³ÉÈË´óƬ

Nature of Award

This award is intended to recognise the outstanding contribution(s) of a Teaching Assistant or Teaching Fellow to the SGPS and/or the Queen's community. (See SGPS website and SGPS Policy 9.3.2.f)

Nomination Criteria

Nominees must:

• be a Teaching Assistant or as Teaching Fellow AND an SGPS member for some interval of time during the 12 months preceding the nomination period.
• have made a significant contribution to the SGPS membership and/or Queen's community(SGPS Policy 9.1.4).

Nomination Procedure

Nominations will be accepted from any member of the Queen's community. (SGPS Policy 9.3.1) The nomination period shall be open for at least two weeks, and shall end no later than 3 weeks before the date of the Spring Semi-Formal. (SGPS Policy 9.2.3)

Nomination forms are available on the SGPS website.  They must, at the minimum, contain the following:

The nominator’s full name and student number (if applicable)

The name of the nominee

The name of the Award

Contact Information for the nominator and nominee

A brief description of the contribution(s) made by the nominee to the SGPS and/or Queen’s Community and the time period over which these contribution(s) were made

A brief description of how this person’s contribution(s) are outstanding and have made an impact on the SGPS and/or Queen’s Community  (SGPS Policy 9.3.2)      

Past Winners

2023 - 2024 Hebatalla Ouda, School of Computing
2022 - 2023 Gagandeep Minhas, School of Kinesiology
2022 - 2023 Mohamed Yusuf, Faculty of Education
2021 - 2022 Stephanie Woolridge, Department of Psychology
2020 - 2021 Katrina Marie Carbone, Faculty of Education
2019 - 2020 Taylor J Smith, School of Computing
2018 - 2019 Pelin Tan, Department of Psychology
2017 - 2018 Breah Talan, Geography and Planning
2016 - 2017 Jeffrey Rice, Political Studies
2015 - 2016 Maseeh Haseeb, Faculty of Law
2014 - 2015 Amirreza Rouhi, Mechanical and Materials Engineering
2013 - 2014 Jeremy Durelle, Chemistry
2012 - 2013 Gwendolyn Eadie, Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy
2010 - 2011 Niraj Kumar, Biology
2009 - 2010 Usman Mushtaq, Civil Engineering
2008 - 2009 Jones Adjei, Sociology
2007 - 2008 Tracy Pennimpede, Pathology and Molecular Medicine
2006 - 2007 Wynne Jordan, Religion
2005 - 2006 Robb MacKay, Education

Nature of Award

This award is intended to recognise the outstanding contribution(s) of a Faculty Member to the SGPS and/or the Queen's community. (See SGPS website and SGPS Policy 9.3.2.f)

Nomination Criteria

Nominees must:

• Must be a Queen’s University faculty member
• Must have made a significant contribution to the SGPS membership in the realm of teaching, supervision, and/or mentorship.

Nomination Procedure

Nominations will be accepted from any member of the Queen's community. (SGPS Policy 9.3.1) The nomination period shall be open for at least two weeks, and shall end no later than 3 weeks before the date of the Spring Semi-Formal. (SGPS Policy 9.2.3)

Nomination forms are available on the SGPS website.  They must, at the minimum, contain the following:

The nominator’s full name and student number (if applicable)

The name of the nominee

The name of the Award

Contact Information for the nominator and nominee

A brief description of the contribution(s) made by the nominee to the SGPS and/or Queen’s Community and the time period over which these contribution(s) were made

A brief description of how this person’s contribution(s) are outstanding and have made an impact on the SGPS and/or Queen’s Community  (SGPS Policy 9.3.2)      

Past Winners

2023 - 2024 Christopher Omelon
2022 - 2023 Thashika Pillay, Faculty of Education
2021 - 2022 Jennifer Kennedy, Department of Art History and Art Conservation
2020 - 2021 Yolande Burke, Department of Political Studies
2019 – 2020 Shobhana Xavier, School of Religion
2018 – 2019 Debra Haak, Faculty of Law
2018 – 2019 Ian Janssen, School of Kinesiology & Health Studies and the Department of Public Health Sciences
2017 – 2018 Kyra Pyke, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies

Established in 2003 through gifts from the Toronto Dominion Bank and Chancellor Emeritus Charles Baillie, the Chancellor A. Charles Baillie Teaching Award recognizes undergraduate or graduate or professional teaching that has had an outstanding influence on the quality of student learning at ³ÉÈË´óƬ.  It is awarded annually for activities that lead to improved learning, including curriculum development, educational leadership, design and delivery of out-of-classroom educational experiences, or classroom teaching and supervision. Recipients of this award are selected by a panel of their peers. The Selection Committee comprises past award recipients, faculty members, students, staff and educational developers.  The Centre for Teaching and Learning is responsible for the administration of the Award and the selection of the adjudication panel.

Award Value

The recipient of the award is formally acknowledged during convocation and will receive an $8,000 award as part of their Queen's monthly pay, normally during the pay period when the Award is received.

Eligibility

The Baillie Teaching Award is open to all current Queen’s University faculty members (full-time and part-time) at any stage of their teaching careers regardless of discipline, program, level, or terms of appointment. Instructors may be nominated by a peer or academic administrator or may self-nominate by completing the Nomination Dossier.

Award Criteria

Teaching excellence at Queen’s University is supported by educators that affect in significant and meaningful ways the experiences, learning, and successes of students at individual, departmental, faculty and/or institutional levels. The Baillie Teaching Award recognizes those educators who:

• Have had an outstanding influence on the quality of student learning at the departmental, faculty, or institutional level.
• Created innovative activities that lead to improved learning, including curriculum development, design and delivery of out-of-classroom educational experiences, or classroom teaching and supervision.
• Demonstrated educational leadership, by making substantial contributions above and beyond their normal roles and responsibilities, including curriculum development, committee membership at departmental, faculty, and/or institutional level, and supported the teaching development of peers and student mentees.
• Established critical reflection on effective and innovative teaching through scholarship of teaching and learning, and knowledge sharing through workshops or program initiatives.  

Next Deadline: Monday, April 28, 2025

Adjudication Process

Administrative processes surrounding communication, nomination, and selection will be coordinated by the Centre for Teaching and Learning, which can be contacted by calling 613-533-6428 or by email at ctl@queensu.ca if you have any questions. A committee, chaired by the Vice Provost Teaching and Learning (or delegate), and consisting of 1 past recipient (faculty), 1 educational developer, 1 graduate student (generally an Educational Development Associate from the Centre for Teaching and Learning), 1 undergraduate student and 1 educational support professional (staff) will adjudicate the nomination files. The committee will be guided in this process by an Assessment Rubric (Word, 31KB) based on the criteria of the award.

Please fill out the Nomination Dossier (Word, 27KB)  (This form is meant to help guide you. Feel free to delete elements that have been placed there for your information or elements that you aren't using).

Nomination Dossier Requirements

1. The nomination dossier must not exceed 15 pages. As the nominee must demonstrate excellence in the four categories of educational leadership; teaching excellence; significant impact on learning; and educational innovation and scholarship, it is expected that page length is approximately equal between these 3 sections (approximately 3-4 pages per section) and that content is not redundant in each section.
2. A font such as 11-point Calibri or 12-point Times New Roman with 1-inch margins and single-line spacing should be used.
3. Each page must be numbered.
4. The file must be a searchable PDF and should not consist of scanned documents.
5. Opinions about a nominee’s excellence are most credible if expressed by others.
6. A Nomination Dossier template is provided for nominees, delete any elements that do not apply to your package.

Contents of Nomination Dossier

1.0 Nomination Brief

A form for the nomination brief is provided in the Nomination Dossier recommended template. The information in the nomination brief should not be repeated in other places of the dossier.

2.0 Letter of Nomination

Good nominations begin with a comprehensive nomination letter carefully encapsulating the whole dossier, similar to an Executive Summary. The letter tells the committee what to look for and where to find it. The nomination letter is written by someone working closely with the nominee and who is familiar with the entire dossier. Bringing forward the reader’s first impressions of the nominee, the nomination letter is one of the most important documents in a successful dossier. The most compelling letter evokes a vivid, three-dimensional sense of the nominee by addressing the nominee’s special qualifications for the award, focusing on educational leadership, teaching excellence, and educational innovation.

3.0 Educational Leadership

3.1 Philosophy of Educational Leadership (1 page maximum)

The nominee writes the Philosophy of Educational Leadership, giving a personal account of leadership. As the Committee’s first opportunity to hear the nominee’s own voice, the reflective Philosophy of Educational Leadership is a crucial part of the nomination. An effective philosophy statement is personal and genuine. It distinguishes the nominee’s approaches to educational leadership. It provides a conceptual framework that explains the values, principles, and goals that underpin the nominee’s decisions and actions. It helps readers connect with the evidence provided elsewhere in the dossier.
Past leadership statements have introduced teachers who changed institutional cultures with the persistent force of their ideas and passion. They support and lead change towards more inclusive, equitable, and diverse educational landscapes. They persuade departments to revise their courses and programs to reflect this work. They create and offer professional development to colleagues in their home organizations and across the country because they want to share fresh ideas. They may present and publish on teaching and learning. They mentor graduate students and colleagues to become better teachers. They may focus on addressing the needs of certain student populations. Educational leaders lead change.
The Philosophy of Educational Leadership should not be the same as the Teaching Philosophy Statement. Evidence for educational leadership should be included in section 3.1 of the dossier, not in the Philosophy of Educational Leadership statement. Helpful resources for crafting this statement can be found below:

3.2 Evidence of Educational Leadership

This section includes factual evidence to support the narrative in section 3.0. Specific projects, recognition, assessments of impact, and other supporting documentation should be highlighted to provide evidence of educational leadership at the departmental, faculty, institutional, national, international, or disciplinary level, demonstrating lived commitment to improving higher education and society. Please note that the committee is looking for the impact over time that the nominee’s leadership has had on higher education in particular: clear evidence of this impact is essential. Also, please keep in mind the significance of the nominee’s role; at its most persuasive, educational leadership goes beyond the nominee’s assigned duties, transcending the confines of a course or program. It makes a difference through deep and significant change within a department, faculty, institution, discipline, nationally, or internationally.

Lists of workshops presented or attended, or of committees served on are only modest support and not sufficient evidence of the key points presented in the Philosophy of Educational Leadership statement. Instead, creating a campus initiative or inspiring changes within the discipline can be persuasive when accompanied with an explanation of why something is important; why and how it makes a difference; and what the nominee did to make that difference.

The nominee will, in part, have provided leadership among faculty colleagues in developing structures and processes and in pursuing activities that help create a departmental, faculty, institutional, national, international, or disciplinary environment which fosters and supports teaching excellence. What constitutes educational leadership will vary from context to context but regardless of what evidence is provided, it is critical to indicate the impact of the nominee’s work on others. For example, the nominee might have

• supported the University in its institutional commitments to Indigenization-Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Accessibility, and Anti-Racism (I-EDIAA)
• participated in organizing the departmental, faculty, or institutional continuing efforts to improve equity through the quality of instruction it offers to its learners,
• assisted colleagues, either formally or informally, in efforts to improve their teaching, for example through mentorship or peer consultation,
• provided guidance to new faculty members and other colleagues,
• organized or participated actively in workshops, symposia, or conferences on college or university instruction,
• contributed to the scholarship of teaching and learning,
• been involved in collaborative efforts to develop innovative methods of teaching,
• been actively involved in curriculum development or program renewal,
• developed curricula or learning programs (e.g., co-op learning, service learning, internships, faculty-student partnerships) that benefit the entire campus,
• implemented institutional change,
• had a measurable amount of impact on mentors,
• participated in knowledge translation,
• measured change under individual’s leadership,
• measured staff or student turnover,
• contributed actively to institutional committees whose work has created or influenced institutional policies related to equity, teaching, learning, or assessment,
• written or substantially contributed to the development of institutional policies to enhance teaching or learning, such as curricular equity, teaching evaluation, academic advising, anti-oppressive strategies in teaching, academic integrity, etc.,
• served in leadership roles on departmental, faculty, institutional, regional, national, or international organizations dedicated to teaching,
• helped improve learning outcomes or access to education for equity-deserving groups such as First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, Indigenous peoples of North America, racialized persons, persons with disabilities, and those who identify as women and/or 2SLGBTQI.

The focus in this section is on leadership in improving teaching and learning beyond the nominee’s own classroom. This is not the place for descriptions of excellence in teaching or working with students, nor for academic leadership in projects or committees focused on issues other than teaching and learning.

Educational leadership, teaching excellence, and educational innovation are typically aligned. Nonetheless, evidence for educational leadership must be distinct from evidence for teaching excellence and evidence of innovation. Helpful resources for crafting this statement can be found below:

4.0 Teaching Excellence

4.1 Teaching Philosophy Statement (maximum 1 page)

The reflective Teaching Philosophy Statement is a crucial part of the nomination. An effective philosophy statement is personal and genuine. It distinguishes the nominee’s approaches to learning and teaching. It provides a conceptual framework that explains the beliefs, principles, and goals that underpin the nominee’s teaching decisions and actions. It outlines inclusive practices employed in teaching, and ongoing reflections towards more equitable teaching practices. Claims made in the Teaching Philosophy Statement should be substantiated in other parts of the dossier. Helpful resources for crafting this statement can be found below:

Teaching Dossier | Centre for Teaching and Learning (queensu.ca)

4.2 Statement of Teaching Responsibilities

This is an important section to set the context of one’s work as a teacher. It helps the reader understand how much, what, and when one teaches. This section is a brief explanation of the nominee’s normal teaching responsibilities, for example, the normal teaching assignment in the nominee’s unit and for the type of role or discipline, relevant details about the student profile in the nominee’s classes, information related to whether the courses are required or elective, or anything that is unique to the context. If the nominee has an administrative position, they should clarify the course release (if any) that goes with that responsibility and include a statement of the normal number of courses taught by faculty in the nominee’s department.

4.3 Teaching Awards Received

List the nominee’s teaching awards and brief description of award. Other useful information may include the number of eligible applicants for each award, or the number of such awards granted in any given period. Please note that receiving a previous teaching award is not a requirement for receiving this award.

 5.0 Impact on Student Learning

This section is often written as a narrative from the nominee. Two to three samples of effective strategies and their impact on learning can be clear windows into the nominee’s teaching. Please focus on those things that are extraordinary, not just good practice.

5.1 Effective Teaching Strategies

The nominee should tell a story of what was done, the rationale behind the strategies, the evidence for their impact, effectiveness, and the learning outcomes that were achieved. The narrative may describe an original assignment, a series of lab experiments, exceptional fieldwork, innovative lecturing, and so on. This section should help the committee understand how the nominee’s teaching philosophy is enacted.

5.1 Evidence for Teaching Excellence

Evidence for teaching excellence should come from several sources such as, student evaluations of teaching, peer review of teaching, course development efforts, or course materials. Many teachers demonstrate excellence and commitment in unconventional, unprecedented, radical, unheralded, or novel ways. For instance, pre-post learning tests to demonstrate knowledge gains, producing scholarship, demonstrated use of evidence-based approaches to pedagogy, or evidenced success in student learning outcomes. It is up to the nominee to decide what evidence to put forward in this section. Some suggestions are provided below:

• Evidence of teaching effectiveness includes but is not limited to: student experiences of teaching or other course evaluation data (qualitative and/or quantitative) such as USATs, QSSETs; formative/midterm feedback collected from students; samples of student work; student achievements directly related to teaching and learning activities (i.e.: career placement, grad school  admission, publications, presentations); selective and purposeful informal feedback from learners that pseak directly to specific teaching practices and/or impact; letters of support from former students (no longer teaching or in a supervisory relationship).  
• Peer review of teaching is another piece of evidence that can be used. The value of such evidence increases with details and specifics—anecdotes, examples, descriptions, stories, and observations. If peer review of teaching is used as part of the evidence for teaching excellence, it is important that the reviewer take a scholarly approach to the peer review. For instance, they will have used multiple sources of data to inform the review such as feedback from students, review of course materials, course websites, etc. Further, the peer review should be informed by several visits of the instructor’s classes by the reviewer and an in-depth discussion with the nominee on how student learning outcomes are met through the nominee’s instructional strategy and assessment methods. Typically, the nominee would also mention what changes they would implement because of the peer review. Keep in mind that a letter of support or a simple classroom observation do not meet the requirements of a peer review. Please note that if a peer review takes the form of a letter, then it must be counted as one of the 6 letters allowed within the dossier. Helpful resources on
• Course development efforts may be a way to demonstrate teaching excellence. If the nominee decides to do so, no more than 3 newly developed courses should be described, including, the rationale for and process used to develop and refine each course. If a course is successful because of a design innovation itself, an explanation and evidence of student learning because of the design should be provided.
• Course materials, or elements thereof, may clarify claims of teaching excellence. Course outlines and major assignments are not to be copied into the dossier without interpretation. Excerpts of noteworthy elements with explanations of their significance can be included and should provide explicit connections of the course material element to other messages in the dossier, e.g., related to the connection between the course materials and the nominee’s teaching philosophy or a previously mentioned teaching strategy.

Helpful resources for crafting this statement can be found below:

6.0 Educational Innovation and Scholarship

Evidence for educational innovation may occur in the classroom, at the post-secondary institution, or beyond. In this section it is important to highlight how the nominees’ innovation goes beyond their own classroom. When describing innovative practices, the nominee should provide explanations of the innovative part, as well as the theme it aimed to address. For example, current themes for innovation include but are not limited to, students-as partners, student and university well-being, remote learning, work integrated learning and open educational resources, high-impact practices, and artificial intelligence in teaching and learning.

The educational innovation in this section should not have been mentioned in other sections of the dossier. For instance, evidence for a unique teaching strategy could be presented under teaching excellence but in this section, the committee wishes to see evidence of the impact of that strategy on others. Similarly, evidence for educational leadership might include the production of the scholarship of teaching and learning. In the present section, the nominee should present what the impact of that scholarship has been. An example would be if others have changed their pedagogical practices as a result of the nominee’s scholarship. Evidence for educational innovation may include but is not limited to:

• Adoption of innovation by others
• Development of initiatives or innovations that have had a significant impact on higher education (at their institution or beyond)
• Data showing impact (performance measures, institutional change, baseline data for comparison purposes, learning impact, outcome evaluations)
• Innovative work around effective implementation of instructional design principles for effective teaching and learning experiences and evidence of the success of those efforts
• Creative work around designing educational development activities for faculty and others, and evidence of impact
• Development of educational resources that have been used by others
• External recognition
• Resulting course delivery tools
• Resultant scholarship
• Learner feedback

7.0 Letters of Support

The ideal letter is specific and authentic; it is signed and dated from colleagues or former students (letters from current students cannot be used). There can be only 3 letters included in the entire dossier (and included in the page count). For instance, if a letter is included as part of the peer review of teaching, then it counts as one of the 3 letters. Further, no more than 2 of the 3 letters can be from former students.

To avoid redundancy, each letter should address a separate facet or two of the nominee’s teaching, leadership, and innovation. The focus in the letters should be on the impact the nominee has had on the individual, group, institution, or discipline. Elements might include commentary on student engagement, support for student learning, professional value of the courses, effective teaching strategies, curriculum design, campus-wide impact, teaching reinforced by research, peer mentoring, and so on. Examples are stronger than adjectives.

Past Recipients

2024 Jennifer Kennedy, Department of Art History and Art Conservation
2023 Paul Grogan, Biology Department
2022 Fiona Kay, Department of Sociology
2021 Claire Davies, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
2020 Wendy Powley, School of Computing
2019 Heather Murray, Department of Emergency Medicine
2018 Erik Knutsen, Faculty of Law
2017 Catherine Donnelly, School of Rehabilitation Therapy
2016 Jill Atkinson, Department of Psychology
2015 James Fraser, Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy
2014 Stephen Lougheed, Department of Biology
2013 Anne Godlewska, Department of Geography
2012 Lindsay Davidson, Department of Surgery
2011 Brian Frank, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
2010 Mark Weisberg, Faculty of Law
2009 Richard Ascough, School of Theology/Religious Studies
2008 Bill Newstead, Department of Chemistry
2007 Ron Easteal, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology
2006 John Smol, Department of Biology
2005 Maggie Berg, Department of English
2004 Morris Orzech, Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Nomination Guidelines

In recognition of the primary importance of teaching excellence at ³ÉÈË´óƬ, the Alumni Association and the Senate will offer the Alumni Award for Excellence in Teaching.

The Award

The recipient of the award will receive $5,000 presented at the Queen’s University Alumni Association’s annual Gala Awards Dinner, and the Teaching Award statuette, presented at Convocation.

Eligibility

A candidate must be a teacher at ³ÉÈË´óƬ who has the primary responsibility for a course offered to registered Queen's students (i.e. organization and presentation). For this purpose, classrooms are not limited to lecture halls but include other teaching environments such as laboratories, seminars and tutorials.

Nominators

Students, alumni and/or faculty may make nominations, individually or collectively. Nominations from students and students perspectives are especially valued.

Teachers may not nominate themselves.

A prior nomination does not disqualify a teacher. Many excellent candidates are not selected for an award simply because there is only one award given annually. Nominations for candidates who are shortlisted will be brought forward for one year. Members of the University community are urged to submit additional information for previously shortlisted candidates or re-nominate candidates who were unsuccessful in previous years and who continue to show excellence in teaching performance.

The Teaching Award Committee

The Teaching Award Selection Committee will consist of two academic staff members and three student members appointed by the Senate, and two alumni members appointed by the QUAA Board of Directors. The Alumni Officer for the QUAA will act as the Secretary for the Teaching Award Selection Committee. The Committee will be chaired by a member of Queen’s faculty.

Nomination Package

Nominations packages must be received no later than the last Friday in February.

The Secretary of the Teaching Award Selection Committee will then consolidate the nominations and refer the list of names, together with supporting documents, to the members of the Committee.

The nomination package includes 2 parts:

Part 1 - The nomination form:

Part 2 - Evidence of excellence in teaching:

    a) A letter of nomination which focuses on the following selection criteria;

        1. An ability to foster student learning – includes being able to communicate in ways that are meaningful to
           students, demonstrating passion for the subject, and constructing an inclusive learning environment where
           students with special needs are automatically integrated into the learning community;

        2. An ability to engage with and inspire interest among students -- includes recognizing that teachers and
           students are partners in the learning enterprise and that students are partially responsible for defining learning
           outcomes;

        3. Meaningful methods to assess student performance -- includes using assessment practices that evaluate
           understanding of the subject rather than the ability to memorize, allow students to track their growth over time,
           and permit final judgments about achievements that go beyond the accumulation of ideas to requiring students
           to make connections among the course's main ideas, i.e., extending their learning to new and unique
           problems;

        4. Innovation in curriculum development -- includes integrating new themes and topics into existing courses
           based on students' needs and the instructor's formal or informal research in the field of study, and recognizing
           a need and filling it with a new course, if and when appropriate. Demonstrate commitment to instructional
           development -- includes participating in teaching workshops and consulting with individuals, groups or
           curriculum committees for professional development and in-service to the community of teachers.

    b) Letters of support from faculty colleagues and current and/or former students (graduate or undergraduate).

Note: Both parts must be submitted.

Selection Process

The Committee will review the nominations and compare the qualifications of each nominee to the criteria, and will identify a short list of finalists (not to exceed 5 ) for further consideration.

Prospective finalists will be asked:

If they consent to having their name placed on the list of finalists; and
If they wish to submit a teaching dossier, including but not limited to:

          • A statement of teaching philosophy
          • A description of their approach to teaching (with examples of course materials and a description of
            particularly effective strategies used)
          • Other materials (total package not to exceed 10 pages in length including any appendices and graphics)

The name of the recommended recipient, with supporting material, will be forwarded to the President of the QUAA by April 30, who will bring the decision to the QUAA Board of Directors for endorsement by May 31.

Past Winners

2024 burcu habibe baba, Gender Studies & Geography and Planning
2023 Not awarded this year
2022 Michelle Searle, Faculty of Education
2021 Not awarded this year
2020 Anne Pettijean, Department of Chemistry
2019 Holly Ogden, Faculty of Education
2018 Steven Lamontagne, Department of Psychology
2017 John Allingham, Biomedical and Molecular Sciences
2016 Michelle Gibson, Department of Medicine
2015 Jacqueline Davies, Philosophy and Gender Studies
2014 Catherine Donnelly, School of Rehabilitation Therapy
2013 Daniel Lefebvre, Biology
2012 James Fraser, Physics
2011 George Bevan, Classics
2010 David Strong, Engineering and Applied Science
2009 Les MacKenzie, Anatomy and Cell Biology
2008 John Hanes, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
2007 Pat Oosthuizen, Mechanical Engineering
2006 Richard Jackson, Business
2005 Bruce Tufts, Biology
2004 Donato Santeramo, Spanish and Italian
2003 Bill Newstead, Chemistry
2002 Richard Ascough, Theology/Religious Studies
2001 Jim Whitley, Mathematics and Statistics
2000 Leo Jonker, Mathematics and Statistics
1999 Terry Krupa, Rehabilitation Therapy
1998 Lynda Jessup, Art
1997 Paul Christianson, History
1996 Alan Gorman, Geology
1995 Joan McDuff, Education
1994 Virginia Walker, Biology
1993 Barrie Frost, Psychology
1992 Katherine Wynne-Edwards, Biology
1991 Robert E. Hawkins, Law
1990 Patrick J. O'Neill, German
1989 David H. Turpin, Biology
1988 Alistair W. MacLean, Psychology
1988 Sandra I. McBride, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
1987 Frank D. Collom, Business
1987 Rita Maloney, Nursing
1986 Caroline M. Miller, Sociology
1986 Stanley Sadinsky, Law
1985 Robert G. Crawford, Computing Science
1985 Frederick W. Gibson, History
1984 Gerald S. Marks, Pharmacology
1984 Josephine M. Reddick, Nursing
1983 D. Catherine Brown, History
1983 Colette Y. Tonge, French
1982 Ronald J. Delisle, Law
1981 Willliam T. Cannon, Business
1980 David J. Mullan, Law
1979 William C. Reeve, German
1978 Catherine R. Harland, English
1977 Alistair R.C. Duncan, Philosophy
1976 H. R. Stuart Ryan, Law
1975 William D. Gilbert, Mechanical Engineering

Nature of Award

This annual award is to recognize those outstanding supervisors who demonstrate excellence in advising, monitoring and mentoring graduate students through their training.

Nomination Criteria

Excellence is judged on the quality of supervision and mentorship in facilitating the acquisition of skills and resources needed for the student to succeed as scholars and professionals. Characteristics include availability, timeliness and quality of guidance and feedback, responsiveness to student needs, and enthusiasm for the pursuit of knowledge. In addition the supervisor must promote timely completion of the thesis and encourage the career development of the student through the provision of leadership and support in academic matters such as publishing, presenting, applying for funding. Preference will be given to faculty members who have displayed sustained mentorship activity over many years.

Nomination Procedure

Faculty members who are actively involved in graduate supervision are eligible to be nominated by a current or former graduate student or students. A nomination form and complete nomination package addressing the selection criteria should be submitted to the Dean, School of Graduate Studies. Deadline for receipt of complete packages is the last week of May (exact date set annually). Visit the School of Graduate Studies website for the current year’s nomination form, guidelines and deadline.

Selection Process

The selection committee comprises the Dean or delegate of the School of Graduate Studies, one member from the SGPS executive, two graduate student representatives (one from the Social Sciences and Humanities and one from the Life Sciences, Natural Sciences and Engineering), one graduate coordinator from any department, and one member from the Centre for Teaching and Learning who will serve as the Chair (non voting). Two awards are presented annually; one in the Social Sciences and Humanities, and one in Life Sciences, Natural Sciences and Engineering.

Presentation of Award

The award winners are announced in September and the awards presented at the appropriate fall convocation ceremony.

Past Winners

2023 Asha Varadharajan, Department of English
2023 Heidi Ploeg, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at Smith Engineering
2022 Jeffery Brison, Department of History
2022 Mohammad Zulkernine, School of Computing
2021 Samantha King, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies
2021 Stéphane Courteau, Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy
2020 Liying Cheng, Faculty of Education
2020 Mark Stephen Diederichs, Department of Geological Science and Geological Engineering
2019 Yolande Chan, Smith School of Business
2019 Victor Snieckus, Department of Chemistry
2018 Christine Sypnowich, Philosophy
2018 Ram Murty, Mathematics and Statistics
2017 David Lyon, Sociology
2017 Suning Wang, Chemistry
2017 Honorable Mention: John Freeman
2016 Robert Stanley Brown, Chemistry
2016 Jane Errington, History
2015 Allan English, Department of History
2015 Hossam Hassanein, School of Computing
2014 Peter Hodson, Biology and Environmental Studies
2014 Nancy Hutchinson, Faculty of Education
2013 Kerry Rowe, Civil Engineering
2013 Jean Cote, Kinesiology and Health Sciences
2012 Selim Akl, School of Computing
2012 Mark Walters, Faculty of Law
2011 Virginia Walker, Biology
2011 Charles Beach, Economics
2010 Audrey Kobayashi, Geography/Women's Studies Gender Studies
2010 Roderick Lindsay, Psychology
2009 Lynda Jessup, Art
2009 Kim McAuley, Chemical Engineering
2008 Julian Barling, Business
2008 James Cordy, School of Computing
2007 Karen Dubinsky, History
2007 Robert Montgomerie, Biology
2006 Mark Rosenberg, Geography
2006 John Smol, Biology

Nature of Award

Each year, the Alma Mater Society of ³ÉÈË´óƬ shall honor several teaching assistants who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to the education of students of ³ÉÈË´óƬ which allows students to recognize outstanding teaching assistants.

The award is named in honour of Christopher Knapper, the founding Director of the Instructional Development Centre (now the Centre for Teaching and Learning). The Centre exists to support, advise and facilitate improvements and developments in teaching abilities of both professors and teaching assistants.

Nomination Criteria

In order to be eligible for the Award, you must be a either an undergraduate or graduate student nominated by any member of the AMS or professor at ³ÉÈË´óƬ. Eligible candidates will be TAs who directly contribute to the learning experience of undergraduate students, be it through leadership of tutorial sessions, labs or individual student academic assistance.

Nomination Procedure

Nominations must include the following information, as profiled on the AMS website during the nomination period:

• A covering letter from the primary nominator summarizing the case for the nominee. The name, department and courses taught by the TA must be included. Be sure to detail why the TA being nominated is deserving of the award.

Selection Process

The Teaching Awards Committee will review all nomination packages to ensure that all nomination requirements have been met. Representatives of the Awards committee will then audit a teaching session and solicit individual feedback from students enrolled within the class. One winner will be selected per semester of the academic year.

Presentation of Award

Every shortlisted nominee winner will receive a certificate of achievement, and the winners will receive the Christopher Knapper Award for Excellence in Teaching Assistance Certificate of Achievement, and a letter of commendation from the AMS Executive.

Past Winners

Winter 2024 Matthew Fishman, Biomedical and Molecular Science
Fall 2023      Samsoor Akberzai, Continuing Medical Education
2022 – 2023 Not awarded this year
2021 – 2022 Not awarded this year
2020 – 2021 Druv Bisaria
2019 – 2020 Richard Patenaude, Department of Political Studies
2018 - 2019 Spencer Huesken, Department of Sociology
2018 - 2019 Josh Alpern, Department of Biology
2017 - 2018 Muzzammil Abdur Razak, Biology
2017 - 2018 Jacqueline Weber, Biology
2016 - 2017 Abouzar Toubaei, Chemistry
2016 - 2017 Martin Jurak, School of Business
2015 - 2016 Jennifer Bentz, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
2015 - 2016 Robert Bentley, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies
2014 - 2015 Graeme Baker, Mathematics and Statistics
2014 - 2015 Lyndsay Woolridge, Languages, Literatures and Cultures
2013 - 2014 Jeffrey MacCormack, Continuing Teacher Education
2013 - 2014 Jeremy Durelle, Chemistry
2012 - 2013 Leanne Roderick, Enrichment Studies
2012 - 2013 Mark Raycroft, Chemistry
2011 - 2012 Christian Rojas, Enrichment Studies
2011 - 2012 MaryAnne Laurico, English
2010 - 2011 Gabriel Walton, Geological Engineering
2010 - 2011 Kimi Hamada, English
2009 - 2010 Jon Gaboury, English
2009 - 2010 Eric Keske, Chemistry
2008 - 2009 Remi Leger, Political Studies
2007 - 2008 Ryan Marien, Chemistry
2007 - 2008 Greg Potter, Chemistry
2006 - 2007 Karen Cocq, Development Studies
2006 - 2007 Paul Kim, Biochemistry
2005 - 2006 Bonnie Chaban, Microbiology and Immunology
2005 - 2006 Anita Krebs, Microbiology and Immunology
2005 - 2006 Marc Laflamme, Geology
2005 - 2006 Stephen Larin, Political Studies
2005 - 2006 Perrie Faye O'Tierney, Anatomy and Cell Biology
2005 - 2006 Marie Rambough, Nursing
2005 - 2006 Phillippe Rizek, Anatomy and Cell Biology
2004 - 2005 Stuart Henderson, History
2004 - 2005 Ian Wyman, Chemistry
2004 - 2005 Eagranie Yuh, Chemistry
2003 - 2004 Hilton Bertalan, Sociology
2003 - 2004 Rupindar Brar, Physics
2003 - 2004 Eric Carlson, English
2003 - 2004 Steven Urquhart, French
2002 - 2003 Bart Bonikowski, Film Studies
2002 - 2003 Miles Bowman, Psychology
2002 - 2003 Alan Brown, Biology
2001 - 2002 Adam Peck, Chemistry
2000 - 2001 Dalia Abdallah, Chemistry
2000 - 2001 Brian Coolen, Mathematics and Statistics
2000 - 2001 Kim Hellemans, Psychology
2000 - 2001 Randy Jamieson, Psychology
2000 - 2001 Judith Sidler, German
2000 - 2001 Graeme Skinner, Civil Engineering
2000 - 2001 Louise Wasylkiw, Psychology
1999 - 2000 Jan Baker, Psychology
1999 - 2000 Jennifer Brown, Politics
1999 - 2000 Angela Digout, Psychology
1999 - 2000 Timothy Drake, English
1999 - 2000 Jennifer Golder, Women's Studies
1999 - 2000 Kathy Henderson, Psychology
1999 - 2000 Alyssa Hodder, English
1999 - 2000 Mary-Rita Holland, History
1999 - 2000 Michael Jones, Psychology
1999 - 2000 Jennifer Laforce, Psychology
1999 - 2000 William Lockwood, English
1999 - 2000 Kenji Marui, Religion
1999 - 2000 Christina Salavantis, Sociology
1999 - 2000 Scott Tarof, Biology
1999 - 2000 Dave Thompson, Chemistry
1999 - 2000 Keri Walsh, English
1999 - 2000 Anthony Weis, Geography
1999 - 2000 Amanda Williams, Sociology
1999 - 2000 Oana Machidon, Political Science

Nature of Award

Each year, the Alma Mater Society of ³ÉÈË´óƬ shall honour two professors who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to the education of students of ³ÉÈË´óƬ through their teaching excellence. The award is the highest honour which is given to instructors of Queen's by Students.

The award is named in honour of Frank Knox, a professor of economics who taught at Queen's for forty years from the twenties to the sixties. Mr. Knox demonstrated tremendous dedication in his teaching of undergraduates, and thus this award serves as a reminder to all of the necessity for the strong commitment which professors must contribute through the high quality of their teaching to the students of Queen's.

Nomination Criteria

Eligible recipients include any faculty member of professor in at least their second year of instruction, regardless of level of appointment. Due to the diverse nature of what constitutes an outstanding professor, there is no detailed criteria which the committee will be looking for. However, some general factors in the selection will include:

How well does the instructor motivate or charge their students with enthusiasm for learning?

Has real learning taken place under the instructor, and the instructor is not simply a popular person who is enjoyed by the students?

Does the instructor use novel or innovative instructional methods in attempting to convey the material to their class?

Is the instructor available outside of the classroom for interaction with students?

How has the instructor demonstrated a true commitment to the education of Queen's students over and above the norm?

Nomination Procedure

Nominations for the Award can be submitted by any students of the University and must include:

A covering letter from the primary nominator summarizing the case for the nominee. The name, department and courses taught by the instructor must be included. Be sure to detail why the instructor being nominated is deserving of the award. For example, what makes this instructor better than other instructors?

At least two other letters in support of the nominee. These letters may be from any individual, including other students in the class, students from other classes that the instructor teaches, students who have the instructor as an undergraduate thesis advisor, the DSC representative (or equivalent), alumni, professors, etc....

Selection Process

The winners will be decided upon by a representative committee which is chosen by the AMS Assembly. Two awards shall be presented each year, with no emphasis on faculty-specific designation. That is, the main criteria in the selection process is teaching excellence and commitment to the educational experience of students at Queen's, regardless of the faculty to which the professor belongs.

The information provided in the nomination will serve as the backbone of the information to be used by the committee in making their decision. However, a short evaluation form specially design to provide supplemental information useful in selecting a winner may be distributed to a random sample of students in the class of nominees. This will be employed at the discretion of the committee in order to receive non-premeditated responses from other students. The Committee is also able to request to see and research past evaluation forms from departments of faculties. Where available, this data will also be taken into consideration.

Presentation of Award

The final Award winners will be announced at the Annual General Meeting of the AMS, and their achievements and acknowledgements will be widely publicized.

Past Winners

2023 - 2024 Mariam Guizani, Electrical and Computer Engineering
2022 - 2023 Not awarded this year
2021 - 2022 Kristin Hulme, Department of Political Studies
2020 - 2021 Kelsey Jacobson, Dan School of Drama and Music
2019 – 2020 Stéphanie Martel, Department of Political Studies
2018 - 2019 Matthew Thompson, School of Business
2018 - 2019 Ron Easteal, Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences
2017 - 2018 David McDonald, Global Development Studies
2017 - 2018 Robin Dawes, School of Computing
2016 - 2017 Richard Ascough, School of Religion
2016 - 2017 Charles Molson, Mathematics and Statistics
2015 - 2016 Kip Pegley, School of Drama and Music
2015 - 2016 Luc Martin, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies
2014 - 2015 Ken Rose, Department of Biomedical and Molecular Science
2014 - 2015 Agnes Conacher, French Studies
2013 - 2014 Clark Mackey, Film and Media
2013 - 2014 Robert Morrison, English
2012 - 2013 Jonathan Rose, Political Studies
2012 - 2013 Xuelin Bai, Languages and Literature
2011 - 2012 Leo Jonker, Mathematics and Statistics
2011 - 2012 Alan Ableson, Mathematics and Statistics
2010 - 2011 Judith Fisher, Drama
2010 - 2011 Karen Frederickson, Music
2009 - 2010 Bill Newstead, Chemistry
2009 - 2010 Grahame Renyk, Drama
2008 - 2009 Kathy Brock, Political Studies
2008 - 2009 Laurie Kerr, Nursing
2008 - 2009 Dean Tripp, Psychology
2007 - 2008 Richard Jackson, Business
2007 - 2008 Robert Morrison, English
2006 - 2007 Dina Georgis, Women's Studies
2006 - 2007 Olga Malyshko, Music
2005 - 2006 Robert Morrison, English
2005 - 2006 Tom Simko, Mechanical and Materials Engineering
2004 - 2005 Andrew Daugulis, Chemical Engineering
2004 - 2005 Michael Roth, Mathematics and Statistics
2003 - 2004 Marc Busch, Business
2003 - 2004 Geoffrey Smith, History and Physical & Health Education
2002 - 2003 R. Edward Lobb, English
2002 - 2003 Bill Newstead, Chemistry
2001 - 2002 Lola Cuddy, Psychology
2001 - 2002 Ole Nielson, Mathematics and Statistics
2000 - 2001 James Carson, History
2000 - 2001 Anne Hardcastle, Drama
1999 - 2000 Volker Manuth, Art
1999 - 2000 Steve Yovetich, Kinesiology and Health Studies
1998 - 1999 Lee Fabrigar, Psychology
1998 - 1999 Jim Lee, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
1997 - 1998 James McLellan, Chemical Engineering
1997 - 1998 Kevin Munhall, Psychology
1996 - 1997 Gordon Cassidy, Business
1996 - 1997 Robert Hill, Education
1996 - 1997 Honourable Mention: William Forrest, Anatomy and Cell Biology
1996 - 1997 Honourable Mention: Susan Lederman, Psychology
1996 - 1997 Honourable Mention: James McLellan, Chemical Engineering
1995 - 1996 Catherine Hooey, Geography
1995 - 1996 Tina Pranger, Rehabilitation Therapy
1994 - 1995 Gloria D'Ambrosio-Griffith, Spanish and Italian
1994 - 1995 Tony Marshall, Classics
1993 - 1994 Rosemary Jolly, English
1993 - 1994 Gerald Tulchinsky, History
1992 - 1993 Paul Christianson, History
1992 - 1993 Peggy Cunningham, Business
1991 - 1992 Robert Belton, Art History
1991 - 1992 Jed Rasula, English
1990 - 1991 John Holmes, Geography
1990 - 1991 Jim Whitley, Mathematics and Statistics
1989 - 1990 Gerald McGrath, Geography
1989 - 1990 Caroline M. Miller, Sociology
1988 - 1989 Ronald J. Delisle, Law
1988 - 1989 Richard Plant, Drama

Nature of the Award

This is the inaugural year for the Undergraduate Research Mentorship Award. This award is meant to honour the contributions of professors that have encouraged undergraduate research at Queen's. This comes in many forms, such as thesis supervision, inquiry projects in the classroom, or supervising a capstone project. This is an initiative to recognize excellent mentorship of undergraduate scholars.

Nomination Procedure

The Online Nomination Form must include the following information, as profiled on the AMS website during the nomination period:

• Please explain how you met the nominee, and your current relationship.
• Please explain how the nominee has encouraged undergraduate research.
• Please explain how the nominee's mentorship has created a lasting impact on your Queen's experience?
• How has the nominee challenged you to grow as a scholar?
• Is there anything else you would like to say about the nominee?

Selection Process

The Teaching Awards Committee will review all nomination packages to ensure that all nomination requirements have been met.

Presentation of Award

The award will be presented at the AMS Teaching Awards Ceremony.

Past Winners

Winter 2024 Kevin De France, Chemical Engineering
Fall 2023      Thea Fitz-James, Film and Media
2022 -- 2023 Not awarded this year
2021 – 2022 Not awarded this year
2020 – 2021 Ryan Martin, Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy
2019 – 2020 Bhavin Shastri, Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy
2019 – 2020 Carolyn Smart, Department of English
2018 - 2019 Pascal Champagne, Department of Civil Engineering
2017 - 2018 Brendon Gurd, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies
2016 - 2017 Pascale Champagne, Civil Engineering