Exercise Science Education Interest Group is Proud to Announce the Creation of the Wolters Kluwer Innovation in Teaching Award

Application Deadline: February 15, 2018

The Wolters Kluwer Innovation in Teaching Award is presented by the ACSM Exercise Science Education Interest Group to ACSM educators who have used innovative strategies and practices to enhance student learning. The purposes of this award are both to honor individuals who have used innovative pedagogical approaches and to promote the dissemination of best practices by providing a forum for them to share their work with other educators in the College and beyond.

The recipient will receive a $1000 award and will be recognized during the Exercise Science Education Interest Group meeting at the 2018 Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The awardee will be required to share her/his innovation by making a 10-15 presentation during the Interest Group meeting, and by discussing the project in a webinar that will be hosted by Wolters Kluwer over the summer. Finally, the awardee will also be asked to serve on the 2019 award selection committee.

Applicants need to demonstrate careful reflection, implementation and impact of an innovative teaching strategy or practice that does at least one of the following:
• promotes novel approaches to teaching and learning
• promotes research-based approaches to teaching and learning
• investigates current teaching and learning issues and trends
• employs novel teaching and learning technologies
• utilizes active student learning
• utilizes data to inform instructional changes

In order to be eligible for this award, applicants must:
• be a current member of the ACSM
• be a full-time faculty member, instructor or teacher in a community college, college or university
• demonstrate an innovative strategy or practice they used to enhance student learning within the last five years

Applicants do not need to be nominated for the award, they simply need to submit a single PDF file that includes all of the following components:
• a one- to two-page description that explains: 1. the course(s) in which the innovation was used, 2. the learning challenge you were encountering, 3. the reason you implemented the innovation, and 4. how the innovation was implemented. If possible, describe the innovation with enough detail and in such a manner that would allow others to replicate it.
• a one- to two-page description of how the innovation impacted student learning and/or student engagement. Be sure to address how student performance in the course(s) impacted and, if possible, comment on the cost to benefit ratio of the innovation.
• one- to two-pages of supporting materials (e.g., additional evidence of impact, samples of student work, student feedback or evaluations, link to an online resource, etc.) and/or evidence of dissemination of the innovative work to the teaching community (e.g., journal abstract or professional conference presentation info)*.
• a one page letter of support from a supervisor or colleague (e.g., Chair, program coordinator or curriculum coordinator) that attests to the impact of the innovation
• one to two letters of support (each one page) from current or former students that attest to the impact of the innovation

*Note: Publications and presentations will be viewed as good evidence of innovation and impact, but they are not required for the application. All individuals who can demonstrate careful reflection on their innovative work are encouraged to apply, even if they have not previously disseminated it.

Applications should be emailed to the chair of the award selection committee John Dobson at jdobson@georgiasouthern.edu. Applications must be received by February 15, 2018.

The award selection committee consists of:
• the current chair(s) of the Exercise Science Education Interest Group
• at least two additional members of the Exercise Science Education Interest Group


Exercise Science Education at the ACSM Annual Meeting next week

Hopefully you are enjoying the early part of the summer and are geared up for the ACSM Annual Meeting next week.

Here are a few Exercise Science Education-related events at the conference:

The Exercise Science Education interest group meeting is Wednesday, June 1 from 5:45-7:15 in Room 401 of the Colorado Convention Center. Please join us for good conversation, a visit from the associate editor-in-chief for the ACSM Translational Journal about publishing opportunities and having an interest group member serve as an associate editor, and discussion of an interest group teaching award that we hope to start in the upcoming year. Plus, our friends at LWW are providing refreshments!

Exercise Science education sessions:

F-46. Thank You, Professor! Creating Engaging Pedagogy for Enhanced Student Learning of Exercise Physiology. June 2, 2017, 4:25 PM Room 104

Other sessions you may be interested in:

PC-04. ACSM Social Media Training Pre-conference: Learn Top Secrets from Social Media Experts. May 30, 2017, 1:00 PM Hotel-Mineral D

A-23. EIM On Campus. May 31, 2017, 9:30 AM Room 101

B-59. Cognition, Intelligence, and Learning. May 31, 2017, 1:00 PM Hall F

B-39. Behavioral Aspects and Correlates of Physical Activity in College Students. May 31, 2017, 3:15 PM Room 403

D-05. Mentoring Matters: ACSM and National Efforts to Mentor Trainees from Diverse and Underrepresented Backgrounds Effectively. June 1, 2017, 1:00 PM Hotel-Centennial Ballroom F

Please share anything I missed in the comments.

Enjoy the holiday weekend and have safe travels to Denver!


Mission accomplished: How I know my research student had a good experience.

Mentoring undergraduate students completing research projects is an important part of what I do at my university. My goal is to provide students with a research experience that will prepare them for what they will experience in graduate school. Ideally, this includes developing a research proposal, study design, IRB approval, data collection and analysis, and presentation of results.

This semester I had a student working on a short resistance training study for her Honors capstone that was funded through an internal grant. This involved recruiting subjects and working with other student assistants who supervised training sessions. We met periodically to discuss her progress. Earlier this semester, once the study was underway, I asked her how things were going. She replied:

“I feel like all I am doing is chasing subjects around, no one is doing what they are supposed to, and I am starting to hate people.”

That pretty much sums up the research experience, so I told her she was on the right track. From my perspective, mission accomplished!

In the end, the study was a success and she presented it at two university events showcasing student research. From her perspective, mission accomplished!

Apparently I missed out on a new way to get my papers published!

Last week I read that a journal was retracting over 100 papers due to fraud in the peer review process. Specifically, it seems that some authors were participating in a scheme in which they  would submit a manuscript to a journal for review, suggest reviewers, and provide fake email addresses that would route the manuscript back to them (instead of the named reviewer). Then the authors could review their own manuscript (potentially more than once) and recommend it for publication.


So, that’s pretty bold (I think the technical term is “ballsy”), but I was alerted to someone who took it to a whole new level: A reviewer for a journal stole a manuscript they were reviewing and published it under their own name!

That can’t be good for your career!



How Can We Minimize Grade Challenges? | Vitae

No one should teach in fear of the prospect of a wronged and vengeful student.

Source: How Can We Minimize Grade Challenges? | Vitae


Ugh! Thankfully, the students who do this are few and far between, at least for me. I find that it is almost always due to a difference in expectations.

For example, last semester I had a student who asked why he got a C (70%) on an assignment. He felt that because he did it, it should be worth an A. I explained that, first of all, he turned it in late, so an A was out of the question. Then I explained that he did most of it wrong, so I decided it was worth a C.

He seemed shocked to learn that I considered these factors when I graded assignments, but he understood once I explained it. By the way, he is a senior and gets A-B grades in other classes. I suspect he has been “trained” to expect high grades for incomplete work. Ugh!


What to do when you would rather not write that recommendation letter.

Source: Claiming Your Right to Say No | Vitae

This is always an awkward situation, but important to address. At the very least, it saves me some time!

I have been giving students who ask for a recommendation a list of information I need before I will write the recommendation. About a third never get back to me, which tells me they weren’t really serious. Again, saves me from wasting time.

Here’s my list

You can count on a strong, positive recommendation from me. In order to do this, I need the following:

  1. a copy of your transcript (unofficial SSC version is fine)
  2. any “why I want to go to graduate school” or other personal statements you wrote for the application(s)
  3. your resume or a list of work, volunteer, extracurricular, leadership, etc. experiences
  4. test score results (GRE, MCAT, etc.)
  5. any forms I need to fill out and/or address to send the letters
  6. a list of schools you are applying to
  7. deadlines for submission
  8. confirmation that you submitted your application (I won’t write the letter until you have applied)



Busy, yes. Productive and effective, not so much.

I really connected with this article. I have become increasingly aware of how my institution values being busy over being productive and effective. This is especially true right now, during advising and registration.

The amount of time required to manage an always increasing number of advisees (I have 116 this semester) takes away from doing pretty much everything else. Like helping a student with an internal research grant application. Or grading papers. Or writing grad school recommendations.

Worse, the emphasis is on scheduling, approving graduation applications, and solving problems with our online registration system so there is little time available for actual advising. You know, career goals, and such, the things we should be doing when we advise students.

So, we are very busy with advising, but I would hardly say that we are being effective. The good news is, registration ends this week so we should be able to get back to work!

Source: Work, Work, Work | Vitae