Skip Navigation

Faculty Community Engagement Awards

Skip Side Navigation

Provost's Community Engaged Research and Teaching Awards

The community engagement awards are designed to recognize mutually beneficial university-community partnerships in research and teaching.

AWARD: Two $1,000 awards may be given annually to Norman campus faculty. Awards will be presented at the spring awards and honors ceremony.

ELIGIBILITY: Any current member of the University of Oklahoma faculty or staff may nominate one or more Norman faculty for the Community Engagement Research and Teaching Awards. Currently enrolled students may nominate candidates.  

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

Research and Creative Activity Award

Criteria that will be considered are the degree to which there is evidence of:

·       mutually beneficial partnership with community organizations and leaders; 

·       research addressing critical community needs;  

·       important and innovative community-based research within the last three years. 

Teaching Award

Criteria that will be considered are the degree to which there is evidence of:

·      innovative and effective teaching;  

·      engaged high-quality teaching;

·      community collaboration; 

·      institutional impact; 

Additionally, there should be evidence that students address community identified needs in a service-learning project.

NOMINATION PROCESS:

Nominations should be forwarded to the respective dean for review and endorsement prior to final submission. An optional letter from the dean can be included but is not required.

Nomination packets must include the following:

1.    current vita for the nominee;

2.    up to three letters of reference (including the nominator’s statement of support), supporting the nomination from community partners and students;

3.    endorsement from dean (include a statement  at the end of the PDF from dean);

4.    any additional information that may be helpful.

SELECTION PROCESS:

The Community Engagement Advisory Committee shall consider only the formal nominations. The Committee may seek additional data about the nominees from supplemental sources, as appropriate. The Committee shall forward to the Senior Vice President and Provost its recommendation(s) no later than February 1. The Committee also shall transmit all substantiating materials pertaining to all nominees.

The Senior Vice President and Provost will review the nomination materials and recommendation(s) of the Committee and will make the final selection of award recipients, who are recognized at the spring awards and honors ceremony.

Nominations are due November 1, 2019.

Nomination packets must include the following:

  1. current vita for the nominee,
  2. a letter of recommendation from the chair/director of the academic unit of the nominee which specifically indicate how the nominee meets the criteria for selection,
  3. up to three letters of reference (including the nominator’s statement of support). supporting the nomination from community partners and students
  4. any additional information which may be helpful, such as a letter of endorsement from the relevant dean.

NOMINATOR’S STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

Research award:  Please explain why you believe the nominee is an outstanding community engaged researcher or teacher. Provide a brief description of how the faculty member uses best practices to facilitate community-engaged teaching or research/creative activity.  What impact has the faculty member had on the department, community, and/or students?  How does the faculty member actively and effectively engage with community to address community-identified needs? For service-learning award, please include a description of the service-learning projects students have completed. 

 

Teaching award:  Please explain why you believe the nominee is an outstanding community engaged researcher. Provide a brief description of how the faculty member uses best practices to facilitate community-engaged research/creative activity. What impact has the faculty member had on the department, community, and/or students?  How does the faculty member actively and effectively engage with community to address community-identified needs?

The following rubric is used by the Advisory Committee to review nominations:

Service-Learning Teaching Award Honorees are recognized for implementing innovative and effective teaching that demonstrates community collaboration, institutional impact and deeply engaged, high-quality learning. Service-learning courses may or may not carry the SL designation but will include at least one module in the course requirements that requires student to work in the community to address community identified needs.  

Rating Scale:

 4=Evidence of exceptional performance and quality are clearly indicated.

3=Evidence of strong performance and quality are clearly indicated.

2=Evidence of reasonable performance and quality are indicated.

1=Evidence of minimal performance and quality are indicated.

0=No evidence of performance and quality indicated.

 

 

 

Rating

 

 

 

 

Criteria

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Evidence of innovative and effective teaching. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Evidence of engaged high-quality teaching. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Evidence of community collaboration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Evidence of institutional impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Evidence that students address community identified needs in service-learning project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community Engaged Scholarship, Research and Creative Activity Award Honorees are recognized for engaged scholarship, research and creative activity that is conducted in a mutually beneficial community-university partnership that addresses critical community needs.  Important and innovative community engaged and community based work should have been active in the past three years.  

Rating Scale:

 4=Evidence of exceptional performance and quality are clearly indicated.

3=Evidence of strong performance and quality are clearly indicated.

2=Evidence of reasonable performance and quality are indicated.

1=Evidence of minimal performance and quality are indicated.

0=No evidence of performance and quality indicated.

 

 

 

Rating

 

 

 

 

Criteria

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Evidence of mutually beneficial partnership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Evidence of research addressing critical community needs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Evidence of important and innovative community based research within the last three years.