Search

Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award

The Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award honors one faculty member per year who shows evidence of outstanding and innovative use of technology to improve student engagement and learning in any course format (face-to-face, hybrid, online). Awardees will receive a one-time stipend of $1,000 and a Certificate of Recognition, and will be featured on the Center for Online Education (COE) website. Individuals who have received the Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award in previous years are not eligible to reapply.


Eligibility

All tenured and tenure-track faculty, full-time lecturers, clinical faculty (whose primary duty is teaching), and associate faculty who:

  • Have taught at IU South Bend for a minimum of three years (not necessarily academic years); six semesters for associate faculty; and
  • Have not previously received this award

Candidates do not need to be nominated for this award; self-nominations are acceptable. It is the candidate's responsibility to compile the completed application and email it as a single PDF file to the Director of the Center for Online Education at DEiusb@iusb.edu by 11:59 p.m. on October 1. Late submissions will not be accepted.

Please note, this is the same deadline as the Excellence in Online Teaching Award. Applicants may apply for either or both awards.


Application Components

Required:

  • Name, rank, unit, years of teaching at IU South Bend
  • Table of courses taught at IU South Bend by semester for identified courses where technology was integrated and course enrollment
  • Descriptive and reflective statement about candidate’s approach to teaching with technology, highlighting particular innovations that were effective
  • Evidence of teaching with technology’s impact on student learning and engagement
  • Peer review of teaching, focusing on innovative use of technology
  • Student evaluations and comments table for identified courses taught the last three years as an appendix
  • Engagement in activities for faculty development related to technology integration and innovative teaching

Other evidence may be used to document innovation in teaching with technology, such as lists, tables, or brief descriptions of

  • Course development
  • Teaching innovations
  • Leadership in innovation in teaching with technology
  • Teaching awards

Number of Pages and Format

  • Maximum of 10 pages (not including appendices and tables)
  • 10-12 point font
  • 1-inch margins

Appendix (not counted in the 10 pages):

  • Mini-course portfolio from a recent course:
    • Syllabus.
    • description of how innovative technology is used. Could include one lesson or module class activities, assignments, evidence of student learning. Photos or videos may be provided.
    • Student evaluations and comments table for identified courses taught the last three years.

Selection Process

A subcommittee of the Center for Online Education Advisory Board will serve as the selection committee. This subcommittee will be composed of three faculty members who have experience in teaching with technology, a professional staff who has worked with faculty development, and the COE director.


Criteria

  • Evidence of innovative use of technology in teaching
  • Evidence of its impact on student learning and engagement
  • Descriptive and reflective statement about candidate's approach to teaching with technology, highlighting particular strengths
  • Peer review of teaching with technology by a full-time faculty member
  • Student evaluations and comments table for courses/sections taught the last three years
  • Engagement in activities for faculty development on technology integration and innovative teaching

Rubric

Rubric used to encourage discussion in choosing the Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award winners in order to recognize innovative, sustained, and consistent use of technology across all modes of instruction.

Note: This rubric is to encourage discussion by Review Committee. It is not a scoring tool.

DESCRIPTION

Excellent Good Acceptable Unacceptable
Teaching Statement | Descriptive and reflective statement about candidate's approach to innovative uses of technoogy in one or several courses Rich descriptions and reflection indicate thoughtful and deliberate course planning and execution as well as broad effectiveness and a novel way of employing technology. Description and reflection suggest effective teaching due to the use of technology. Provides both description and reflection but they do not suggest effective teaching or connect clearly the use of technology with its effectiveness in the course. Missing description or reflection.
Faculty Development | Engagement in activities for faculty development in teaching with technology Active and on-going efforts to improve teaching with technology through seminars, readings, mentoring others, etc. Completed several courses, seminars, or multiple discrete activities. Completed a course, seminar, or discrete faculty development activity. No evidence of faculty development.
Mini-course Portfolio | Syllabus, learning objectives, and description of how innovative technology is used. Could include one lesson or module, class activities, assignments, evidence of student learning. Photos or videos may be provided. Course is thoughtfully designed and the impact of the technology on the effectiveness of the course/lesson/module is well demonstrated. Portfolio is strong overall, but one of the three components is weak. All components are average, or there is weak evidence on how technology is impacting beneficially to the course/lesson/module Little evidence of careful planning; little or no evidence of effectiveness of the technology.


EVIDENCE OF QUALITY

High Distinction Good Acceptable Unacceptable
Peer Review | Letter from peer reviewer evaluating teaching performance by direct observation and review of course materials; peer may be someone who has taught with technology or has not. Peer review demonstrates clear excellence in effectively and innovatively using technology in a course with multiple indicators and examples Peer review discusses applicant in positive terms but gives only a single piece of evidence from a conclusive indicator or example Peer review discusses applicant in average terms, or positively but without giving clear evidence from conclusive indicators or examples Peer review is missing, or is featuring applicant in poor terms


OVERALL IMPRESSION

High Distinction Good Acceptable Unacceptable
Overall Impression | Preponderance of all materials demonstrates an excellent and innovative use of technology Strong evidence from multiple sources suggests outstanding teaching with technology Evidence suggests strong presentation of the technology(ies) featured Evidence suggests good presentation of the technology(ies) featured Evidence suggests an average presentation of the technology(ies) featured