The Australian Awards for University Teaching (AAUT) were established in 1997 by the Australian Government to celebrate and reward excellence in university teaching. Since then, with an honour roll that includes many highly respected and celebrated members of the sector, the Australian Awards for University Teaching have become a valued form of recognition for university educators Australia wide.
The AAUT Awards recognise the impact that educators have on the learning and teaching experiences and outcomes of university students. They celebrate and reward programs that support students and enhance learning. They promote excellence in learning and teaching in all aspects of higher education. Recipients, with the support of their institutions, contribute to systemic change in learning and teaching through the ongoing sharing and dissemination of knowledge.
The AAUT Awards for Programs that Enhance Learning recognise learning and teaching programs and services that make innovative and outstanding contributions to student learning outcomes and the quality of the student experience. They are awarded to programs and services that have set high standards for learning and teaching activities in Australian higher education institutions.
See videos of our previous AAUT award recipients and applicants talking about their teaching.
Read about our AAUT award recipients
Nomination is open to all programs and services that enhance student learning in higher education. Nominations must be supported by the nominating institution.
Programs should be broader than one or two subjects, or a limited service that involves only a few students. For example, programs may involve a service or program provided at the institutional, faculty or school level, a program of study across number of years, or a service or program directed at particular groups of students.
Eligibility of team members
Team nominations can only include members with a contribution of 10 per cent or higher, and only 10 people in total.
In some circumstances a team member(s) for a program award may not be employed by the nominating institution. This is acceptable providing the program is a program or service at the eligible institution that enhances student learning and the project leader and majority of team members are employed by the nominating institution. The funding for program award recipients is provided to the nominating institution, and all team members should be aware of this upon nominating.
Previous recipients of Awards or Citations
Programs that have received an AAUT Program Award are ineligible for renomination.
Past recipients of an AAUT Teaching or Program Award (including Carrick Award, ALTC Award or OLT Award) can only renominate if they form part of a team nomination and are not the lead nominee. The new nomination should not substantially replicate the original nomination.
Nomination or receipt of an AAUT Citation does not affect eligibility for an AAUT Program Award.
ANU may nominate a maximum of two individuals or teams for the AAUT Program Awards.
The ANU Promoting Excellence team will nominate individuals or teams from the recipients and applicants for the Vice-Chancellor's Awards for Excellence in Education.
Nominees may be included in only one Program Award nomination in any year, except if a nominee forms part of a team nomination and is not the lead nominee.
Evidencing your contribution
In addressing the above criteria, applicants are required to make a case that they have:
- Impacted on student learning, student engagement or the overall student experience for a period of no less than three years (two years for early career), not including time taken for development or trial of any activity.
- Gained recognition from colleagues, the institution, and/or the broader community.
- Shown creativity, imagination or innovation, irrespective of whether the approach involves traditional learning environments or technology-based developments.
- Drawn on the scholarly literature on teaching and learning to inform the development of initiatives, programs and/or practice.
This case needs to be strongly supported by a wide range of evidence in the form of qualitative and quantitative data. This may include: Formal and informal evaluation, student data, institutional student surveys, references and selected teaching materials.
The AAUT Assessment Matrix below can be downloaded from the Documents panel
Assessment of evidence
A. Impact on student learning, student engagement or the overall student experience for a period of no less than three years
|1 Poor||Nomination does not demonstrate impact, or impact has not been sustained for three years or more.|
|2 Not Recommended||Influence is hard to ascertain from the limited evidence provided. A range of activities may be described but the impact on student learning is not clear. Application focuses on career longevity rather than sustainability of impact. Evaluation has been done but appears to have been ad-hoc. Reflection on evaluation results is minimal.|
|3 Recommended||Some connections drawn between activities and student outcomes. Evidence from several sources is provided to support claims of impact. Evaluation has been conducted regularly and several forms of evidence (e.g. both qualitative and quantitative) from more than one stakeholder group has been provided. Changes have been implemented as a result of evaluations.|
|4 Highly Recommended||Multiple forms of evidence from a range of sources and stakeholder groups is provided that clearly demonstrates impact on student learning. Evaluation has been done systematically. Multiple forms evidence has been provided from several stakeholder groups. Evaluation is reflected upon and changes implemented as a result are included in the nomination.|
|5 Outstanding||Outstanding connections drawn between the work and its influence on student learning. These are backed up by evidence from a wide range of sources that illustrate high levels of impact on student experiences, learning and graduate outcomes. Evaluation is clearly highly valued and an integral part of the nominee’s work and has been sustained over time. Evaluation is reflected upon and changes implemented as a result are a substantial feature of the nomination.|
Assessment of evidence
B. Recognition gained from colleagues, the institution, and/or the broader community
|1 Poor||The nomination provides no evidence that the nominee has gained recognition.|
|2 Not Recommended||The nomination provides unreliable or weak evidence that the nominee has gained recognition.|
|3 Recommended||The nomination provides evidence from multiple stakeholders. Initiatives or has gained recognition from peers. Program or initiative may have been adopted by others within the department.|
|4 Highly Recommended||The nomination provides multiple forms of evidence that the program has gained widespread recognition throughout their institution and the local community. Program or initiative has been adopted across the institution|
|5 Outstanding||The nomination provides multiple forms of evidence from a range of stakeholders to back up claims of widespread recognition throughout the institution and the community across the state or nationally. Program or initiative has been adopted nationally or internationally|
Assessment of evidence
C. Shown creativity, imagination or innovation.
|1 Poor||No evidence is provided that the nominee is doing anything different to others in their field|
|2 Not Recommended||Weak or unreliable evidence to show that the nominee implements new initiatives. Context is not explicitly considered|
|3 Recommended||A range of evidence to show that the nominee trials and implements new initiatives or combines existing approaches in different ways. The innovations are generally appropriate for the context in which they are being applied|
|4 Highly Recommended||Broad range of evidence to show that the nominee has trialled and implemented new initiatives or combined existing approaches in different ways. The innovations are appropriate for the context in which they are being applied.|
|5 Outstanding||Very broad range of evidence to show that the nominee has trialled and implemented new initiatives or combined existing approaches in different ways. The innovations are appropriate for, and novel to, the context in which they are being applied. A wide range of evidence is provided to illustrate impact on student learning.|
Assessment of evidence
D. Drawn on the scholarly literature on teaching and learning to inform the development of initiatives, programs and/or practice.
|1 Poor||Nomination does not refer to scholarly literature of teaching and learning|
|2 Not Recommended||Nomination refers to some scholarly literature of teaching and learning but it is limited and not well connected to practice|
|3 Recommended||Nomination refers to a range of scholarly literature. Connections are articulated to the applicant’s philosophy and practice|
|4 Highly Recommended||Nomination refers to a broad range of scholarly literature of teaching and learning. Connections to the applicant’s philosophy and practice are clearly articulated.|
|5 Outstanding||Nomination shows deep understanding of a broad range of scholarly literature of teaching and learning. Connections to the applicant’s philosophy and practice are clearly articulated. Applicant actively contributes to the scholarship of teaching and learning|