Undergraduate TeachingAward

Faculty of Education Procedures

Thisisaninternalfacultydocumenttoguidenominators/nomineesinthepreparationofnominationpackagesfortheUniversityofAlberta, Faculty of Education UndergraduateTeachingAward.

Purpose

ToprovideFacultyspecificeligibilityrequirements,adjudicationcriteriaandinstructionsfortheFaculty of Education UndergraduateTeachingAward attheUniversityofAlberta.

Procedure

Theindividual facultymemberisresponsible for the overall nomination package. It is strongly recommended that the Faculty member work with the Department Chair to gathersupportingdocumentation,andthe development and submission of the application package.A digital copyofthenomination packageshouldbesubmittedto the Chair of the Faculty of Education Teaching Award Committee via email, se refer to the Faculty of Education, Teaching Award Information webpage for information on deadlines.

In some cases, recipients of the Faculty of Education Undergraduate Teaching Award may be invited by the Faculty of Education Teaching Awards Committee to submit a nomination package for the Rutherford Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching at the university level. As much as possible, criteria for the Faculty of Education Undergraduate Teaching Award have been aligned with the Rutherford Award. However, nowHominees need to be aware that these two awards have distinct criteria. Refer to UAPPOL for complete information concerning theRutherford Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching.

  1. Eligibility

Any individual who has completed a minimum of five years of teaching (not required to be consecutive years)at the University of Alberta as a full-time continuing member of the academic teaching staff (Category A1.1 or A1.5) is eligible. Five years is defined as five years of teaching exclusive of leaves (sabbatical, admin, family leave…) and duties (research, course release…) which constitute absence from teaching. The Faculty of Education recognizes four courses per year as being a full-time teaching load. Nominees are expected to have taught a minimum of 15 courses during the five year period. (Note: The University of Alberta Academic Year is counted from July 1 to June 30). Nominees must have been teaching within the last 24 months of the date of nomination. If an eligible individual takes on a new position that places the individual in a different staff category, that individual will remain eligible for nomination for 24 months after their reclassification.

  1. Format requirements: no more than twenty (20) letter-sized pages in length, 12 point font, minimum 1” margins, and the pages numbered in the bottom right-hand corner.
  1. Nomination packages must be accompanied by a completed nomination checklist (see Appendix A)
    This checklist should be affixed to the front of the nomination package.
  1. Nomination package must include the following to address the Adjudication Criteria listed in Section 4 (maximum 20 numbered pages, not including Appendix A):

a.The package mustinclude a maximum 2-page executive summary prepared by the Chair or Delegate (Delegates must be Academic Administrators with access to all teaching evaluations) outlining the key points upon which the nomination is based; this summary is a self-standing document and it is includedwithin the 20-page limit.

b. A statement of the nominee’s teaching philosophy. When preparing the teaching philosophy, nominees are especially encouraged to describe the “why” and not only the “what,” and “how” of their teaching.

c. Student assessments are necessary for evaluation of adjudication criteria 5. c, d, e, f, i, and j. Student assessments should provide information about the quality of teaching over a period of years and over the range of undergraduate courses taught and should demonstrate the nominee’s teaching compared with other members of the Department or Faculty. Letters from alumni are also important and provide information on the long-term effect of the nominee’s teaching.

d. External peer evaluations must be included with the nomination (see criterion 5.b). A minimum of one is required; however it is preferred that two or three be submitted. Only the Department Chair or Delegate may solicit external evaluations. At least one such evaluation must come from a peer in a related field at another academic institution. Letters to external evaluators must advise such evaluators that their assessments will be managed in a confidential manner. The external peer evaluations should be submitted in the original and must be current; they must not be excerpted or abridged. Assessments by external evaluators are limited only by the amount of teaching-related information submitted to them. It is encouraged that external evaluators be provided with a comprehensive package of the nominee’s teaching materials (it is recommended that teaching evaluations, adjudication criterion 5.f, be included along with course outlines, samples of handouts, examinations, and assignments) so that external evaluators have adequate information to assess the nominee.

e. Letters from colleagues regarding teaching, course materials, range of courses and activities related to teaching, are valuable for evaluation of adjudication criteria 5. a, g, h, and j.

f. Universal Student Ratings of Instruction (USRI) scores (see Appendix B) for the two most general categories – “Overall, the quality of the course content was excellent” and “Overall, this instructor was excellent” – and an additional category at the discretion of the instructor must be submitted for each course taught in the past five years, per Appendix B. For those courses where USRI scores were not collected, a comparable measure (e.g. student comments) is expected to be submitted. While it is not expected that nominees include all comments from each of the courses taught, nominees should ensure that evidence of course quality and instructional excellence is provided for adjudication.

g. Amaximum 2-page teaching curriculum vitae may be included within the 20-page limit.

NOTE: Nomination packages must not include extensive course outlines, bibliographies, examinations, papers, etc. This is an undergraduate teaching award, so information about graduate teaching and research publication is not relevant.

5.Adjudication Criteria

TheadjudicationcriteriafortheFacultyofEducationUndergraduateTeachingAward are listed below and nominations and documents should address these criteria:

  1. Exhibits a consistently superior command of the subject matter.
  2. Demonstrates excellent planning and organization in course outlines and objectives, reading and laboratory assignments, handouts, projects, grading schemes, examinations, and all other material associated with undergraduate courses (external peer evaluations of criterion b are to be submitted with the nomination).
  3. Instills interest in and enthusiasm for the subject on the part of students.
  4. Encourages and fosters independent study.
  5. Generates a desire for continued learning.
  6. Encourages students to be critical, to think independently and to solve problems.
  7. Presents the subject matter at an appropriate level of rigor.
  8. Demands that students have a comprehensive, coherent understanding of the subject matter.
  9. Demonstrates a concern for student progress and is available and approachable for out-of-classroom consultation.
  10. Is a valuable resource for both students and colleagues.
  11. Contributes to curriculum development for the undergraduate teacher education program.
  12. Promotes and contributes to excellence in teaching by collaborating with others within the University and/or with communities at large.

Appendix A

Undergraduate Teaching Award

Faculty of Education Nomination Checklist

I, (print name) wouldliketobeconsideredfortheFacultyofEducation Undergraduate Teaching Award.

Yes / CHECKLIST MUST BE COMPLETED AND INCLUDED WITH THE NOMINATION, AS THE UNNUMBERED FIRST PAGE
1. / Has the nominee served as a full-time continuing member of the academic teaching staff (Category A1.1 or A1.5) of the University of Alberta for at least five full years?
2. / Is the material supporting this nomination no more than twenty (20) letter-sized pages in length, 12-point font, minimum 1” margins and the pages numbered in the bottom right-hand corner?
3. / Does the nomination include an executive summary from the Chair or Delegate, as described in the Procedure section?
4. / Are external peer (a peer from an academic institution OTHER than the University of Alberta) evaluations included (if only one, is the peer in a related field at another academic institution)?
5. / Does the nomination package include USRI scores, as per the table (Appendix B) or comparable measures when no USRI is available?
6. / Has this checklist been completed by indicating yes next to each question and attached as the unnumbered first page?

Signature of Nominee: ______Date:

Nominating DepartmentName:

Nominating DepartmentChair’s Name:

Nominating DepartmentChair’s Signature:Date:

This checklist should be affixed to the front of the nomination package.

Appendix B

Undergraduate Teaching Award

USRI Reporting

USRI ratings for undergraduate courses taught during each of the past five years, in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta,precedingthenomination. USRI scores for the two most general categories – “Overall, the quality of the course content was excellent” and “Overall, this instructor was excellent” – and an additional category at the discretion of the instructor must be submitted for each course taught within theFaculty of Education, per the sample table below. For those courses which might not use USRI scores, a comparable measure (e.g. student comments) is expected to be submitted. While it is not expected that nominees include all comments from each of the courses taught, nominees should ensure that evidence of course quality and instructional excellence is provided for adjudication.

Sample USRI Result Report

Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3 / Year 4 / Year 5
1. Course # (sample) / EDU 123
Total # Students / Students who answered question / 35/45
Question 1:
“Overall, the quality of the course content was excellent.” / 4.8 / 75%
4.4 / 75% / 75% / 75% / 75%
Question 2:
“Overall, this instructor was excellent.” / 4.8 / 75%
4.8 / 75% / 75% / 75% / 75%
Question 3: At discretion of the nominee – please specify / 4.5 / 75%
4.0 / 75% / 75% / 75% / 75%
2. Course # (sample) / EDXX 345
Total # Students / Students who answered question / 35/45
Question 1:
“Overall, the quality of the course content was excellent.” / 4.6 / 75%
4.5 / 75% / 75% / 75% / 75%
Question 2:
“Overall, this instructor was excellent.” / 4.7 / 75%
4.4 / 75% / 75% / 75% / 75%
Question 3: At discretion of the nominee – please specify / 4.9 / 75%
4.2 / 75% / 75% / 75% / 75%

*Provide individual USRI scores and Faculty 75th percentile scores for each question.