Preparing a Dossier

In most cases, the dossier should contain the following material:

• Nomination letter. Each dossier should include one letter of nomination, preferably from the department chair or dean. The letter should make the case that the nominee meets or exceeds the standard of distinguished teaching, and it should substantiate why the candidate is qualified for the award with references to specific teaching qualities and activities. It may mention some of the evidence contained in the dossier, but it should do more than simply restate information that is available in the other dossier documents. There should be no more than one letter of nomination; the dossier may include one additional letter of support from an academic administrator (Dean, Chairperson, Vice Chancellor).

• Curriculum vita. An up-to-date CV of the nominee should be included.

• Years of teaching. A document should be included that shows the candidate’s number of years of teaching at Indiana University. It should include the specific dates and the candidate’s current position and rank.

• Courses taught. In the range of courses taught, the Committee looks for a breadth of abilities—the successful teaching of large lecture classes, the leading of small seminars, the guidance and mentorship of students in independent studies, and so on. Dates and enrollments should be included, along with an indication of level (lower-level undergraduate, upper-level undergraduate, graduate).

• Self-analysis. The committee considers this statement of self-reflection to be of central importance and gives it much weight in its deliberations. The Committee wishes to learn how the candidate has enlarged the content or elevated the intellectual level of his or her courses, programs, departments, degrees, curricula, and students. In addition, the Committee is interested in how the candidate has used constructive feedback from student evaluations and peer reviews to improve his or her teaching, and how his or her teaching activities have contributed to the intellectual growth of the students, the candidate, and the unit.

In the statement, candidates should discuss their teaching philosophy and how it is put into practice. Included should be an account of any efforts undertaken to analyze teaching, with specific reference to self-improvement and student accomplishment in its broadest sense.

In addition, the self-analysis can be used to show systematic course or program development, including materials or descriptions and evaluation data if available.

The statement should be between five and eight pages, double-spaced. Please also include samples of recent syllabi and evidence of student learning.

Candidates should keep in mind that the Committee is concerned with the candidate's rigor as a teacher. It seeks evidence that the candidate has been doing not simply a good job but a distinguished one and that his or her contribution to students, to the department, and to the University as a whole testifies to exceptional abilities and efforts.

• Student support. While the Committee appreciates the opinions of a candidate's students, as well as those of colleagues and supervisors, it usually values these opinions in direct proportion to their spontaneity. It does not, therefore, recommend deliberate campaigns to solicit student support. It finds the view of students most informative when the students are least aware that these views may affect their teachers’ chances of receiving an important award. In general, the Committee is more impressed by the quality than by the number of endorsements that a candidate receives.

A dossier should include the candidate’s student course evaluations for the last two or three years, and these should be comprehensive rather than selected. They also should be accompanied by an explanation of how the evaluations were administered, which helps ensure that the Committee will weigh them appropriately. Include all student comments for each course, not just a selection of the best.

In addition, candidates should provide summary tables that show course-evaluation scores over a longer period of time; they may also provide reflections on how they utilize these evaluations in their own professional growth.

• Peer reviews. One to three review letters from faculty members familiar with a nominee’s work should be included in the dossier. These should do more than convey a colleague’s enthusiasm for the nominee; they should be based on a close familiarity with the nominee’s pedagogical contributions over time. For example, a letter based on multiple observations of a candidate’s classroom teaching is essential and will be given significantly more weight than one based on the candidate’s general reputation. Similarly, a letter based on a thorough review conducted as part of a department’s standard routine of faculty development—or the peer evaluation document itself—will have greater impact than will a letter that is based on conversations with students and colleagues.

• Administrative evaluations. These should indicate areas specific to distinguished teaching. If available, unit- or campus-level administrative evaluations undertaken on a routine basis or for tenure considerations can be used here; otherwise, a letter of support in addition to the nomination letter is fine to include. And again, detailed evaluations based on multiple direct observations and first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s pedagogical activities are best.

• Other letters of support. The dossier may include up to five letters from students and five from external sources or community members. Again, quality is more important than quantity. Once award recipients have been selected, segments of their letters and other materials may be used in the printed program and in the script that is prepared for the awards ceremony. Excerpts from the letters also may be used in the university’s efforts to publicize these honors, in print and online.

• Research and publications related to teaching. List publications and submit abstracts if possible. Include any public dissemination of teaching materials and methods. Please do not submit research products unrelated to teaching.

• Academic student counseling and mentoring. Describe both the breadth of student mentoring and any unusual or particularly time-consuming activities.

All items should be submitted on the web form as .pdf files.

Nominees who do not receive awards are welcome to resubmit their dossiers in subsequent years. New supporting evidence may be included in those subsequent dossiers.