AAUT Awards for Programs that Enhance Learning

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

 

Eligibility

Eligibility

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.

Nomination

Nominations

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.

 

Application

Program categories

Nominees must select the relevant program category below. The six categories for the AAUT Awards for Programs that Enhance Learning are:

1. Widening participation

This category encompasses approaches to learning and teaching, and/or student experience which enhance student access, widen participation, and support progression.

 

2. Educational partnerships and collaborations with other organisations

This category encompasses partnerships between universities, and universities and other organisations—such as schools, private higher education providers, registered training organisations, professional bodies, businesses and industries in collaborative approaches to learning and teaching.

 

3. Innovation in curriculum design and pedagogy practice

This category encompasses approaches to learning and teaching that afford flexibility in time, place and/or mode of learning and innovations that encourage novel approaches to learning and teaching, innovations that align assessment with curriculum design, innovations that encourage or support multidisciplinary, research-based learning and teaching approaches, innovations that utilise the potential of new and/or emerging technologies.

 

4. Postgraduate education

This category encompasses programs and other activities that focus on postgraduate students, postgraduate coursework learning and teaching, postgraduate research supervision and research higher degree candidature and postgraduate learning support.

5. Student experiences and learning support services

This category encompasses services directly related to student learning such as those for specific groups of students, information access, course advising, language and learning support, counselling and disability support. It also encompasses learning engagement activities and other learning and teaching support services, such as those within large student groups to sustain and retain students, student enhancement, whole personal development learning and the quality of the first-year student experience.

6. Global citizenship and internationalisation

This category includes valuing and enhancing the international student experience, student exchange, international recruitment, transition programs for international students and internationalising the curriculum.

 

Preparing an application

1. Program Award nomination form

4 pages

 

The Nomination Form reports administrative information, includes a declaration from the nominee and institution and acts as a cover sheet for the nomination.

The completed nomination must have all boxes ticked and be signed by the following:

  • Nominee
  • Head of School/ Faculty
  • Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or their nominated delegate
  • Institutional Contact Officer

2. Claims against assessment criteria

10 pages max.

 

Thisdescribes the program activities and achievements and must address all four assessment criteria, providing evidence to support claims. It is to be comprised of the following elements:

  • Synopsis: 200 words max., which includes a description of the program and its contribution to student learning.
  • Overview of the program and its context
  • Statement addressing assessment criteria, include criterion headings, providing supporting evidence including impact on student learning.
  • Reference list: nominees should use their preferred recognised reference style throughout and include a reference list within the 10 pages. Links to reference lists online will not be reviewed by assessors.

Assessment criteria

All nominations will be assessed on the evidence provided in response to the following four criteria which will be given equal consideration by the assessors:

 

1. Distinctiveness, coherence and clarity of purpose

  • Extent to which the program has clear objectives and systematic approaches to coordination, implementation and evaluation

2. Influence on student learning and the student experience

  • Extent to which the program targets identified needs and directly or indirectly, enhances student learning, student engagement and/or the overall student experience of higher education.

3. Breadth of impact

  • Extent to which the program has led to widespread benefits for students, staff, the institution, and/or other institutions, consistent with the purpose of the program.

 

4. Addressing equity and diversity

  • Extent to which the program promotes and supports equity and inclusiveness by improving access, participation and outcomes for diverse student groups.

3. Statement of contribution

1 page max., teams only

 

Team nominations must complete one A4 page that consists of the following:

  • Name and indication of the percentage contribution of each team members (in order from highest to lowest). Note that team members are required to a contribution of 10 per cent or higher.
  • An explanation of the role of each team member
  • The maximum number of team members is 10 either from same institution or different institutions.

Team nomination requirements are as follows:

  • A team for the purposes of the nomination is to be identified
  • Team must have a team name as listed in the nomination form
  • For publication purposes, titles and names stated in the team statement must be the same as listed on the nomination form
  • If the team consists of members from different institutions, clearly state the representative institution on the nomination form and the Team lead’s institution will submit the entire nomination on behalf of the team.

4. Letters of reference

1 page each

 

Two letters of reference, of no more than one A4 page each, are to be provided by referees able to comment on the contribution to student learning against the assessment criteria. References should demonstrate familiarity with the contribution and context, providing endorsement of the claims and additional evidence relating to context, merit and impact on students. Where possible, at least one referee should be qualified to comment on the broader impact of program’s contribution based on relevant professional or personal expertise and standing.

 

References should:

  • Include one referee who is the head of the Team Leader’s faculty, department, school or administrative unit or higher level.
  • For team nominations, apply to the team not individual team members
  • Include a statement acknowledging the referee’s acceptance of the Privacy Notice in the nomination form, e.g. ‘I accept the Privacy Notice provided by the nominee.’
  • Be signed – electronic signatures are accepted
  • Be on institutional letterhead
  • Body text – Font must be Arial or Calibri regular 11 (narrow fonts must not be used)

5. Supporting materials

Supporting materials should illustrate and provide evidence of claims made against the selection criteria. Please do not include any additional information or use as an extension of the page limit.

Nominees can choose to submit up to two of the following supporting materials:

  • A three-minute video, which could include footage of the program in action, team members talking about the program and its vision or interviews with students.
  • One website URL – include web address in your PDF submission.
  • 10 pages of supporting material in PDF format.

The relevance of all material must be made clear in the statement addressing the selection criteria. Supporting materials should be clearly titled and are the last component of the combined nomination file. Supporting materials (including websites) should remain accessible throughout the assessment process, beyond the submission date. Supporting materials should not require a login and password to access the material.

 

6. Photograph

An up-to-date, formal digital photograph of the individual nominee or team (group photo) must be submitted with each nomination, in line with the following specifications:

  • Background colour:White
  • Image definition parameters: Head and shouldersonly
  • Image resolution: 300dpi at 10cm by 10cm or 1200px by1200px
  • File Format:JPEG
  • File size: 1MB - 10MB

If the nomination is successful, the submitted digital photographs will be used for publication purposes, including awards booklets, the Universities Australia website and other promotional materials. The photographs should therefore be of the best possible quality and include all members of a team nomination within the one photo.

 

Submission

Applications will be submitted to the Awards Portal by the AAUT Institutional Contact Officer between 2-13 September 2019.

Assessment

Evidencing your contribution

In addressing the above criteria, applicants are required to make a case that they have:

  1. 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.
  2. Gained recognition from colleagues, the institution, and/or the broader community.
  3. Shown creativity, imagination or innovation, irrespective of whether the approach involves traditional learning environments or technology-based developments.
  4. 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
Recipients
recipients
recipients
recipients
recipients

Amount

$15,000

Number

Up to 6 each year

Reference documents

Use contact details to request an alternative file format.

Contact