skip to content »

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Faculty Excellence Award

Houston, Texas

Collaborations are integral to the success of our mission areas.
Office of Undergraduate Medical Education
not shown on screen

Review Process and Panel

A primary and secondary reviewer will be designated for each submission. These reviewers will propose initial ratings for all criteria, lead the discussion of the mini-portfolio during the review meeting, and help write brief critiques in support of selection decisions. All members of the Review Panel will assign up to 100 points to each mini-portfolio based on how well the mini-portfolio matches the standards for a given awards category. To receive an award, the average number of points assigned by Review Panel members must meet or exceed the established cutoff of 80 points. Panelist will assume that the examples used to establish the standard would receive an average of 85 to 95 points.

The process primary and secondary reviewers will use in assigning points will be subdivided into three criteria as illustrated below:

Criteria Maximum Points
1. Quality (e.g., success of teaching) (using criteria of scholarship-see below)
  • Clarity of goals
 5 points
  • Adequacy of personal preparation and ongoing self-reflection/improvement*
 10 points
  • Adequacy of methods, quality of presentation and results
 35 points
2. Quantity (e.g., amount of teaching) 40 points
3. Breadth (e.g., diversity of teaching) 10 points
TOTAL 100 points
Minimum average necessary to receive award 80 points
Average of examples used to set standards 85-90 points
*Evidence for these criteria are primarily presented in the personal statement.

(From Scholarship Assessed, Glassik, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997)

Review Panel (as of Spring 2009)

Name

Institution

Michael Coburn, M.D.

Urology, BCM

John Coverdale, M.D.

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, BCM

Rebecca Cox, Ph.D.

Microbiology And Molecular Gen, UT

Joan Friedland, M.D., MPH

Medicine, BCM

Anne Fry, Ph.D.

UTMB

Aimee Garcia, M.D.

Medicine, BCM

Anne Gill, Dr.P.H., M.S., R.N.

Office of Undergraduate Medical Education, BCM

Andrew Harper, M.D.

Psychiatry, UT

David Holcomb, Ed.D.

Allied Health, BCM

Raymond Koeppen, DDS

UT Dental Branch

Glenn Levine, M.D.

Medicine, BCM

Ruth Levine, M.D.

UTMB

Steven Lieberman, M.D.

UTMB

James Lomax, M.D.

Psychiatry, BCM

Martin Lorin, M.D.

Pediatrics, BCM

John Marymont, M.D.

Orthopedics, BCM

Nancy Moreno, Ph.D

Family and Community Medicine, BCM

Brigitta Mueller, M.D.

BCM

Paula O'Neill, Ed.D.

UT Dental Branch

Steen Pedersen, Ph.D.

BCM

Nancy Searle, Ed.D. – Ex-Officio

Office of Undergraduate Medical Education, BCM

Jeffery Starke, M.D.

Pediatrics, BCM

Faye Tan, M.D.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, BCM

Britta Thompson, Ph.D.

Office of Undergraduate Medical Education, BCM

Teri Turner, M.D., M.P.H,. M.Ed.

Pediatrics, BCM

Nancy Searle, Ed.D. – Ex-Officio

Office of Curriculum

James Walker, C.R.N.A., M.S.

BCM

Nancy Weigel, Ph.D.

Cell Biology, BCM

Review Panel Guidelines

Criteria for Determing Quality of Scholarship

Criteria Clarifying Questions*
Clear, realistic and important goals and/or philosophy
  • Is educational endeavor important to mission of College?
  • Are goals specific and obtainable?
  • Are goals consistent with stated leadership philosophy?
  • Do goals reflect needs of profession, society, learners, other faculty?
  • Is the development of enduring materials guided by a cohesive set of professional goals?
  • Is researchers' line of research important to the field?
Adequate preparation
  • Is teacher prepared to teach effectively?
  • Does leader strive to continuously learn new ways of dealing with challenging issues?
  • Does educator take advantage of educator development opportunities (MTFP, peer review, skill building workshops)?
  • Does faculty have skills matching his/her role in preparing enduring educational materials?
  • Is researcher qualified to conduct research effectively?
Appropriate methods
  • Does teacher use appropriate teaching techniques?
  • Is design of course effective?
  • Does leader get others meaningfully involved?
  • Are actions consistent with current literature?
  • Are systematic instructional design methods used to prepare enduring educational materials?
  • Is design of study appropriate?
  • Does study have sufficient statistical power?
Meaningful results
  • Does educational strategy (e.g., teaching method, course management) serve as model for others?
  • Were stated goals achieved?
  • Do learners use the enduring educational materials as intended? Are desired learning outcomes achieved?
  • Does research study lead to outcomes worthy of publication in the literature?
Effective presentation (Sharing strategies or experiences with peers)
  • Are "lessons" learned about teaching, educational leadership or the preparation of enduring educational materials shared with peers at local, regional, or national levels?
  • Do peer reviewers for grant, journal, and/or educational award find the presentation of results understandable and credible?
  • Is write-up of research results credible to a local, regional and/or national audience?
Reflective critique
  • Does teacher, leader, or developer solicit and use feedback from learners and peers?
  • Does educator examine multiple perspectives before changing strategies?
  • Does researcher solicit and effectively use advice from colleagues/mentors?
(From Scholarship Assessed, Glassik, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997)

*These questions illustrate how the criteria apply to multiple areas of scholarship, including scientific and educational research. Based on the award category, members of the peer review panel will look for answers to questions such as these in the information you present in your mini-portfolio.

E-mail this page to a friend