Recognition of the quality of individual teachers or teams
An important driver for participating in the NTFS, as identified by 22 of the surveyed institutions (42%), was the need to acknowledge and reward individuals or teams for demonstrating teaching excellence (see Figure 3: Recognition of the quality of individual teachers or teams). A total of 17 institutions (32%) alluded to benefits relating to the role of the NTFS in helping staff recognise their own excellence (see Figure 4: Recognition of the quality of individual teachers or teams). There were not any significant differences in the nature of responses between mission groups.
2% 4% 6% 19% 19% 38% 49% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Workshops Emotional costs Panel review time Administrative support time Writing time for the applicant Staff time (unspecified) Time providing mentoring and guidance
40
Many of these respondents perceived the NTFS as an opportunity for staff to be acknowledged for their contributions to teaching and learning, within and beyond the
institution. Without procedures in place to reward staff, some institutions felt that it would be more difficult to create a culture that embraces teaching excellence:
The NTFS focuses our attention, above and beyond our own professional recognition schemes, on the excellence of our academics. It also provides a focus for their personal aspirations in terms of being recognised.
Applying for NTFS helps the individual recognise their own excellence. The
individual, whether they are successful or not, is then also recognised as excellent and can become a beacon for others to use.
In response to a closed-ended question, the importance of recognising and rewarding individual teaching excellence was apparent for the majority of all the institutions that participated in the survey (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Survey responses to the closed-ended question 'How important is it to your institution to recognise and reward individual teaching excellence?'
Professional and personal development
There were eight surveyed institutions (15%) that commented that a reason for participating in the NTFS was the opportunity to support the professional and personal development of staff (see Figure 3: Professional and personal development of staff). In terms of the reported benefits of participating in the Scheme, 16 institutions (30%) commented on the professional growth of members of staff (see Figure 4: Professional and personal development of staff). Several respondents described the application process as a valuable exercise for self- evaluation and reflection:
As a reflective activity the NTFS application process, a bit like fellowship of the HEA, really does force you to ask yourself what you are about and what you have been up to all these years.
A range of other examples were provided in the ways in which the NTFS has impacted positively on the development of individual award winners: promotion to senior strategic and leadership positions within their respective institution; instilled confidence to attempt new ideas; in bidding for teaching and learning grants and projects; and networking with other NTFS winners that has led to collaborative opportunities. In contrast, a couple of
respondents argued that the award and prize money had made no difference to the professional development of individual winners.
6% 35% 57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of all survey respondents (n = 72)
Not Important at all Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important
41
Sector context
Utilisation of external NTFS winners
The contribution of NTFS winners in promoting excellent practice in teaching and learning beyond their own institutions was recognised by several respondents, including a few institutions without any internal winners:
We have used some NTFS winners to present to our own HE staff at internal conferences.
Our own NTFS Fellows have been in demand elsewhere too. NTFS holders are across a fantastic range of areas and form a group of colleagues we have invited in at different times to talk about their different areas of work. The huge benefit being that is always rooted in changes to practice.
A small number of respondents commented on the benefits of being connected to the wider network of NTFS winners, which enabled the institution to be exposed to innovative ideas from across the sector.
Other schemes
A total of 31 of the 72 surveyed institutions (43%) responded that it was extremely important to take part in a sector-wide scheme that recognises and rewards individual or team-based teaching excellence (see Figure 7). There were 17 institutions (24%) that stated that it was very important to take part.
Figure 7: Survey responses to the closed-ended question 'How important is it to your institution to participate in a sector-wide scheme that recognises and rewards
individual or team-based teaching excellence?'
Of the 72 survey respondents, 59 institutions stated that they currently support applications for sector-wide award schemes. The first follow-up question asked these 59 institutions to select the schemes that they engage with (see Figure 8). The NTFS individual awards scheme had the highest level of participation, with 49 institutions taking part (83%). This was followed by the NTFS Collaborative Award for Teaching Excellence (CATE) scheme with 41 institutions (69%), The Times Higher Education Awards with 38 institutions (64%) and The Guardian Higher Education Awards, as reported by 22 institutions (37%).
13% 17% 24% 43%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of all survey respondents (n = 72)
Don't know Not Important at all Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important
42
Figure 8: Survey responses to the closed-ended question 'Which sector-wide award schemes that recognise teaching excellence does your institution support? Please tick all that apply'
The second follow-up question asked institutions to comment on the extent to which the NTFS overlaps with other sector-wide award schemes in the UK. A total of 47 survey respondents commented, with 31 (66%) expressing the view that there was no overlap. Six institutions (13%) perceived there to be a small degree of overlap but no additional
explanations were provided, while 10 respondents (21%) stated that they were not sure or unable to comment on this question.