Eligibility
To be eligible for the Byars Prize for Excellence in Teaching, nominees must:
- Hold a full-time appointment as an active instructional faculty member in a CECAS department holding the rank of lecturer, senior lecturer, principal lecturer, professor of practice, assistant professor, or associate professor (including modifiers such as “visiting”).
- Have taught at least nine (9) semester credit hours of fundamental courses (as defined above) during the one and one-half (1.5) calendar years prior to the nomination deadline.
- Have not been a recipient of the Byars Prize for Excellence in Teaching in the last two (2) years.
Criteria
Demonstrated excellence in teaching fundamental courses (defined as 1000, 2000, and 3000-level) carrying a CECAS rubric required in an engineering curriculum. In addition to courses offered by engineering departments, the following CECAS courses are also included: CPSC 1010, CPSC 1020, CPSC 1060, CPSC 1070, CPSC 1110, CPSC 2120, CPSC 3220, and CPSC 3520, and GEOL 1010 and GEOL 1030.
While a sustained pattern of exceptional activity is expected, this award does not recognize teaching longevity so much as it recognizes the quality of recent achievements involving teaching philosophy, methodology, and self-assessment aimed at improvement.
Nominations
Nominations may be submitted by CECAS faculty, staff, students, and alumni. Nomination packets shall include the completed Nomination Form and the documentation of the following in no more than 10 pages (not including the Nomination Form):
- Teaching Quality Assessment (Required): Document teaching quality by providing evidence such as peer evaluations, self-reflection, supervisory evaluations, teaching awards, student evaluations of instruction, assessment of student learning, or other evidence of teaching quality. Responses must demonstrate how the nominee excels compared to others within the department, college, and university. Please describe how the nominee has improved their teaching based on feedback from evaluations and assessments. If evaluations cannot be provided as comparisons, please explain why. Refrain from including student comments that lack measurable assessments (i.e., Rather than including the comment “This teacher is awesome!”, document why the teacher is “awesome!”).
- Philosophy of Teaching and How It Translates into Teaching Methodology (Required): Briefly document the degree to which the nominee (a) articulates a cohesive, creative philosophy that is foundational to their teaching, and (b) documents substantive expertise in evidence-based teaching. In other words, what is the nominee’s philosophy of teaching, and how do they put it into practice? How has their philosophy evolved? The nominee should describe the high-impact practices they utilize to promote learning, such as hybrid or blended classrooms, flipped classrooms, case studies, problem-based learning, experiential learning, Socratic method, active learning, etc.
- Professional Development (Required): Briefly document the degree to which the nominee's professional competence in teaching is evidenced by continuing intellectual accomplishments and pursuits. What is the nominee doing to improve their teaching and student learning? This may include participation in teaching improvement workshops, service as author or editor for textbooks, or other activities that enhance the nominee’s understanding of the instructional content or other teaching professional development activities. While not required, this can also include evidence of teaching and learning scholarships, such as conference presentations, invited presentations, and peer-reviewed teaching research publications related to their teaching activities.
- Endorsement: Include up to 4 letters of endorsement of the nomination. Provide a brief accounting of the degree to which statements substantiate the nominee's excellence in and dedication to the teaching role. Letters should convey special contributions distinguishing the nominee from other teachers and to the extent possible, provide details not found elsewhere in the nomination packet. Include statements (preferably on signed letterhead) from (a) an administrator* of the college or department (required), (b) a colleague or staff of OTEI and/or Clemson Online, whichever is more appropriately positioned to have worked closely with the nominee, and/or (c) former or current students**.
* The administrator is also the nominator for this faculty member and should discuss how the nominee has made an impact on teaching and learning at the department and/or college level.
** Student letters must identify the student's current relationship to the nominee, program, and institution. For example, is the student currently a graduate student in the nominee's department?
