues about the nominee's scholarly orientation to instruction, formal participation in the organizations (such as International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) devoted to the improvement of instruction, or past departmental evaluations for promotions or raises. Here, again, these examples are only illustrative.
3. What has the nominee contributed to the overall quality of education?
  There are myriad ways in which significant contributions can be made: principal role in major curricular reform, introduction of pedagogical methods (including computer-aided instruction) that have resulted in others improving instructional quality, publication of a highly valued and used textbook or other course materials, development of new or innovative courses that occupy a key role in the curriculum, evaluated contributions to (or research in) disciplinary pedagogy, or systematic mentoring of young faculty members or teaching assistants striving to become better instructors.
4. How well did faculty demonstrate instruction and evaluation?
  This can be addressed with information from the department peer review committee of classroom instruction and evaluation. An independent formal evaluation can also be done by the HPD Center for Teaching and Learning.
  
  The supporting documentation should be judiciously assembled to include only essential materials. For example, a summary of a student survey might be included, though it is unnecessary to include each survey form. Similarly, reliance on course syllabi as indicators of content and objectives might necessitate the inclusion of a single syllabus rather than syllabi from all courses.
  
  It cannot be expected that any one individual will excel in all of the ways mentioned. However, other than in extraordinary instances, excellence must be manifested with more than a single indicator. For example, a student survey may be relevant to the case and provide useful information. However, at best it is but one indicator of what it means to achieve distinction in instruction in the broad manner intended with these awards.
  
  It is in the interest of all concerned that e-portfolios are completed in full conformance with the requirements set forth above. For this reason, persons involved in preparing e-portfolios should be sure to clear up any uncertainties they may have prior to submitting e-portfolio for committee review.
A condensed curriculum vitae with focus on teaching qualifications.
Supporting documentation, such as course evaluation data, letters or statements from colleagues or students (or summaries or excerpts thereof), syllabi, evidence of the use outstanding instructional strategies.
Nominees' e-portfolios will be due in the Office of Academic Affairs by specific date, yet to be published.
Nominees' e-portfolios will be reviewed by the Council of Professors who will then make a recommendation to the Dean of the College of Health Care Sciences.