Teaching & Learning Center

The Level Up! Certificate Program supports the development of high-quality teaching through:

• Expansion of evidence-based instructional practices.
• Integration of pedagogy, technology, and disciplinary expertise.
• Engagement in scholarly approaches to teaching and learning.
• Ongoing reflective practice.
• Collaborative learning and interdisciplinary conversations among ATSU educators.

Additional outcomes can include:

• Improvement of student learning.
• Evidence and artifacts toward academic portfolios, annual review documentation, or promotion and tenure.
• Eligibility for credits toward approved courses in the CGHS Health Professions Education Program (e.g., Certificate, MEd, EdD).

The Level Up! Certificate Program is grounded in two complementary theoretical frameworks:

• TPACK framework
  The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2013) emphasizes the intersection of:
  
  • Content expertise
  • Evidence-based pedagogy
  • Educational technology
  Effective instruction emerges when these domains are integrated intentionally to support student learning.
• Reflective teaching
  Reflective practice (Larrivee, 2000) positions educators as active agents in their professional growth. Structured reflection promotes informed instructional decisions and continuous improvement.

Together, these models inform the four themes of the Level Up! Certificate Program:

• Pedagogy
• Technology
• Research
• Reflection

The Level Up! Certificate Program is open to all ATSU faculty and staff, full-time or part-time, across disciplines and working locations. The program supports both current educators and individuals aspiring to strengthen their instructional expertise.

ATSU faculty and staff can get started in the program by completing the brief Level Up! Certificate Program enrollment form.

Based on the foundations of the program, the Level Up! Certificate Program consists of four levels:

• Level 1 (Pedagogy): Explore the science and art of designing and implementing engaging and effective learning experiences.
• Level 2 (Technology): Consider intentional use of relevant educational technologies to support student learning.
• Level 3 (Research): Lead with curiosity and make data-informed decisions about one’s teaching practices.
• Level 4 (Reflection): Continuously reflect on one’s current teaching practices and areas for professional growth.

Each level is accomplished by completing both:

• Five credits of eligible synchronous or asynchronous learning activities (0.5 credit ≈ 30 minutes of engagement and 1 credit ≈ 1 hour of engagement).
• A course or culminating activity and a related final deliverable.

In this process, participants engage with both theory and practice related to the theme of each respective level (pedagogy, technology, research, or reflection).

NOTE: Levels may be completed in any order, and participants may work on multiple levels simultaneously. However, because the culminating activity and final deliverable for Level 4 (Reflection) are designed to serve as a capstone experience, they are recommended as the final requirements completed. Participants who are prepared to do so may also test out of a course by submitting its final deliverable. Read more about each level's requirements below.

Level 1 (Pedagogy) requirements:

• 5 credits of eligible pedagogy activities
• Completion or test out of the 7-week Course Design Institute and submission of the Course Design Blueprint (final deliverable)

NOTE: The CDI is offered twice per year, once in synchronous format (CDI) and once in an asynchronous (ACDI) format. Either format fulfills the course requirement for Level 1 (Pedagogy).

Level 2 (Technology) requirements:

• 5 credits of eligible technology activities
• Completion or test out of the 8-week Introduction to Educational Technology for Educators (IET) course and submission of the Canvas Course Portfolio (final deliverable)

Level 3 (Research) requirements:

• 5 credits of eligible research activities
• Completion or test out of one of the following:
  • The 8-week Introduction to Evidence-Based Teaching (EBT) course and submission of an Annotated Bibliography (final deliverable)
  • The 8-week Research Design Lab (RDL) and submission of the Research Design Plan (final deliverable)

Level 4 (Reflection) requirements:

• 5 credits of eligible reflection activities
• A teaching observation (culminating activity)
• Submission of a 1–2 page Teaching Philosophy Statement (final deliverable)

Credits may be earned through eligible synchronous or asynchronous learning opportunities, including:

• TLC Seminar Series (asynchronous and synchronous presentations, podcasts, and eLearning modules)
• TLC Tech Time (live or recorded)
• Eligible CGHS research seminars
• External webinars and podcasts, LinkedIn Learning modules, and curated readings

A list of eligible activities for credit toward the Level Up! Certificate Program is available for review. Additionally, announcements about upcoming TLC events that are eligible for credit toward the Level Up! Certificate Program will include a note about how many credits they are worth and toward which level.

Attendance at live Zoom sessions will be recorded and credit will be applied automatically. Engagement with asynchronous activities (e.g., recordings of TLC Seminar Series or TLC Tech Time sessions, podcasts, textbook chapters, or eLearning modules) must be documented by participants using the Level Up! Certificate Program activity credit form.

The Level Up! Certificate Program is designed with flexibility in mind. Therefore, a test-out option is available for individuals with prior experience or training that allows them to complete a course’s final deliverable without enrolling in the respective course.

Educators interested in pursuing a test-out option should email the TLC at tlc@atsu.edu.

As noted in an earlier section, ATSU educators can enroll in the program with the submission of a brief Level Up! Certificate Program enrollment form. After enrollment, the TLC will begin to track credits earned by engaging with eligible activities and courses, culminating activities, and completed deliverables. If a TLC course was successfully completed before enrolling in the program, that Certificate of Completion will be honored and applied toward a level’s requirements.

Participants can check their progress at any time using the online dashboard (which they will be invited to join after enrolling in the program).

Certificates are awarded for completing or testing out of each course and completing each level. These may be used as documentation for annual review or promotion and tenure packages, and these accomplishments will also be recognized in Paylocity.

Completion of all four levels confers the additional designation of being an ATSU Certified Health Sciences Educator.

Strong nominations for this award describe:

• A new or significantly redesigned teaching approach, activity, curriculum element, or instructional process.
• A clear educational challenge or opportunity that prompted the work.
• Intentional use of instructional strategies, technologies, or pedagogical approaches.
• Demonstrates a meaningful positive effect on the learner experience.
• Potential for adaptation or application beyond the original setting.

Nominations for this award will be solicited through TLC communications such as the monthly newsletter, which is distributed to ATSU faculty and staff.

ATSU staff and faculty are encouraged to nominate colleagues or themselves for this award so long as the following criteria are met:

• Eligible nominees (individual educators or educator teams) must be currently employed at ATSU and have a direct instructional role in an ATSU learning experience.
• If a team is nominated, they will be asked to select a team leader who will be responsible for representing the team (e.g., developing and submitting a finalist video, dispersing any awards received).
• The work described in the nomination must have occurred in connection with ATSU and ATSU learners.
• Eligible instructional contexts include courses, laboratories, simulations, clinical instruction, and other in-person, online, or hybrid instructional settings.

If you have questions about eligibility or nominations, please contact the TLC at tlc@atsu.edu.

A multi-round evaluation process will be used to determine award finalists and winners.

During Round 1, deidentified nominations are reviewed by a panel using standardized evaluation criteria to identify up to six finalists.

Finalists will be invited to develop and share a brief video presentation describing their innovation. This video will be made available to the reviewers for a second round of evaluations (see below) and to the ATSU community via YouTube.

During Round 2, these videos are reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria by a separate committee of approximately three reviewers with relevant experience as appropriate to the award. Additionally, the ATSU community will have an opportunity to vote on the innovation they find most inspiring. The winners and two runners-up for this award will be determined through a combination of the committee and community scores.

2025

• Award Winners: Dr. Erin Maruska and Dr. Janet Woldt; Innovative Approach to Professionalism and Ethics Education: AI Role-Playing
• 1st Runner-Up: Dr. Jeffrey Andrion; Embracing Vulnerability: The Art of Empathy
• 2nd Runner-Up: Dr. Rachel Geoghegan; Empowering Learning: AI Tutors for Flexible and Engaging Online Learning
• Finalists: Dr. Renu Agnihotri, Dr. Beatriz Barragan, Dr. Kenny Lam, Dr. Monica Queen, and Dr. Susan Thomas.
• Learn more about these innovations by viewing 5-minute videos produced by each of the 2025 finalists.

2024

• Award Winner: Dr. Sara Funk; First Patient Project
• 1st Runner-Up: Drs. Mitzi Wasden and Joseph Creech; Acting it Out
• 2nd Runner-Up: Dr. Gustavo Fernandes; Periodontics Diagnosis
• Finalists: Dr. Shelley Baltodano, Dr. Rachel Geoghegan, Leslie Golamb, Dr. Brittney Hulsey, Dr. Monica Queen, and Dr. Mohamed Rahhal.
• Learn more about these innovations by viewing 5-minute videos produced by each of the 2024 finalists.

2023

• Award Winner: Dr. Jessica Hayes; Canvas Learning Pathways
• Runners-Up: Dr. Mary-Katherine McNatt, Dr. Marsha Presley, Louise Smith, Susan Thomas, and Sue McDaniel; Outbreak Odyssey; and Dr. Anna Campbell and Dr. John Olson; The HoloCompanion App
• Finalists: Leslie Golamb, Dr. Sara Parker, Dr. Lourdes Martinez-Nieto, Stephanie McGrew, Dr. Jennifer Radziak, Dr. Kelsey Picha, and Katherine Jones
• Learn more about these innovations by viewing 5-minute videos produced by each of the 2023 finalists.

2022

• Award Winner: Dr. Brian Degenhardt; System Providing Objective Feedback for Calibration of Palpation Skills
• Runners-Up: Dr. David Doubblestein; Mobile-Office Hours; and Dr. Carrie Robinson; Progressive Clinical Cases Based on Student Decisions
• Finalists: Dr. Scott Howell, Dr. Shanu Markand, Stephanie McGrew, Dr. Romana Muller, Dr. Christina Weaver, Dr. Cailee Welch Bacon, and Dr. Rebecca Wolf
• Learn more about these innovations by viewing 5-minute videos produced by each of the 2022 finalists.

2021

• Award Winner: Dr. Pamela Kays; Pre-Lab Preparation Activities Using Qualtrics
• Runners-Up: Dr. Kelsey Picha; When Life Gives You Lemons, Make Lemonade: Taking Team-Based Learning Online, Annette Bettridge; Strategies to destigmatize mental health and address the opioid epidemic, and Dr. Katherine Jones; Difficulties in Health Education: Experience with Children Amidst a Pandemic
• Finalists: Dr. Peter Kondrashov, Dr. Ammar Musawi, Dr. Hanan Omar, Dr. Jae Park, Dr. Kelsey Picha, Dr. Barton Anderson, Dr. Shipra Bansal, Dr. Matthew Greaves, Dr. Breanne Jaqua
• Learn more about these innovations by viewing 5-minute videos produced by each of the 2021 finalists.

2020

• Award Winner: Dr. Cailee Welch Bacon; Personalized Learning Pathways
• Runners-Up: Dr. Christina Cuka; Poll Everywhere Formative Assessment; and Dr. David Shoup; Integrated Curriculum for Osteopathic Medicine

Strong nominations for this award describe:

• A specific teaching experience that had a meaningful effect on the student’s learning or development.
• Effective teaching practices that supported understanding, application, engagement, or confidence.
• A supportive and learner-centered educational experience.
• Contribution to the student’s academic, professional, or personal growth.
• Contribution to the development of one or more ATSU Core Professional Attributes.

Nominations for this award will be submitted by ATSU students only, and the nomination form will be distributed through several university-wide channels.

Eligible nominees and teaching contexts include:

• Current ATSU faculty members and staff educators who have a direct instructional role in an ATSU learning experience.
• Didactic courses, laboratories, simulations, and other in-person, online, or hybrid instructional settings.

Nominations may not be submitted or accepted for:

• Coaching provided in authentic patient care environments. Instead, this is recognized through the Clinical Coaching Award.

If you have questions about eligibility or nominations, please contact the please contact the TLC at tlc@atsu.edu.

A multi-round evaluation process will be used to determine award finalists and winners.

During Round 1, deidentified nominations are reviewed by a panel using standardized evaluation criteria to identify up to six finalists.

During Round 2, the nominations will be reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria by a separate committee of approximately three reviewers with relevant experience as appropriate to the award. The average scores for each nomination in Round 2 will be used to determine the winner and two runners-up.

Strong nominations for this award describe:

• Exceptional coaching and mentorship in clinical learning environments.
• Intentional support of learner confidence, clinical reasoning, and professional judgment.
• Meaningful contribution to learners' readiness for patient care and professional practice.
• Creation of supportive learning experiences that encourage reflection, feedback, and growth.
• Lasting impact on students' clinical development and professional identity.

Nominations for this award will be submitted by ATSU students only, and the nomination form will be distributed through several university-wide channels.

Eligible nominees and teaching contexts include current individual ATSU employees who serve as clinical educators and work with students within an ATSU-operated patient-centered environment.

Nominations may not be submitted or accepted for:

• Teaching teams
• External preceptors
• Non-ATSU employees
• Excellent instruction in didactic, laboratory, simulation, or online environments. Instead, this can be recognized through the Teaching Excellence Award.

If you have questions about eligibility or nominations, please contact the please contact the TLC at tlc@atsu.edu.

A multi-round evaluation process will be used to determine award finalists and winners.

During Round 1, deidentified nominations are reviewed by a panel using standardized evaluation criteria to identify up to six finalists.

During Round 2, the nominations will be reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria by a separate committee of approximately three reviewers with relevant experience as appropriate to the award. The average scores for each nomination in Round 2 will be used to determine the winner and two runners-up.

Work considered for an award must have been conducted through an ATSU course, program, clinic, laboratory, simulation, or other educational experience involving ATSU students. Eligible contributions must have been implemented or experienced by ATSU students within the current or immediately preceding academic year. Work completed with an approved community or clinical partner may be eligible when it is part of an ATSU student learning experience. Work completed solely for another institution or for learners unaffiliated with ATSU is not eligible.

Nominees and finalists may share official TLC communications about the awards program but may not directly solicit nominations or community votes on their own behalf. Schools, programs, and university units may promote the awards generally, provided they do not endorse or campaign for a specific nominee or finalist.

Multiple nominations

When multiple nominations describe the same contribution, teaching practice, innovation, or educational context, they will be combined into one review packet.

When nominations describe materially different contributions or educational contexts within the same award category, the nominee will review deidentified summaries and select one contribution or context to advance for consideration.

Nominee choice is appropriate only when the nominations concern materially different work. It should not discard corroborating nominations about the same work.

Category selection

An ATSU employee may be nominated for more than one award category. Prior to finalist review, nominees who qualify for multiple categories will be asked to select the single award category in which they wish to be considered. This ensures each nominee is evaluated within the category that best reflects their contribution while maintaining fairness across the awards program.

Deidentified review

Whenever reasonably feasible, nomination materials will be deidentified before review to reduce potential bias. Because certain educational settings, innovations, or clinical experiences may inherently reveal an educator's identity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed. Reviewers will evaluate nominations using the published award criteria regardless of whether a nominee's identity is apparent.

Reviewer selection and conflicts of interest

Review committees will include individuals with relevant experience in teaching, faculty development, clinical education, or educational leadership. Committee composition may include TLC team members, prior award recipients, ATSU Certified Health Sciences Educators, faculty leaders, and university administrators, as appropriate to the award and review round.

Reviewers must disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest. A reviewer who is nominated for the award under review, directly supervised by or supervising a nominee, or otherwise unable to evaluate a nomination impartially will recuse themselves from reviewing that nomination or serving on that award’s committee.

Evaluation rubrics

Each award utilizes a standardized scoring rubric aligned with the scope of the award and questions provided in the nomination form. Rubrics are designed to promote consistency and fairness throughout the evaluation process.

Tie procedures

If finalists receive identical final scores affecting award placement, ties will be resolved using the following process:

1. Highest Round 1 score
2. Highest score on the award's primary impact criterion
   1. Innovation in Teaching Award: Educational impact
   2. Excellence in Teaching Award: Impact on student learning and development
   3. Clinical Coaching Award: Impact on learner development and practice readiness
3. Final determination by the judging committee using the evaluation rubric