BEFORE SUBMITTING THE NOMINATION PLEASE REVIEW THIS CHECKLIST
Is it 30 pages or fewer, not including the dividing pages and the Appendix (if needed)?
Does the nomination letter serve as a guide, directing readers to specific examples? Think of the nomination letter as an executive summary of the entire dossier.
Does the dossier “flow”? You can achieve this flow by carefully weaving the evidence, from one section to another.
Is the evidence aligned and integrated with the claims made in the nomination letter?
Are there discrepancies within the nomination, claims unsupported by evidence?
Does the dossier use clear, plain language? If you have used jargon, is it necessary?
How effective or important are any lists you’ve included?
In Teaching Strategies, what pedagogical issue was the nominee trying to address? How effective was it? Is the explanation concrete?
How much teaching is the nominee doing? We expect at least three classes yearly, or the equivalent, but do explain different contexts that are still considered normal at your institution.
If student evaluations are included is normative data missing from student evaluations, or do negative or critical student comments appear to have been omitted from the document?
If there are negative or critical student comments, how did the nominee respond to them?
Did the committee work included in the “Educational Leadership” section make a real difference? How does the dossier reveal deep, influential leadership?
What is the scope and nature of nominee’s leadership, e.g. campus-wide, student groups, outreach, politics, national, international?
Did course development activities make a difference, improve a program, inspire others, enhance student learning?
Have the nominee’s activities and achievements been contextualized within the discipline and post-secondary institution at large? No two institutions are alike, so have you explained what is unique about your institution or program?
Have nominees in leadership positions clearly demonstrated how their work and accomplishments exceed duties normally expected of them?
Have you described why a particular strategy or course materials or new policy development was truly innovative? What evidence is presented?
Did you include no more than 2 or 3 letters of support from students and 2 or 3 from other referees? If you have additional and forceful letters, quote from them elsewhere in the dossier.
Who solicited the support letters? Why were the writers chosen?
Is every page legible?
Have you identified the author(s) – by name and position – including the preparers of student evaluation results, and hired, professional consultants?
