The Distinguished Teaching Awards are UCLA’s highest recognition for teaching excellence and honors recipients under three classifications: senate faculty, non-senate faculty, and teaching assistants. Awardees are chosen based on a range of criteria such as student success examples or metrics, feedback on the student experience, innovative teaching and curricular methods, instructor efforts to foster a learning environment where all students can thrive, and support for community outreach and mentoring activities.
The UCLA Teaching and Learning Center presents the Distinguished Teaching Awards in partnership with the UCLA Academic Senate.
Call for Nominations
Nominations for all groups are open. See the chart below for award eligibility, nomination deadlines by honorees group, and application links for the 2024-25 awards.
| Award | Eligibility | Nomination Deadline | Link to Application |
| Teaching Assistant | Currently enrolled graduate students who are or have served as an academic student employee (ASE) at the time of nomination. | April 4, 2025 at 5 p.m. | Application for Teaching Assistants |
| Non-Senate Faculty | Non-Senate Faculty (faculty in the Adjunct series, Clinical compensated series, Visiting Professors, Acting Assistant Professors, Lecturers, and Academic Administrators) at the time of nomination. | April 4, 2025 at 5 p.m. | Application for Non-Senate Faculty |
| Senate Faculty | Academic Senate members (members of the following series: Professor, Professor of Teaching, Professor in Residence, and Professor of Clinical X, as well as Acting Professors, and Acting Associate Professors) at the time of nomination. | May 2, 2025 at 5 p.m | Application for Senate Faculty |
Awards for Non-Senate and Senate Faculty
Nominators may select from one category (The Practice of Teaching, Innovation and Impact, Community and Civic Learning, Undergraduate Mentorship). Each nominee’s portfolio will be evaluated according to the category selected.
There will be 6 awards of $6,000 for Senate faculty and 6 awards of $6,000 for non-Senate faculty. Awardees will be given teaching awards in one of the four categories. Awardees per category are not capped. Distinguished Teaching Award recipients may only be conferred this recognition once in each group: Senate, Non-Senate, and Teaching Assistant.
Categories for Senate and Non-Senate nominations
The following categories were crafted to award teaching excellence and celebrate faculty who implement best practices in teaching, are educational innovators, and provide a rich and supportive learning and mentoring environments for our students. A brief overview and some examples are provided for each category.
The Practice of Teaching
This award celebrates instructors who demonstrate a pattern of effective teaching that incorporates current best practices (e.g., student-centered learning, active learning, inclusive and equitable teaching), aims to inspire and challenge students, and supports the success of all students. One recipient in this category will be honored with the Eby Award for Practice of Teaching.
Nomination Items
- Multiple examples of effective teaching practices and evidence supporting their positive impact.
- Evidence that the nominee regularly strives to improve their teaching. Efforts may occur on the level of a course, or across the curriculum over a number of years (or spanning across a career).
Practice of Teaching Examples
Example: In X course, students traditionally have difficulty with x,y,z concepts. The nominee describes how they developed a series of modules or activities to better support students in understanding these concepts. The nominee provides quotes from student experiences of teaching (SET) surveys or other student feedback surveys as evidence of the effectiveness or impact of these changes. Students describe the modules as challenging but beneficial.
Example: In the past, this very large enrollment course was predominantly a lecture course with low student engagement. The nominee describes how they implemented a flipped class and incorporated active learning during class time. The nominee provides a syllabus and examples of newly developed course activities, along with a screenshot of their Bruin Learn site showing each session module. Supplemented by feedback from SET surveys, the nominee shows the effectiveness or impact of these systematic changes and how this increased student engagement.
Example: The department recognizes there are barriers or gaps in an existing course sequence, and it is not sufficiently preparing students for upper-division work. The nominee describes how they revised the sequence to provide students with the content and scaffolding they need for success in subsequent courses. The nominee provides before-and-after syllabi and a letter from a colleague who can speak to the impact of the change in the sequence.
Required Submission Materials
- A cover letter from the nominee’s academic unit (could be written by the department chair or other faculty member and describes how the nominee fits the award criteria; 500 words)
- Statement from the nominee indicating their teaching accomplishments (i.e., how they fit award criteria; statements should be understandable to reviewers unfamiliar with the instructor’s field; 750 words max)
- Up to 3 recommendations from current or former students (fill out template with structured question(s))**
- One additional recommendation letter (can be from a dean, former student, colleague, or other person who is familiar with the nominee’s teaching; 500 words max)
- A selection of no more than 5 teaching artifacts, appropriately annotated, that illustrate the teaching approach(es) described in the nominee’s statement. Each artifact should be referenced in the nominee’s statement. This may include but is not limited to:
- course syllabi
- activities, assignments, assessments, grading rubrics
- screenshots of Bruin Learn site or other e-learning space (e.g., Slack, Campuswire, Piazza)
- a selection of written comments from students’ evaluations (limit 2 pages).
Innovation and Impact
This award celebrates instructors whose work has a broader impact on improving teaching practice and the success of our students.
Nomination Items
- The development and implementation of new or innovative teaching methods, curricular strategies, or educational programs and their dissemination to the broader education community. In this case, the nomination should include a description of the method, strategy, or program and the impact of such innovations at the department, campus, national or international level.
- A description of how the nominee is elevating teaching, developing and sharing resources for other instructors. In this case, there should be evidence of the broader impacts the nominee has had on other instructors here or beyond UCLA.
Innovation and Impact Examples
Example: An instructor shared a new platform, tool, or resource they developed for teaching in their discipline. They provide evidence of the impact of the “product” by indicating that more than 1,000 students are using their online resources at two different universities.
Example: An instructor conducts research on the effectiveness of a particular teaching technique. They provide evidence that they have presented, published, or shared their practices or results with multiple audiences.
Example: An instructor consistently makes positive contributions to the teaching and learning culture in their department and more broadly at UCLA (e.g., they developed a workshop with the TLC, they provided tools to faculty in X department to help them develop more inclusive syllabi).
Example: An instructor applied for and received a large grant to foster more inclusive teaching practices in STEM. This grant supports a large number of undergraduate students, graduate students or postdocs and provides them with training in inclusive pedagogy.
Required Submission Materials
- A cover letter from the nominee’s academic unit (could be written by the department chair or other faculty member and describes how they fit award criteria; 500 words)
- Statement from the nominee indicating their teaching accomplishments (i.e., how they fit award criteria; statements should be understandable to reviewers unfamiliar with the instructor’s field; 750 words max)
- Up to 3 recommendations from individuals who can speak to the impact of the nominee’s innovation (e.g., colleagues, teaching assistants, students, fill out (recommendation template)
- One additional recommendation letter (can be from a dean, former student, colleague, or other person who is familiar with the impact of the nominee’s work on improving teaching; 500 words max)
- A selection of no more than 5 artifacts, appropriately annotated, that demonstrate the innovative tools and resources that have been developed and their impact on the education community. Each artifact should be referenced in the nominee’s statement.
This may include but is not limited to:
- Links to the tools, resources, or innovations that the nominee developed
- Links to scholarly publications that have been written based on the innovation
- Artifacts that demonstrate the impact of the tool or innovation (i.e., a screenshot of citation count, tool download or page view metrics, numbers of people who attended workshops)
Community-Engaged Teaching
This award celebrates instructors whose teaching demonstrates a sustained relationship with a community partner, characterized by mutual benefit and public service.
Nomination Items
- Provide examples of ongoing partnerships through project-based work in the community and bringing students into the community.
- Include project(s) designed with the partner.
- Describe how the project has had an impact on the students (e.g., How have students changed/advanced in deep and meaningful ways), the community (e.g., How has the community been positively impacted—met their organizational goals, advanced their mission, received funding), the faculty (e.g., How has the experience transformed how the instructor looks at teaching) and the institution (e.g., What is the broader impact on colleagues, the department, the university).
Community-Engaged Teaching Examples
Example: The instructor has applied for grant funding to develop and implement a program where undergraduate students training to work in early childhood education are paired with organizations that serve children from under-resourced communities. The nominee provides evidence of the impact of this program on students and the community.
Example: An instructor teaches an innovative course that involves project-based work in the community and brings students to sites across the Los Angeles region. Evidence is provided about the innovation of the course and the impact on both students and the sites served.
Example: An instructor facilitates a sustained partnership, with co-design, implementation, management, and/or evaluation with campus community partners, resulting in a long-term commitment or relationship, which might occur with teaching the same course over time.
Example: There are challenges with access to scientific articles, especially in communities where Spanish is the dominant language. A faculty member partnered with a nonprofit organization and used community-engaged learning in their class to respond to the identified community need. These students advanced their language and scientific knowledge by taking courses of this nature. This community-engaged learning extended into outreach efforts and even the production of podcasts to further serve the community—extending students’ learning beyond the classroom and positively impacting their career preparation as medical professionals who seek to support underserved communities.
Required Submission Materials
- A cover letter from the nominee’s academic unit (could be written by the department chair or other faculty member and describes how they fit award criteria; 500 words)
- Statement from the nominee indicating their teaching accomplishments (i.e., how they fit award criteria; statements should be understandable to reviewers unfamiliar with the instructor’s field; 750 words max)
- Up to 3 recommendations from current or former students who can speak to the impact of the nominee’s civic teaching (fill out (recommendation template)
- One additional support letter from a community member who worked with students (500 words max each)
- A selection of no more than 5 artifacts, appropriately annotated, that provide evidence to illustrate the benefits and effectiveness of civic and community-engaged teaching. Each artifact should be referenced in the nominee’s statement.
This may include but is not limited to:
- course syllabi
- activities, assignments, assessments, and grading rubrics
- examples of products of student work
Undergraduate Mentorship
This award celebrates excellence in mentorship at the undergraduate level, through advising undergraduate students or student groups or through mentoring undergraduate students in research. Particular consideration will be given to roles that contribute to the university’s commitment to inclusive excellence.
Note: A graduate mentorship award is offered by the Division of Graduate Education. A postdoctoral scholar award is offered by the UCLA Postdoctoral Scholars office.
Nomination Items
The nomination should include a description and evidence of how they played a significant role in the success of undergraduate individual mentees or groups, helped shape mentees’ interests or career plans, and had a positive impact on their lives.
Undergraduate Mentorship Examples
Example: An instructor actively engages with student groups (i.e., they are a mentor for students in different campus clubs). They have given multiple professional development talks (e.g., how to apply to graduate school, and research-related careers in STEM) and incorporated this content into their undergraduate course. Students describe the nominee’s unwavering support and encouragement and how this instructor has played a pivotal role in shaping their interests and career aspirations.
Example: An instructor has participated in a number of mentorship training courses and demonstrates how this has impacted their approach to mentoring students. Many of this instructor’s former undergraduate mentees have gone on to successful careers in industry or to graduate school. They credit the mentor’s guidance as instrumental in their personal and professional development.
Example: An instructor has engaged multiple undergraduate students in research projects that are structured to be excellent learning experiences and opportunities for the students to make independent contributions. The students express that they have been inspired by these experiences to pursue graduate studies (or other research-related opportunities), including students who might not otherwise have considered graduate school to be an option.
Required Submission Materials
- A cover letter from the nominee’s academic unit (could be written by the department chair or other faculty member and describes how they fit award criteria; 500 words)
- Statement from the nominee indicating their mentoring accomplishments (i.e., how they fit award criteria; statements should be understandable to reviewers unfamiliar with the instructor’s field; 750 words max)
- Up to 3 recommendations from current or former undergraduate students that describe the impact of the nominee’s mentorship (fill out (recommendation template)
- One additional recommendation letter (can be from a dean, former undergraduate student, or colleague who can speak to the impact of the nominee’s mentorship; 500 words max)
- A selection of no more than 5 artifacts, appropriately annotated, that demonstrate the outcomes of the candidate’s mentoring activities. Each artifact should be referenced in the nominee’s statement.
This may include but is not limited to:
- projects undertaken by students (or student groups) under the mentor’s guidance
- research projects undertaken by undergraduate students under the mentor’s guidance (e.g., could be papers, student presentations)
- accomplishments of individual mentees such as winning an award or scholarship or achieving a desired job placement or graduate school acceptance in part because of the mentor’s guidance
Distinguished Teaching Assistant Award
This award celebrates Teaching Assistants who demonstrate a pattern of effective teaching that incorporates current best practices (e.g., student-centered learning, active learning, inclusive teaching), aims to inspire and challenge students, and supports the success of all students. There are 5 awards given and recipients receive $2,500 and, if eligible, a Dissertation Year Award (DYA) from the UCLA Division of Graduate Education.
Nomination Items
- Multiple examples of effective teaching practices. For example, the nomination could include evidence that the nominee identified a barrier to student learning and tried to implement strategies to help students overcome this barrier. Or evidence that the nominee routinely incorporates evidence-based strategies into their teaching.
- Evidence that the nominee has sought opportunities to improve their pedagogical knowledge and participate in training outside of the mandatory (495) training course.
Distinguished Teaching Award Examples
Example: The nominee noticed places where students might benefit from additional support. For example, students were unclear about what they needed to do to succeed on the written assignment. In collaboration with the course instructor, the nominee developed a rubric and a series of examples to help clarify the assignment parameters. The nominee also noticed that students were not participating in the discussion section, and implemented a community-building activity at the beginning of class to make students more comfortable sharing their thoughts. Students responded well to the additional support. The nominee provides quotes from SET surveys and/or other student feedback surveys as evidence of the effectiveness and impact of these changes.
Example: The nominee is committed to improving teaching in their department. In addition to preparing materials and planning their discussion section, they have helped mentor more junior TAs who have been assigned to the same course. The nominee provides letters from other TAs indicating how pivotal their mentorship has been in helping them learn to implement best practices into their discussion sections and find their voice as instructors.
Example: The nominee regularly engages in activities to improve their teaching, such as attending workshops through the TLC. They build on what they learned by implementing and developing novel and effective instructional approaches. They provide evidence in the form of slides and activities that they have developed for their TA appointment. In one of their letters, the instructor for the course describes the important role the nominee played in making sure students felt supported and received constructive feedback on their work in a timely manner.
Required Submission Materials
- A cover letter from the nominee’s academic unit (could be written by the department chair or other faculty member and describes how they fit award criteria; 500 words)
- Statement from the nominee indicating their teaching accomplishments (i.e., how they fit award criteria; statements should be understandable to reviewers unfamiliar with the instructor’s field; 750 words max)
- Up to 2 recommendations from students or peers fill out (recommendation template)
- One additional letter (can be from an instructor with whom they taught, a former student; 500 words max)
- Selection of no more than 3 teaching artifacts, appropriately annotated, that illustrate the teaching approaches described in the nominee’s statement. Each artifact should be referenced in the nominee’s statement.
This may include but is not limited to:
- activities, assignments, assessments, grading rubrics
- screenshots of Bruin Learn site or other e-learning space (e.g., Slack, Campuswire, Piazza)
- a selection of written comments from SET surveys (limit 2 pages)
