Legacy Mentor Award Timeline and Process

General Timeline

Each candidate's mini-portfolio, including CV, in the required format, should be submitted electronically on the Nomination Form to CORD by the beginning of January each year.

Mini-portfolios will be judged by a panel of faculty educator peers from a variety of emergency medicine programs by the beginning of February.

Candidates will be informed regarding their selection by the middle of February each year.

Each year, new Awardees of the Academy will be inducted at CORD's Annual Meeting during the association's Awards Ceremony.

Please see the CORD Deadlines Calendar for more detailed dates for the current awards cycle.

Legacy Mentor Award Selection Process

Review Panel

The Academy Review Panel will be selected largely from a reviewers' pool consisting of Academy Distinguished Educators.

Reviewer Process

Using protocols of the National Institutes of Health, a primary and secondary reviewer will be designated for each submission. These reviewers will propose initial ratings for all criteria, lead the discussion of the applicant's materials during the review meeting, and help write brief critiques in support of selection decisions. After the review panel discussion of each candidate, each member of the Review Panel (having reviewed each mini-portfolio in advance) will assign up to 100 points to each portfolio based on how well the mini-portfolio matches the standards for a given awards category, as represented by the standard-setting mini-portfolio samples provided (see Mini-Portfolio Preparation). To receive an award, the average number of points assigned by Review Panel members must meet or exceed the established cutoff of 80 points, and 75 percent of the Review Panel members must give a score of 80 or higher. Panelists will assume that the standard-setting mini-portfolio examples would receive an average of 85 to 95 points.

The process primary and secondary reviewers will use in assigning points will be subdivided into three criteria as illustrated below for the teaching/learning category (see point assignments for other categories with category description):

Criteria	Maximum Points
1. Quality (e.g., success of teaching)
Clarity of goals	10 points
Adequacy of personal preparation and ongoing self-reflection/improvement*	15 points
Adequacy of methods, quality of presentation and results	30 points
2. Quantity (e.g., amount of teaching)	35 points
3. Breadth (e.g., diversity of teaching)	10 points
TOTAL	100 points
Minimum average necessary to receive award	80 points
Average of examples used to set standards	85-90 points
*Evidence for these criteria are primarily presented in the personal statement.

Criteria for Determining Quality of Scholarship

Criteria	Clarifying Questions*
Clear, realistic and important goals and/or philosophy	Is educational endeavor important to mission of program? Are goals specific and obtainable? Are goals consistent with stated leadership philosophy? Do goals reflect needs of profession, society, learners, other faculty? Is the development of enduring materials guided by a cohesive set of professional goals? Is researchers' line of research important to the field?
Adequate preparation	Is teacher prepared to teach effectively? Does leader strive to continuously learn new ways of dealing with challenging issues? Does educator take advantage of educator development opportunities (peer review, skill building workshops, etc.)? Does faculty have skills matching his/her role in preparing enduring educational materials? Is researcher qualified to conduct research effectively?
Appropriate methods	Does teacher use appropriate teaching techniques? Is design of course effective? Does leader get others meaningfully involved? Are actions consistent with current literature? Are systematic instructional design methods used to prepare enduring educational materials? Is design of study appropriate? Does study have sufficient statistical power?
Meaningful results	Does educational strategy (e.g., teaching method, course management) serve as model for others? Were stated goals achieved? Do learners use the enduring educational materials as intended? Are desired learning outcomes achieved? Does research study lead to outcomes worthy of publication in the literature?
Effective presentation (Sharing strategies or experiences with peers)	Are "lessons" learned about teaching, educational leadership or the preparation of enduring educational materials shared with peers at local, regional or national levels? Do peer reviewers for grant, journal and/or educational award find the presentation of results understandable and credible? Is write-up of research results credible to a local, regional and/or national audience?
Reflective critique	Does teacher, leader, or developer solicit and use feedback from learners and peers? Does educator examine multiple perspectives before changing strategies? Does researcher solicit and effectively use advice from colleagues/mentors?

(From Scholarship Assessed, Glassik, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997)

Anchor *These questions illustrate how the criteria apply to multiple areas of scholarship, including scientific and educational research. Based on the award category, members of the peer review panel will look for answers to questions such as these in the information you present in your portfolio.