Nancy Searle, Ed.D.
Director, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
Faculty Excellence Award Program
Office of Curriculum

By the end of this workshop, participants will be able to:
1.
Articulate the Who, What, Why, How and When of educational portfolio preparation.
2.
List the F&J categories and the steps involved in preparing a portfolio for F&J review.
3.
Find additional information about the F&J award.
4.
Determine who to contact with questions about the
F&J award.

It all started with Boyer…..
“Faculty, themselves, appear to be increasingly dissatisfied with conflicting priorities on campus.”
Ernest L. Boyer. PhD

• Four types of scholarship
– Scholarship of discovery (“research”)
– Scholarship of integration (making connections across disciplines)
– Scholarship of application (bridge the gap between theory and practice)

– Scholarship of teaching (“seeks to bridge the distance between intrapersonal and interpersonal understanding, to do so in a way that is fully informed by the scholarships of discovery, integration, and application as crafted by a study of the discipline.”)

• Good teaching – that which promotes student learning and other desired student outcomes
• Scholarly teaching – taking a scholarly approach to teaching
– View teaching as a profession and the knowledge base on teaching and learning as a second discipline in which to develop expertise

• Reflect on their teaching
• Use classroom assessment techniques
• Discuss teaching issues with colleagues
• Try new things
• Read and apply the literature on teaching and learning in their discipline
• Is closely linked to reflective practice

• Systematic study of teaching and/or learning and
• The public sharing and review of such work through presentations or publications
– May be local, regional, national or international

Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning?
• “A systematic reflection on teaching and learning made public.”
Illinois State Univeristy, Kathleen McKinney

How do we judge the work of faculty as scholars?
Charles E. Glassick, PhD

Criteria for Quality of Scholarship:
1. Clear, realistic goals
2. Adequate preparation
3. Adequate methods
4. Meaningful results
5. Effective presentation of results
6. Reflective critique
Glassick, CE. Acad Med. 2000 Sep;75(9):877-80.

At BCM, the Scholarship of Teaching is assessed through the Educator’s
Portfolio (F&J Program).

An organized compilation of evidence of the quality of educational contributions

Educational
Contributions
CV
Quantity
Educational
Portfolio
Quality &
Quantity

Goals
Incentives
Personal
Statement
Educational
Contributions
CV
Artifacts
(e.g. syllabi)
Educational
Portfolio Comprehensive
Sample, Partial
Quality
Evidence

1. Goals
Goals
Incentives
2. Preparation
6. Reflection
Personal
Statement
Educational
Contributions
3. Methods
Artifacts
(e.g. syllabi)
4. Results
5. Presentation
CV
Educational
Portfolio

The Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
Faculty Excellence Award is:
• A criterion-based program, established in 2001, that recognizes faculty educational scholarship in four categories:
– Teaching and Evaluation;
– Development of Enduring Educational
Materials;
– Educational Leadership;
– Educational Research.

What? Fulbright & Jaworski Faculty Excellence Award

• Specific to one of the four categories
– Teaching and Evaluation
– Educational Leadership
– Development of Enduring
Educational Materials
– Educational Research

1. Letter of Transmittal
2. Match to Standard Setting Examples
3. Structured Summary
4. Personal Statement
5. Structured Abstract
(only enduring materials and research)
6. Table of Appendices
7. Supporting Documentation arranged in
Appendices

• Your Baylor ID number
• Your Complete Name and Degree(s)
• Title
• Department
• Contact information including
– your Baylor inter-institutional mailing address
– email address
• Chairman’s name and his/her email address

In narrative form, 2 pages maximum, incorporate information from your Structured Summary including but not limited to:
• Your learner centered educational goals and your goals as an educational scholar
• Your personal preparation
• Your personal reflection
• Your process for improvement
• Why you like teaching (or another category)
• Why you are involved in teaching activities (or another category)
• Transmission of your attitudes, skills, and knowledge in educational matters to others

5. Structured Abstracts - Research
• Theme: list research questions under logical groups
• Research Question(s): number consecutively under each theme. These should be the question(s) you have sought to answer while conducting a particular research effort
• Investigation: answer “why” this particular research effort was undertaken and include the dates of the effort. (Two or three sentences)
• Support: If grant supported, include both the amount of the grant and the source. If not grant supported report how it was supported (e.g. by department).

5. Structured Abstracts – Research (cont)
• Methods: describe briefly how the particular research was conducted. (Two or three sentences)
• Results and the Impact of Findings: state briefly how the results address the research question(s) of the study and their impact
• Contributorship: list all participants and what each contributed to the effort
• Dissemination(s): number and list when and where information from the research was disseminated (i.e., presentations, posters, publications, grant reports)

5. Structured Abstract – Enduring Materials
• Goals and/or Learning Objectives of the material (i.e., needs addressed; expected learning outcomes)
• Content area(s) covered
• Learner Population(s) for which material was developed (could include a primary and secondary population)
• Size and/or Scope (i.e., contact time, pages, number of components)

5. Structured Abstract –
Enduring Materials (cont)
• My Role(s) (i.e., candidate’s role/level of involvement in the design, faculty preparation time, production/programming, implementation, and/or evaluation of the material)
• Methods employed in the design, production/programming, implementation, and/or evaluation of the material

5. Structured Abstract –
Enduring Materials (cont)
• Peer Review process employed to ensure adequacy of content.
• Usage Statistics (e.g., number of users, copies sold)
• Impact on learners’ knowledge, skills and/or attitudes
• Ratings of peers, learners and/or others

• Example:

7. Supporting Material – not to exceed
25 pages or 13 front and back pages
Some Examples:
• Peer Evaluations
• Letters/emails from previous students, peers, chairs, etc.
• Repeatedly asked to teach/present
• Student evaluations

• In Baylor Format

Submission Dates –
See Timeline on F&J Web Site:
Summer – Usually late June
Fall – Usually Mid November
Spring – Usually late March
Portfolios must be in the
Office of Graduate Medical Education
M220 DeBakey Building by 5:00 PM

Reviewers: 1 primary; 1 secondary;
10-12 general
• Compare to standard and assign points
• Cutoff = 80 (with 75% agreement)
• Criteria:
– Quality
(Glassick et al)
....50
– Quantity............40
– Breadth ............10

Standard: 3-4 Prototypes
(found on the Web site)
• Based on diversity of real faculty
• Validated through consensus-building process
• Establish
– general amount of accomplishment
– types of accomplishments
– desired structured format
• Would receive scores between 85 and
95

The Former Chair of the Promotions &Tenure
Committee in a Memo to Academic Council,
12/2/02:
“The following are some ways to provide documentation of accomplishments in teaching and education as they relate to promotion…”
• department-wide criterion-based program
• student and resident evaluations of faculty
• national and local CME course evaluations
• Letters from former trainees about the value of their educational experience with faculty
• teaching awards

The Former Chair of the Promotions &Tenure
Committee in a Memo to Academic Council,
12/2/02:
“ I emphasized the committee’s need for better documentation of educational accomplishments…”
• Faculty Appointments & Promotions Committee “will consider all of these awards as strong evidence of an applicant's excellence in education.”
• You may want to draw particular attention to the
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Faculty Excellence Award

The Baylor FAP Committee sends materials to department chairs concerning faculty appointments which states in the section entitled “Documentation of Educational
Excellence for Promotion”
• “the most desirable evidence of quality in educational effort is… recognition in two categories of the Fulbright and Jaworski LLP
Faculty Excellence Award…(and these are) considered to be the primary internal benchmark of readiness to be considered for promotion.”

• Have your teaching Peer-Reviewed
• Save all evidence of quality (letters, e-mails, learner evaluations, etc.)
• List your educational activities in an organized format (you decide)
• Review other peoples’ portfolios
• Write a personal statement
• Solicit a limited number of letters
(not more than 6) of support

select: Recognition select: Faculty Excellence Award

Total: 10-40 hours

80 % of F&J Submissions Have
Received the Award
2001 - 2009
• 372 Mini-portfolios have been submitted
• 298 Mini-portfolios have met or exceeded the standard as judged by the
Review Panel

20
10
0
60
50
40
30
2001
Fulbtight & Jaworski L. L. P. Faculty Excellence
Awards Received 2001-2007 by Category by Year
Research
Enduring Materials
Leadership
Teaching
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Questions?
nsearle@bcm.edu