The Australian Awards for University Teaching (AAUT) nominations are shaped by timelines, eligibility criteria, and formatting requirements. Yet through my involvement in coordinating these nominations, delivering information sessions, meeting with potential nominees early in the process, facilitating mentoring relationships, and supporting the development of drafts, I have come to see how deeply human this process is. Developing an AAUT nomination involves crafting a narrative that enables others to understand and judge the quality of one’s teaching, a task that extends well beyond simple writing. It requires drawing together holistic aspects of practice and engaging in identity work that can give rise to vulnerability, particularly when the story does not feel recognised or valued (1). Some of this vulnerability comes from sharing aspects of teaching previously visible only to students or a few trusted colleagues and bringing that work into a public space that can feel more exposing. It also arises from looking closely at one’s practice and trying to put it into words while still feeling secure in what has been achieved.

Teaching award preparation can create opportunities for reflection, identity work, emotional engagement, and professional growth, regardless of the award outcome (2). The process of applying for a teaching award is far more than a technical exercise; it often involves emotional pressure, negotiation of academic identity, substantial reflection on teaching practice, and a reliance on institutional and relational support structures that shape applicants’ experiences (3).

Through this lens, preparing an AAUT nomination becomes a relational and emotionally rich journey that depends on care, attentiveness and respect for the human experience behind every nomination. This is why coordinating mentors and reviewers, answering questions as they arise, and offering steady, constructive guidance all help nominees stay grounded as they juggle already demanding academic workloads.

Building a Space of Trust

The award journey often begins with an information session about guidelines and eligibility. When the session offers more than a basic overview of procedures, it becomes an invitation into a safe, welcoming space. One that offers clarity without overwhelm, explains the purpose of the award rather than just the steps, and reassures potential nominees that support will be available throughout.

This early experience of safety matters. It signals to nominees that they are entering a process where questions are welcomed, and they will not be judged for what they do or do not yet know. When this is then reinforced through a private team channel on Teams, for example, where mentors, reviewers, and nominees are paired together, it strengthens the sense that they are part of a supportive community, rather than navigating the process alone.

This sense of safety matters because nominees are far more willing to look closely at their teaching, question their assumptions, and share evolving drafts when they feel the process is supportive rather than evaluative. When the first session signals that uncertainty is acceptable and help is available, it opens the door to the deeper reflection the award demands.

Recognising Distinctive Practice Early in the Process

At the early stages of preparing an AAUT nomination, articulating what makes a teaching practice distinctive can be challenging. Nominees are often required to reflect more deeply on their teaching so they can clearly articulate what they do and why it matters (3). This process of taking ‘time out’ to engage in professional reflection can be demanding, as it requires stepping back from everyday routines. This allows educators to identify the unique features of their practice and express aspects of their teaching for which they may not yet have a language (1).

Because AAUT nominations depend on a compelling, evidence-rich narrative, the beginning of the process becomes a critical moment for guided reflection. Early conversations with mentors and coordinators, who begin by listening carefully to what nominees already have to share before offering guidance, create space for this reflection to unfold. These discussions help nominees pause and consider core questions:

• What sits at the heart of my teaching?
• What impact have I had, even if I have not yet recognised it?
• What is unique about my practice?

These reflective conversations may uncover strengths that nominees have taken for granted, innovative approaches, meaningful student outcomes, influence on colleagues, or contributions extending beyond individual classrooms. Starting with this reflective foundation sets a strong foundation for developing a narrative that is both authentic and distinctive, two qualities that are essential in a national award context. In this way, the early stages of the AAUT journey become more than a preliminary step; they enable nominees to approach the rest of the process with clarity, confidence, and a deeper appreciation of their work.

These early conversations also encourage nominees to consider how their practice is informed by the scholarship of teaching and learning. This helps them recognise the theories, frameworks, and evidence already present in their work while opening opportunities to engage more deeply with relevant literature.

Feedback as an Act of Care

As drafts begin circulating among mentors, reviewers, and coordinators, feedback becomes the main way nominations are strengthened and refined. This stage reveals the deeply human dimension of the process. Submitting a draft, especially one tied to work that is personal, valued, and hard-won, is an act of vulnerability. Nominees, like their students, open themselves to critique and expose aspects of their professional identity.

Feedback triggers emotional responses, and these emotions significantly shape whether and how a person engages with feedback (4). For this reason, how feedback is delivered matters a great deal. Honest commentary is essential in a competitive national context, where offering false reassurance can do more harm than good. But honesty on its own isn’t enough. When feedback is experienced as judgemental, it can discourage engagement (5) and reduce a nominee’s willingness to act on it. Effective feedback acknowledges the emotional and intellectual labour that goes into each submission while still providing clear, meaningful direction for improvement. This is supported through feedback that is framed in invitational rather than evaluative language, that begins by recognising strengths before exploring opportunities for development, and that offers concrete suggestions linked directly to award criteria. Constructive critique, offered with generosity and clarity enables nominees to refine their narrative, make their case with assurance, and feel supported throughout the journey.

What This Process Truly Reveals

Paying attention to the human side of the AAUT process opens up a deeper understanding of how teaching excellence is nurtured and supported within institutions. When award preparation is viewed not as a compliance task but as a relational and reflective journey, it becomes a space where academics can explore the meaning of their practice, articulate the impact of their work, and connect with colleagues in ways that strengthen professional identity.

The invisible labour that sustains this journey, guidance, encouragement, thoughtful feedback, and creation of psychologically safe spaces, plays an essential role in helping nominees present their teaching with clarity and confidence.

Seeing the hidden side of award preparation reveals something important: behind every nomination is an educator trying to make a real difference for their students. When we acknowledge both the visible and invisible work in this journey, we strengthen a culture that values not just teaching excellence, but the care and humanity that make it possible.

References relevant to this post.

Banner image: https://universitiesaustralia.edu.au/policy-submissions/teaching-learnin...