National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS)
2015
Further information for nominees based at Scotland’s higher education providers: key points about gaining a National Teaching Fellowship (NTF)and characteristics of nominations
This document provides some key points about the NTFS and also provides information about the nature of successful applications. Full details about the nomination process can be found in the Award guidelines document.
Key Points
The NTFS is used as a model todevelop and extend university-wide schemes, aiming to raise the status of teaching and support the professional development of staff who teach and support student learning. Gaining a National Teaching Fellowship has been used as evidence for promotion and has been instrumental in individuals’ career progression.
The NTFS review: report on findings 2012, available on the HEA website, draws together comments from staff and students in different institutions on the impact of the NTFS. In addition, further insights into being an NTF can be found inthe NTF 2010 cohort reportand on the website there are case studies from individual National Teaching Fellows which provide detail on what effect the award has had on them. Together these provide an understanding of the reach, value and impact of gaining an NTF award.
The next section provides some information which will be of value to any prospective nominee.
Successful and unsuccessful nominations
Information has been collated from previous rounds of the NTFS to provide support for nominees. The data reports have shown the profile of successful NTFs and also drawn out key features of the nominations of successful and unsuccessful nominations.
From the 2014 round, as with previous rounds, the NTFs awarded showed creativity and innovation in their nominations and produced claims that were clearly underpinned by a variety of evidence.
Reviewers are asked to provide comments against each criterion which is fed back to nominees. Drawing on the reviewers’ responses over 2013 and 2014, a number of key words and trends can be found in the successful nominations:
Criterion one focuses on individual excellence and providing evidence of enhancing and transforming the student learning experience. The key words most often used by reviewers when describing successful nominees/nominations under this criterion were: innovative, clear evidence, critically reflective, creative, impact, transformative, effective change and inclusive.
Criterion two is about raising the profile of excellence and providing evidence of supporting colleagues and influencing support for student learning. The key words and phrases most often used by reviewers when commenting on nominees/nominations successful in this criterion were: leadership, coaching, embedding of practice, mentor, influence, persuasive evidence, impact, evaluation, and national and international dissemination of practice.
Criterion three focuses on developing excellence as evidenced by the nominee’s commitment to his/her on-going professional development with regards to teaching and learning and/or learning support. Of the three criteria, criterion three often proves to be the most challenging. Successful nominees do more than cite the CPD activity they had engaged in; they clearly reflect on their own professional development, outlining what they had learnt, how they had applied the knowledge gained and what resulted from application and embedding of practice. Key words are difficult to identify in this context since the claims are very personal and individual.
Unsuccessful nominations give less explicit evidence and often the different sections are imbalanced. In general, there is insufficient evidence provided of enhancing and transforming the student learning experience and there is a reference to few types of CPD in relation to criterion three. Such claims also can be descriptive rather than critically reflective.
Page 1 of 2