Preparing a Nomination

Introduction

If you are reading this, then you are likely considering making a nomination for a 3M National Teaching Fellowship. We hope the information is useful to you. What we have tried to do is to put down in one place some of the observations that reviewers of the dossiers have made over the years. These observations provide a window into the Selection Committee for these awards and some insight into how members of that Selection Committee review the various kinds of evidence submitted.

The Selection Process

The two criteria for these awards are:

• excellence in teaching over a number of years, principally (but not exclusively) at the undergraduate level; and,

• commitment to the improvement of university teaching with emphasis on contributions beyond the nominee’s discipline or profession.

Each year, up to ten faculty members are selected from the nominations submitted.

The Selection Committee normally numbers six and includes representation from the STLHE Board of Directors, previous recipients of the award, and educational development offices. In composing the Selection Committee, we continue to strive for fluency in French and English, a balance of gender, geography, experience in the process, and variety of academic discipline. We have also taken steps to ensure that every file can be read, regardless of whether it is submitted in French or English.

Copies of the nomination materials are circulated to all members of the Selection Committee. Members of the Selection Committee evaluate each dossier against the published criteria for this award.

Every file is read by at least three reviewers. Each reviewer independently submits a score out of a possible 10 points for each of the two criteria for the award. Members are excluded from reviewing and scoring files from their own institutions and any other file for which they may have a conflict of interest.  Scores are standardized and combined (a mean score is calculated) just prior to the Selection Committee meeting. Typically, the combination of scores reveals some obvious recipients (nominees who are rated at the top by all three raters) and some who fail to provide enough evidence in support of more criteria (nominees who are rated near the bottom by all three raters). 

The Selection Committee next constructs a short list of potential recipients based upon:

• combined scores that are high; and,

• candidates whose combined scores are pulled down by a single rater.

Each member of the Selection Committee is encouraged to add one marginal candidate to the short list, provided he or she thinks there would be a benefit in more people's reviewing the file. When this happens, it is usually because a reviewer is not completely confident in his/her score for a file.

All short-listed files are then read by all members of the Selection Committee and the short-listed candidates are independently ranked. The rankings are combined, and inconsistencies in rankings are discussed. The Selection Committee works toward a consensus on the ten recipients and focus on the evidence submitted in the files. The recipients will be announced at the STLHE annual conference in June.

General Guidance on Preparing a Nomination

Every reviewer appreciates the time and energy that go into a nomination.  Nominations that are well-organized, and especially nominations that help the reviewer quickly find key pieces of evidence, are especially appreciated. This means the nomination must follow the format and structure outlined in the Call for Nominations. It also means that a dossier prepared for some other purpose (tenure, another teaching award, etc.) should be significantly revised to fit the criteria and documentation required for the 3M National Teaching Fellowships.  The same can be said of supporting letters. They should be recent and address the criteria for this award.

How much is too much?

In general, keep the dossier succinct. Reviewers do give low scores to nominations that are too brief (10 pages or less) and that fail to include sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, but, in recent years, reviewers are more likely to give low scores to nominations that contain too much information. Reviewers know that such nominations contain most of the evidence required, but it proves difficult to keep the kernels of important evidence in mind when they are surrounded by large amounts of less helpful material. Important evidence (i.e. a summary of student rating data) may be missed because it is surrounded by less helpful evidence such as pages and pages of raw data.

Nominators need to bear in mind that the Selection Committee will not likely be familiar with all disciplinary or institutional norms of teaching. (Selection Committee members are excluded from reviewing dossiers from their own institution). This means that you will often need to provide the context and a clear explanation of the significance of the achievements of the nominee, as well as listing them.

The nomination needs to contain pertinent evidence of achievement for each of the two criteria for this award. It matters little who collects or organizes that evidence, provided that it is independent. For example, it does not matter who collects the teaching-related publications of the nominee, so long as they are properly cited. Often, the nominee is the only person in a position to know about certain kinds of evidence (innovative course assignments, for example).  It is therefore difficult to present the best possible case for a nominee without the active assistance of the candidate.        

Several of the recipients each year were nominated on at least one previous occasion. A careful review of these successful re-submissions revealed that the re-submission had been significantly refined, was more complete, and included current evidence. Re-submissions with no additional evidence are unlikely to be successful.

Finally, it is worth noting that the entire nomination package must not exceed 50 pages, including appendices and graphics. Each page should be clearly numbered.

Critical Considerations

The Selection Committee looks for the following:

• Evidence that is aligned and integrated with the claims made in the nomination letter.

• Nominees in leadership positions clearly demonstrating how their work and accomplishments exceed duties normally expected of them.

• Demonstrating the impact of the nominee’s activities and achievements, particularly in Educational Leadership. 

• A real personality to emerge from the dossier, a teacher in three dimensions, more than a human doing—a human being. Does the candidate think like a teacher, live like a teacher?

The Selection Committee is negatively influenced by the following:

• Exclusively self-authored and self-promoting nominations.

• Self-congratulatory statements of assumed excellence.

• Discrepancies within the nominations and claims unsupported by evidence.

• References and allusions which force readers to dig for evidence scattered, even hidden, throughout the dossier.

• Absence of normative data in student evaluations and the selective or deliberate exclusion of negative or critical student comments.

• Standardized and formulaic dossiers that blur, conceal, or bury the nominees and their particular uniqueness.

• Structurally disjointed dossiers, lacking unifying coherence or containing evidence that contradicts or disqualifies other evidence.

Suggested Reading

To get further insights on the selection process and intangible considerations used in the selection process, you might find it helpful to read “Interesting Times for Teaching and Learning and Some Reflections on Teaching Philosophies and Dossiers of Award Winning Teachers." This article can be found on Page 4 of Teaching Perspectives, a publication of the Teaching and Learning Development Selection Committee,
St. Thomas University, Fredericton.

Teaching Perspectives, Spring 2008

3.0—Nomination Letter and Letter of Endorsement

Good nominations often begin with a comprehensive nomination letter (not more than five pages). The letter summarizes the accomplishments of the nominee in teaching and in educational leadership. The letter is not so much the evidence, but rather states the qualifications of the nominee and points to other parts of the file that contain more complete evidence. The letter tells the reviewer what to look for. Anyone who is very familiar with the nomination file and the nominee can prepare the letter, and, hence, play the role of nominator.

Nominators should try to make the nomination reflect who the nominee is as a person. Sometimes, nominators write a narrative describing the work of the nominee. Sometimes, this information appears in letters written by colleagues or students.

A letter of endorsement from a senior administrator (Vice-President, Academic) can strengthen the dossier by providing the perspective of how the institution values the teaching and leadership contributions of the nominee.

4.0—Statement of Teaching Philosophy

Another very effective way to capture important information about the nominee is the personal statement of teaching philosophy, written by the nominee. The nomination then goes on to link various items in the file to that philosophy. Philosophies that describes the nominee as scholarly in his or her approach to questions about teaching would be rated more favourably if the file included papers and presentations of a scholarly nature on aspects of the nominee’s teaching, and viewed less favourably if the same claim were made but the nomination file included no evidence of scholarly activity.

5.0—Description of Effective Teaching Strategies

This category of evidence is often the clearest when presented in narrative form and authored by the nominee. The instructor tells the story of what was done, provides the thinking behind the new strategy, describes how students learn under the new strategy, and offers evidence for the effectiveness of the strategy.
 
Sometimes these teaching stories are familiar to many on your campus, but it is important for the Selection Committee to know the full story behind these examples of exceptional teaching. The story might describe a novel assignment, a series of lab experiments, exceptional field work, innovative lecturing and so on. Two or three such stories provide a window into the teaching of the nominee and help the Selection Committee to better understand the achievements of the nominee.

6.0—Guidance on the Documentation of Teaching Excellence

As one of its criteria, the 3M National Teaching Fellowship is designed to recognize excellence in teaching, principally (but not exclusively) at the undergraduate level. Evidence of exceptional graduate teaching is not out of place, provided that the nominator has first made the case for the exceptional teaching of undergraduate students. Undergraduate students are those in all first degree programs, including such disciplines as medicine, engineering, law, and nursing.

The Selection Committee appreciates evidence demonstrating that the teaching and learning materials of the nominee have received a favourable peer review. This involves more than sitting in on an occasional lecture, but includes such things as:

• requests from colleagues for copies of the nominee’s teaching materials;
• adoption by colleagues of the nominee’s teaching materials;
• requests from colleagues to demonstrate a teaching strategy;
• adoption by other institutions of the teaching resources or strategies of the nominee;
• favourable published reviews of the teaching materials of the nominee.

6.2—Institution’s Recognition of Teaching Excellence

To assist the Selection Committee in putting this information in context, please begin with a paragraph that lists all of the local teaching awards for which the nominee is eligible. Include enough information about the award, criteria and selection process to enable the Selection Committee to evaluate these awards.

6.2.1—A list of All Courses

This provides a snapshot of course titles, including the level of instruction (example undergraduate/ graduate, first year/second year, etc.); semester/ date; class size; and other pertinent information. Please provide this in tabular format covering courses taught within the past five years.

6.2.2—A List of Teaching Awards Received

List and date those teaching awards that the nominee has received in the past. The Selection Committee places higher value on awards with similar criteria to the 3M National Teaching Fellowships, higher value on awards with a clearly stated and rigorous selection process, and higher value on more recent awards (as opposed to a single award received ten years ago). A copy of the Call for Nominations for any award received is usually enough to enlighten the Selection Committee. Other useful information includes the number of faculty members eligible for the award and the number of awards granted in any given year.

6.2.3—Data from Student Ratings

The Selection Committee looks for student rating data. The Selection Committee has seen a few cases where the nominator has indicated that the university/ department does not provide for formal student ratings of teaching, and so data are unavailable.

The Selection Committee normally assumes that exceptional teachers pay attention to the results of their teaching efforts and will have, if not university-sponsored student rating data, some other form of objective student rating data.

There are several things you can do to assist the Selection Committee to interpret the student ratings of your nominee.

• Briefly explain how student ratings are normally conducted.
• Do not include raw data.
• Include a one page table listing all courses taught by the nominee in the last five years, the enrollment in each course, and the mean rating received for the global question*  for each course.
• Include a statement of the normal number of courses taught by faculty in your department.
• Ratings from a single year and/or course are insufficient; the Selection Committee will be unable to draw any conclusions from such limited data.
• Ratings from courses with low enrollment (fewer than ten students) are unreliable.
• Most impressive is a trend of consistently high ratings in several courses over a period of years.
• Help the Selection Committee by explaining any irregularities in the data (low ratings that result from significant changes to a course, gaps in ratings due to a leave of absence or special assignment or reduced teaching responsibilities, change in the rating form, etc.).
• State who summarized the data and how the summary was prepared.

* In the absence of a global question (one that asks students to express an overall judgement about the instructor as a teacher) calculate a mean for all questions. Please explain what it is you are substituting for the global question. 

Student Comments from Two or More Classes:

This form of evidence is less helpful when it consists largely of a list of superlatives without further elaboration. Single comments taken out of context are not a reliable form of evidence. Complete sets of unedited comments from at least two classes should be included and the nominator should indicate how the comments were prepared. The nominator should indicate what the comments indicate about the nominee’s teaching.

Course Enrollment Data:

Enrollment data on their own are far from conclusive, but sometimes such data help to confirm other evidence in a nomination. We encourage you to include these data in a simple table, with an explanatory note only when it is clear and suggestive of the nominee’s helpfulness to a broad range of students. The Selection Committee might look for a trend. For example, an unpopular existing course is given new life through the efforts of the nominee and a declining enrollment trend is reversed, or the nominee consistently introduces new courses which rapidly attract students.

6.2.4—Student Rating Form

Include a blank copy of the student rating form, or at the very least, a clear statement of the global question* together with the possible responses.

6.2.5—Course Development Efforts

A simple way to proceed here is to list the courses developed. Where the success of a course is due to innovation in design, you will need to explain what is unique and effective about the design and include whatever evidence you have for its effectiveness. Are students learning something different because of the design, and, if so, how did you come to this conclusion? Your reasoning and evidence will be very helpful to the Selection Committee. Again, if you are emphasizing achievement that results from course design, you might want to describe at some length the process used to develop and refine the course.

6.2.6—Signed Letters from Colleagues and Students

This form of evidence is less helpful to the Selection Committee. We encourage you to include a maximum of two or three signed letters from colleagues and two or three signed letters from students. The best letters are those that are specific and authentic. They provide details about the way in which the nominee has been effective in bringing about learning, either in students, or in colleagues who are developing as teachers. Multiple letters which merely describe the nominee as a wonderful teacher are unhelpful and should not be included.  Letters from current students are awkward; such students are vulnerable by definition, even when they express an unprompted and strong desire to play an active and supporting role in the nomination. Letters from current students should be excluded.

6.2.7—An Example of Course Materials

Bear in mind that no Selection Committee member will review an entire textbook. Identify what is unique and exceptional about course materials and help the Selection Committee locate noteworthy elements. You might include highlights of course materials, or better, include excerpts with an explanation. For example, a textbook in chemistry that encourages students to be more self-directed might include a sample from the text and explain in what way students would learn more effectively using this text.

6.2.8—Other Evidence

The items above represent a range of the kinds of evidence that are indicative of excellence in teaching and are largely culled from the dossiers of previous recipients. Few, if any, nominators have collected and submitted all of the possible evidence listed and many have demonstrated teaching excellence in other ways. The list is provided by way of example; your nominee is unique and the task is to describe and explain his or her achievements.

7.0—Educational Leadership Statement

The Educational Leadership Statement is a personal statement of the nominee’s approach to educational leadership, written by the nominee. In the statement, the nominee explains the meaning that educational leadership has in his or her personal context (discipline, institution, or broader community). The Educational Leadership Statement provides the nominee with an opportunity to articulate a rationale for why he or she goes beyond personal teaching practice to influence the enhancement of teaching and learning among their colleagues, institutions and broader communities.

8.0—Evidence for Educational Leadership

To assist the Committee in putting the evidence of educational leadership in context, the nominator should begin with a paragraph that briefly describes the opportunities available to the nominee for engaging in educational leadership in his or her discipline, institution, and broader community.

The nominator should then describe the nominee’s actual contributions to educational leadership. Appropriate examples may include, but are not limited to, the following: regular workshops on teaching and learning; assistance with the creation of teaching dossiers; services to an educational development centre; support of a teaching and learning committee; grants for teaching and learning projects; or research or publications on teaching and learning.