 |
Call to USP Faculty for Nominations for the Patricia
Leahy Award for Learning Innovation
Description of the award: This award was established
in memory of Patricia Leahy, a PT faculty member here, to acknowledge
faculty's innovative efforts to increase their students' learning.
For almost a decade, an anonymous donor annually supported the Patricia
Leahy InnOvations with Learning (OWL) award. In 2004 the donor established
an endowment to continue this award in perpetuity. After a terrible
accident, Patricia Leahy was our donor's physical therapist. He
felt that Patricia Leahy was especially helpful to get him to walk
again. Soon after that Patricia Leahy was unable to conquer her
own personal tragedy. To memorialize a truly innovative teacher,
our donor, Dr. Charles Gibley, supported the InnOvations with Learning
award and it became the Patricia Leahy OWL award. To more accurately
reflect the purpose of the award, the name was changed to the Patricia
Leahy Award for Learning Innovations.
Faculty members' use of new instructional strategies typically
require much planning time, a willingness to take risks, reflection
on what is happening, and an ability to make changes when necessary.
As the title implies, this award's emphasis is on innovations that
increase student learning.
One of the original purposes of the award was to recognize faculty
who are experimenting with their teaching and to provide a dissemination
vehicle for their innovative idea. With the success of the Teaching
and Learning Center's annual editions of the Document of Innovations,
many of the USP faculty's wonderful innovative ideas are being disseminated
across the campus. Some of them have been adapted and used by other
people. Thus, the Document of Innovations has assumed some of the
purposes of the award. A higher goal of the award is to recognize
faculty who are implementing large scale innovations, or ones with
great impact. All submissions are now being included in the Document
of Innovations.
Appropriate innovations: All innovations that
have a large impact on student learning will be considered. Examples
of large impact on student learning include a more desirable outcome
of learning (i.e., better overall scores on tests, more students
doing well in the course, or better student products due to changes
made by the instructor) especially compared to a previous approach;
or a more positive attitude towards learning the material. These
innovations might include completely revising a course, revising
an entire educational program, integrating several courses or disciplines,
greatly changing how students learn or are assessed in a course,
or a course with a new approach. The innovation must have had an
impact on the students' learning. The faculty must have an understanding
of why the innovation had an impact. The number of students who
participate in the course cannot be a relevant consideration since
the course sizes varies so much at USP. Groups of faculty who have
collaborated on the development of a new approach are encouraged
to apply. Inter-course or interdisciplinary innovations are encouraged.
An innovation need not be a success, but it must have been implemented
at least once and a reflection of why it did not succeed is necessary.
The most successful innovations have been implemented at least twice.
The second innovation should reflect feedback and insights from
the first implementation.
Eligibility: Full-time faculty members who are
in at least their third year of employment at USP may apply. The
award winner(s) from the previous year are not eligible to apply,
but may apply again in the future. The innovation must have been
developed by the submitter and implemented within the last two years.
The strategy need not be totally original, it can be an adaptation
of innovations tried elsewhere. Faculty members may only submit
one nomination for which they are the primary innovator per year.
If several courses were innovative, the instructor may group all
of them together into an integrated submission showing how all of
his/her teaching has changed. If several faculty members collaborated
on an innovation, these people can also submit another innovation
individually.
Submission materials: Each of the following should
be submitted as a paper copy and an electronic copy. For the abstracts
and summaries any additional materials use 12 font size and a standard
easy to read font.
- Complete Document of Innovation Abstract form so that the innovation
will be included in this year's edition. This abstract is limited
to two pages. Available from http://www.usip.edu/teaching/innovations/
- Attach additional materials on any section, if necessary. Supplemental
course material or examples of assignments may be submitted. Do
not submit the complete record of the course.
If the innovation was submitted or accepted for a professional
meeting or a referred publication, it should be noted. This is not
a criterion for selection.
Selection Criteria
- how innovative is the idea. These innovations
might include completely revising a course, revising an entire
educational program, integrating several course or disciplines,
greatly changing how students learn or are assessed in a course,
or a course with a new approach. The submission should describe
how the course was taught before the innovation to show how innovative
it is now.
- clear description of what was done including
a description of the rationale or goals of the innovation educational
activity, a description of the innovation and its implementation,
outcomes, especially learning outcomes, a discussion of the impact
of the innovation, a reflection on what is working and why it
is working, and a description of student reaction to the innovation.
- a statement of learning outcomes and how they were assessed.
This should include a description of the impact on student learning.
For example, better overall scores on tests, more students doing
well in the course, or better student products due to changes
made by the instructor) especially compared to a previous approach;
or a more positive attitude towards learning the material
- credible data on the assessment of
student learning
- how the innovation relates to the mission of general
education or a degree program
- good analysis or understanding of the impact of the
innovation
- an analysis of how the innovation will be improved in
the future
- present a poster for Talking About Teaching Day this
year
- Clarity of the entire submission (the written documents
and the poster presentation) may impact the judges' ranking
- Deadline for submission: The Monday after classes resume
from Spring Break.
Review Committee: The review committee will
be composed of previous Leahy/OWL recipients and selected members
of the Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee to help balance
the committee
Recognition: The winner will be announced at
the annual Faculty Council Recognition Luncheon. The Patricia
Leahy Award for Learning Innovation award will be given a cash
prize, a plaque and his/her name will be inscribed on the cumulative
plaque. Top candidates will also be recognized.
Recipients of Previous Leahy/OWL Awards:
- 1994 Susan P. Barker, M.S.
- 1994 Leigh Ann Hewston, M.Ed.
- 1994 Rick S. Hock, Ph.D.
- 1994 John R. Porter, Ph.D.
- 1995 Anthony G. Calamai, Ph.D.
- 1995 Lisa E. Davis, PharmD.
- 1995 Motria M. Krowczenuak, PharmD.
- 1995 Margaret T. Weis, Ph.D.
- 1996 Susan P. Barker, M.S. |
- 1996 Leigh Ann Hewston, M.Ed.
- 1996 Charlotte Gale, M.A.
- 1996 Alison Mostrom, Ph.D.
- 1996 Paul Halpern, Ph.D.
- 1997 Peter Miller, M.H.S.
- 1998 James C. Pierce, Ph.D.
- 1998 Clyde M. Ofner, III, Ph.D.
- 1999 Z. Annette Iglarsh, Ph.D.
- 2001 Robert L. Feldman, M.S.
- 2002 Barbara Bendl, M.Ed.
- 2002 Alison Mostrom, Ph.D.
- 2002 Amy Kimchuk, M.A.
- 2002 Kevin C. Wolbach, M.S.
- 2003 Peter J. Miller, Ph.D.
- 2004 Ellen Flannery-Schroeder, Ph.D.
- 2005 Andrew M. Peterson, PharmD.
- 2006 Bernard J. Brunner, Ph.D.
- 2007 Karen J. Tietze, PharmD.
- 2008 Salar Alsardary, Ph.D.
- 2009 Christine Flanagan, MFA
updated6-16-2009
Link1
Link2
Link3
Link4
Link5
|
|
|
