Stage 2

Preparation and submission of full NTFS claim

NTFS claims are judged rigorously by a national panel of peers from within the sector and scored on the strength of evidence in meeting the set criteria. If nominated, you will be asked to submit the items below, in line with Advance HE formatting guidance.

• Claim: A statement of how the nominee demonstrates excellence in relation to each of the three award criteria (maximum 1500 words per criterion) plus an overarching Context Statement (up to 300 words) and a Reference List.
• Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form: an online form completed by the nominee.

The completed final claim supporting documentation for NTFS is submitted by the Lancaster University Teaching Excellence Awards Lead (TEAL) to Advance HE. Claims are accompanied by a signed Institutional Statement of Support from a senior academic, usually the Pro Vice-Chancellor Education.

Support from CEDA is available to Lancaster University nominees throughout the process. Additionally, external mentor support and critical friendship will be made available for nominees in the development of their claim.

Successful applicants will:

• Be included in publicity generated by Advance HE.
• Be granted the status of National Teaching Fellow.
• Be invited to attend a black-tie award ceremony hosted by Advance HE.

Award Criteria

All nominees at any stage (Lancaster selection panel and at the national stage) will be assessed on evidence provided in the core nomination documents in relation to each of the three selection criteria listed below. Please note that:

1. Nominees should set out evidence of the reach, value and impact of their practice against the three criteria.
2. Each of the three criteria below will be given equal consideration.
3. It is the intention of the Scheme to recognise impact and engagement beyond a nominee’s immediate academic or professional role (at institutional and sector level).

Criterion 1

Individual excellence: Evidence of enhancing and transforming student outcomes and/or the teaching profession; demonstrating impact commensurate with the individual’s context and the opportunities afforded by it.

For example by providing evidence of the impact of: stimulating students' curiosity and interest in ways which inspire a commitment to learning; organising and presenting high quality resources in accessible, coherent and imaginative ways; recognising and actively supporting the full diversity of student learning requirements; drawing upon the outcomes of relevant research, scholarship and professional practice in ways which add value to teaching and students’ learning; engaging with and contributing to the established literature or to the nominee’s own evidence base.

Criterion 2

Raising the profile of excellence: Evidence of supporting colleagues and influencing support for student learning and/or the teaching profession; demonstrating impact and engagement beyond the nominee’s immediate academic or professional role.

For example by providing evidence of the impact of: making outstanding contributions to colleagues’ professional development in relation to promoting and enhancing student learning; contributing to departmental/faculty/institutional/national initiatives to facilitate students’ learning; contributing to and/or supporting meaningful and positive change with respect to pedagogic practice, policy and/or procedure.

Criterion 3

Developing excellence: Show the nominee’s commitment to and impact of ongoing professional development with regard to teaching and learning and/or learning support.

For example by providing evidence of the impact of: ongoing review and enhancement of individual practice, engaging in professional development activities which enhance the nominees expertise in teaching and learning support; specific contributions to enable significant improvements in the students' outcomes and/or experience.

Value, Reach and Impact

Reviewers will be looking for evidence that demonstrates the reach, value and impact of the nominee’s practice. Nominees should be mindful of this requirement and aim to provide evidence that demonstrates a balance of these three qualities across their submission.

Value - The benefit derived for students and staff (which may take different forms). Value may include qualitative evidence such as a change in approach to learning among students or staff. For example, evidence may be provided about how the work being described has added value to the student learning experience or to teaching practice. Value may also relate to the quality of enhanced experiences and the meaningfulness of practices. Some nominees may also be working in settings where there are positive explicit ethical elements to their practice.

Reach - The scale of influence. Though ‘geographic’ reach may be important for some nominees, it is useful to consider other ways that a nominee can demonstrate reach. Some nominees may demonstrate reach at a department/ faculty/ institution/ national/ global level, for example, but others might provide evidence of how their practice has reached different groups of students, individuals and/or organisations (e.g. postgraduates, commuter students, BAME students, online learners, etc.).

Impact - The difference that has been made to policy, practice and/or student outcomes as the result of an activity. The focus here is on explicit evidence of positive change taking place. Impact evidence can be both quantitative and qualitative, but it is important to show how the activities described have changed teaching practice and/or learning outcomes.