Outstanding Teaching Award

Description

The Kent State EHHS Early Career Outstanding Teaching Award recognizes exemplary teaching performance in the classroom. Outstanding teaching is conveyed through innovative pedagogy, incorporating new instructional content, and/or incorporating novel technology into one’s teaching practice. One Kent State EHHS Outstanding Teaching Award will be made annually, in each of the following categories (for a total of two annual awards):

  1. Early Career: faculty within 10 years of starting as a full-time Assistant Professor (TT or NTT).
  2. Senior Career: individuals with more than 10 years of experience as a full-time faculty member (TT or NTT).

Eligibility

All current full-time KSU EHHS faculty (TT and NTT) who are employed, full-time, with EHHS for a minimum of two years. Previous recipients (of the Senior Career award) are eligible to re-apply after 7 years.

Nomination Procedure

Nominations may come from a former student or fellow full-time faculty member (TT or NTT). Self-nominations are also acceptable (in such cases, an additional letter of support from a former student or fellow faculty member is required).
The nominator should:

  1. Ensure nominee’s eligibility.
  2. Complete Nomination Form (PDF)
  3. The nominee should include a summary highlighting his/her teaching effectiveness. Summaries should be a maximum of one, single-spaced page (a “backside” of a page is not considered), with 1 inch margins, 12 point Times New Roman font, and submitted as part of the larger PDF nomination packet. Summaries should include:
    • A brief statement of the nominee’s approach to teaching (teaching philosophy).
    • A description of innovations to pedagogy (such as the use of technology and/or a novel pedagogical approach or activity).
  4. A table summarizing data from the nominee’s SSIs over the past two (2) years.
    • The summary table should focus on one (1) item from the SSI, focusing on the nominee’s effectiveness as a teacher. The wording of this item must be quoted verbatim.

Note the below example includes only one semester for demonstration purposes and to save space. The nominee should include additional semesters prior to the summary row.

SEMESTER

Name of Course

Q19: Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Omitted

SPRING 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

CI 10045 – 001 [12331]

Name of Course

N = 30

20 / 66.7%

9 / 30.0%

 

 

 

1 / 3.3%

CI 10045 – 002 [12332]

Name of Course

N = 30

22 / 73.3%

4 / 13.3%

2 / 6.7%

 

 

2 / 6.7%

SUMMARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total = 60

42 / 70.0%

13 / 21.7%

2 / 3.3%

 

 

3 / 5.0%

      5. Provide 1 letter of support from either a full time faculty member (NTT or TT) who has provided peer review of their course or instruction OR a prior student of the nominee (students currently enrolled in one of the nominee’s courses are not eligible to submit a letter). Letters of support should emphasize the quality of the nominee’s teaching and any additional relevant information.

The committee’s decision on award recipients will be made on the basis of the above materials only.

Rubric for Award:

Criterion

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Far Exceeds Expectations

Clarity

Teaching quality and/or activity is described.

Teaching quality and/or activity is clearly described and supported.

Teaching quality and/or activity is clearly described and illustrated by multiple examples.

Pedagogical Approach

Describes nominee’s use of instructional content and manner in which that content is taught/conveyed.

Describes nominee’s pedagogy, and provides explicit examples from courses.

Describes nominee’s pedagogy, with references to faculty and student feedback (e.g., quotes from letters of support and/or from SSI comments)..

Innovation

Innovation(s) to pedagogy involve slight modification to an existing practice.

Innovations to pedagogy involve robust modifications of an existing practice.

Innovations to pedagogy are entirely original and represent a new approach to practice within the nominee’s field.

Peer Review

Letters of Support are positive and provide explicit features of pedagogy.

Letters of Support are positive and provide explicit features of pedagogy. Additionally, there are clear indicators to why these features exceed expectations for teaching in EHHS and/or the nominee’s department.

Letters of Support are positive and provide explicit features of pedagogy. Additionally, there are clear indicators to why these features far exceed expectations for teaching in EHHS and/or the nominee’s department.

Student Feedback
  • Letters of Support are positive regarding instructor’s pedagogy.
  • SSI average scores trend towards good and very good.
  • Letters of Support are positive regarding instructor’s pedagogy, and include additional positive comments regarding the instructor (e.g., rapport).
  • SSI average scores trend towards very good and excellent.
  • Letters of Support are positive, providing explicit statements regarding pedagogy, rapport with students, and effect of instruction on one’s long-term learning.
  • SSI average scores trend towards excellent.
© 2024 Kent State University All rights reserved.