This award will be given to faculty members whose contributions to the development of high quality, enduring educational materials (as a Baylor College of Medicine faculty member) match or exceed the contributions contained in the standard-setting examples. (See examples at the bottom of this page.)
Development of Enduring Educational Materials might include authoring a textbook or textbook chapter; publishing a review article (particularly one intended primarily to aid learners); preparation of teaching cases (such as those used in problem-based learning); writing computer-based instructional programs; producing an educational video; or authoring test questions for national testing organizations. (See a more complete list of types of Enduring Educational Materials.)
To qualify as "enduring" materials must be used repeatedly over an extended period of time by educators other than the author(s) and by learner groups other than the one taught by the author(s), and disseminated outside of Baylor.
To qualify as "educational" materials must have been designed explicitly to promote knowledge, skills or attitudes of specific populations of learners (as opposed to materials designed specifically to communicate results of research or patient care activities to other scientists or to other healthcare practitioners, respectively). Possible populations of learners that are relevant to Baylor’s educational mission may include nurses, allied health, graduate and medical students; residents; physicians in CME courses; other professionals; faculty members and instructors; patient groups; public undergraduate students; students in grades K–12; etc.
Evidence of Quality should include a description of your rationale/goals for dedicating professional time to the development of enduring materials; a description of your preparation/background and ongoing self-improvement which enables you to prepare high-quality materials; letters of support; peer review of completed materials; usage statistics; and learner evaluations. This criterion will count 50 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel. See the general criteria for determining quality of educational scholarship for all Fulbright and Jaworski LLP Faculty Excellence Awards.
Evidence of Quantity must include the number of distinct items developed (e.g., number of textbook chapters); the scope or size of each item (e.g., number of pages, number of learning "contact hours"); estimates of the number of learners or distinct populations of learners using each item; and the number of years each item has been in use. Include numerical estimates of the amount of effort expended (e.g., hours per week and number of weeks). This criterion will count 40 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Dimensions of Breadth might include the number of different formats in the design of the materials (e.g., print, apps, video, computer); the number of distinct populations of learners for which your materials are intended; and the number of distinct content areas addressed in the materials. This criterion will count 10 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Instructions for Submitting Mini-Portfolios
See instructions specific to preparing your mini-portfolio for the Enduring Educational Materials category.
Please review Submitting a Mini-Portfolio for general instructions regarding format and submission requirements.
The following examples illustrate how a variety of faculty meet the standards of quantity, quality and breadth for the Development of Enduring Educational Materials Category. As a candidate, you should accumulate and document at least as much overall evidence of accomplishment as is contained in the individual examples. While your exact combination of accomplishments related to quality, quantity and breadth will be unique, you will be required at the start of your mini-portfolio to identify which standard-setting example(s) best match(es) the types of enduring materials you include.
The examples have been prepared using a template which you should use in your mini-portfolio.
Example 1 - Ph.D. in clinical department
Example 2 - M.D./Ph.D. in basic science department
Example 3 - Ph.D. in basic science department
Example 4 - M.D. in clinical department
Just as the examples are not maximally strong in all areas, it is expected that faculty mini-portfolios will vary and not be maximally strong in all areas. In effect, weaker areas may be balanced out with stronger areas, so long as the overall combination compares favorably to the examples.