Approved by the Faculty
Senate:
Approved by the
Chancellor: May 8, 2002
Editorially revised (change
in amount of money awarded): April 24, 2007
Academic
Awards Committee
Max Ray Joyner Award For Faculty Service Through
Continuing Education
The purpose of the Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing Education is to honor an outstanding faculty member who has shown commitment and enthusiasm in teaching and mentoring off-campus students and who has demonstrated excellence in the delivery of courses offered through Continuing Studies, face-to-face and/or distance education. Hereafter, such classes, both distance education classes and face-to-face classes taught off-campus, will be referred to as distance education classes.
The Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through
Continuing Education was first awarded in 1998 as part of
1.
Each faculty unit is invited to nominate candidates
for the annual Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty Service Through Continuing
Education. Each unit is to determine its
own method for selecting nominees based on Faculty Senate Resolution #91-29,
“Seven Characteristics of Effective Teaching” (attachment 1), and should allow
consideration of any eligible faculty member who requests consideration for
nomination. No more than one nominee for
each ten faculty members in the academic unit can be nominated for the award.
2.
Any full-time faculty member who has taught a
distance education class and who has taught at ECU for 3 or more years is
eligible to be considered for a teaching award.
Four years must have elapsed before a faculty member who has won this
award can be considered again. Award
recipients will be invited to place their portfolios and CDs in the
3.
An announcement on the upcoming call for nominees
will be distributed to all faculty and unit code administrators each year by
the end of spring semester. Deadlines
for the submission of these materials will be specified in the call letter for
nominees each year. An official call for
nominees will be distributed to unit code administrators at the beginning of
the fall semester. This call will
include a brief statement that each unit is to determine its own method for
selecting nominees. Nomination letters
from the unit code administrators must be received in the Faculty Senate office
no later than September 15 of each year (September 17, 2007). The nomination letter, addressed to the ad
hoc Joyner Award Committee in care of the Faculty Senate office, shall include
a listing of the names and departments of all nominees. Nominated faculty who wish to pursue the award
shall submit the portfolio of all evaluative materials to the Faculty Senate
office no later than November 1 of each year.
The chair of the ad hoc Joyner Award Committee will forward format
guidelines to each candidate.
4.
The candidate, once nominated by the unit, shall
provide the following portfolio of evaluative materials to the Ad Hoc Teaching
Awards Committee:
A.
2-page cover letter describing his/her teaching
philosophy, including efforts for effective teaching and learning in distance
education,
B.
current nomination letter from the unit code
administrator,
C.
list of all courses taught over the past 3 years via
distance education, average credit/contact hours per semester, and
representative samples of course outlines, tests, and teaching materials for distance
education courses. Samples do not have
to include all courses taught,
D.
student evaluations for courses taught by distance
education during the past 3 years, and the corresponding grade distributions
for each course; nominees will be provided a format for the summary SOIS
student ratings,
E.
peer evaluations of distance education courses, if
available, or other approved evaluation methods as listed in Faculty Senate
Resolution #91-28, “Methods for Assessing Teaching Effectiveness” (attachment
2), and
F.
three letters of support from former distance
education students (not to exceed 2 double-spaced pages each). Include names, addresses, phone numbers of
students, and the title and date of course attended.
Please note that finalists for the award shall provide a
CD that demonstrates and summarizes their distance education classes. The technology used, community building
strategies, examples of interactivity, and any other parts of the distance
education classes that would be helpful to the selection committee shall be
included. The Chair of the ad hoc Joyner
Award Committee will contact the finalists at a later date concerning
arrangements for making CDs.
The total packet of materials
submitted to the ad hoc Joyner Award Committee is not to exceed 50 single-sided
pages. All materials must be up-to-date,
using at least a size 12-font and be double-spaced. The course materials, counted in the 50
single-sided page limit, do not have to be in a size 12-font or be
double-spaced. Packets that do not
follow all specified guidelines will be eliminated from consideration.
5.
The ad hoc Joyner Award Committee will consist of 2
members elected from the Academic Awards Committee, 1 faculty member appointed
by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, 1 faculty member appointed by the
Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences, and 1 member appointed by the Division of
Continuing Studies. It will be chaired
by a member of the Academic Awards Committee and have at least one member who
is experienced in the delivery of distance education courses. The Committee will receive the materials,
which will be read by at least 3 committee members, and evaluated using the
criteria in Faculty Senate Resolution #91-29 (attachment 1). The seven characteristics of effective
teaching will all have equal weight.
6.
The chair of the ad hoc Joyner Award Committee will
contact the final pool of not more than twelve applicants. A copy of this correspondence will also be
sent to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences
for their information.
7.
The ad hoc Joyner Award Committee will evaluate the
materials, including the CDs, and by scoring determine the winning candidate.
8.
The name of the winning candidate will be announced
during the annual teaching awards ceremony that is held at the end of the
spring semester. The finalists will be
publicly recognized at that time.
Selection
Procedures for the Max Ray Joyner Award for Faculty
Service
Through Continuing Education
(attachments 1
and 2)
SEVEN CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHING
Good Organization of Subject Matter and Course: Reflected in the objectives, course materials,
assignments, examinations, instructor preparation for class, and effective use
of class time.
Effective Communication:
Reflected in lecturing ability including use of motivational techniques such as
audiovisual aids, clarity of presentation, verbal fluency, interpretation of
abstract ideas, good speaking ability, good listening skills, and the ability
to communicate the organization and sequence of a course.
Knowledge of and Enthusiasm for the Subject Matter and
Teaching: Reflected in the choice of textbook, readings
and reference lists, lecture content, course syllabus, and personal interest
displayed in the subject and in teaching.
Positive Attitudes Toward Students: Reflected by helping students master subject matter,
encouraging students to ask questions and express opinions, being accessible to
students outside the classroom, and expressing a general concern for student
learning.
Fairness in Examinations and Grading: Reflected in clarity
of student assessment procedures including papers, assignments, exams,
classroom discussion, and other activities, including relative weight toward
grade, consistency among objectives, course content, and assessment procedures,
and timely, useful feedback on student progress.
Flexibility in Approaches to Teaching: Reflected in the use
of alternative teaching strategies such as small group discussion, simulations,
use of audiovisual materials, and varying the approach and pace of instruction
to meet different learning styles among students.
Appropriate Student Learning Outcomes: Reflected in student
performance on various assessment measures and positive changes in student
attitudes and values.
METHODS FOR ASSESSING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
Academic Unit
Implementation Plans endorse The University's Strategic Plan Goal that Academic
Units employ more than one approach when assessing the teaching effectiveness
of faculty members. Appendix C of the Faculty Manual requires that a
survey of student opinion of instruction be used in evaluating teaching
effectiveness. Appendix C permits the
use of other methods and procedures when initiated by the Unit and recommended
by the Faculty Senate and approved by the Chancellor. The methods outlined below are examples of
additional approaches for assessing teaching effectiveness which units may
adopt. These assessment methods are
adapted from the manual, A Guide to
Evaluation of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure published by
ADDITIONAL
METHODS OF EVALUATING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
Annual Goals Assessment: An annual agreement with the unit
administrator where specific goals are set that contribute to effective
classroom teaching. Such goals might
include, but are not limited to, updating syllabus and reading lists, developing
study guides, implementing new instructional procedures, and incorporating
components of writing/critical thinking into course. The unit administrator will evaluate progress
related to the agreed‑upon goals at the end of the academic year.
Faculty Report: A description of teaching activities
including, but not limited to, the names and numbers of courses taught, number
of students taught and advised, services on thesis/dissertation committees,
involvement with instructional development activities, descriptions of teaching
methods, and other activities that bear on the effectiveness of the unit's
educational program. (Much of this
information is currently part of the annual report.)
Analysis of Instructional and Other Materials: Review by the unit
administrator and/or peers of course materials including syllabi, reading
lists, outlines, examinations, audiovisual materials, student manuals, samples
of student's work on assignments, projects, and papers. Other materials prepared for or relevant to
instruction.
Instructor-Generated Evaluations: Instructor‑generated
evaluation procedures, such as checklists, survey‑type instruments,
videotapes of class sessions, and written entries reflecting on teaching
techniques and philosophy.
Classroom Observations: Direct observation of classroom teaching or
observation of videotaped class sessions by peers or experts. Several techniques help to make observations
objective: use of an observation guide
or structured process determined by the unit for observations; a number of
observations before final report is prepared; observations and reports by at
least two observers; observation by those outside the faculty member's
immediate unit.
Structured Interviews with Former Students: Face‑to‑face,
telephone, group interviews, or surveys asking for comments on current or
former professors. Broad questions, such
as the following, are asked to solicit overall evaluation statements: Describe why you would recommend (or not
recommend) Professor X's class to a friend?
How did Professor X's class prepare you for advanced work in the
subject? What is your overall assessment
for Professor X?
Measures of Student Achievement: In the case of multi‑section
courses with a diagnostic pretest and a final examination that both measure
abilities in a similar way, student improvement may be used as a measure of
teaching effectiveness. In addition,
multi‑section courses that use an identical final examination for all
sections make possible a comparison of relative teaching effectiveness of
individual faculty where observed patterns hold over five or more
semesters.