$Report Of Task Force On Faculty Evaluation

Task Force Members:

Patrick Duff, Jeaninne Webb, Tim VanSusteren

Summary Of Findings:

• Evaluation instruments are available for assessment of faculty teaching by students, residents, and peers.
• The present rating instruments for basic science and clinical faculty need minor revisions.
• Feedback from clerkship directors to faculty members regarding student evaluations is inconsistent.
• Feedback from program directors to faculty members regarding resident evaluations is inconsistent.
• Implementation of the peer review system within individual departments is inconsistent.

Recommendations:

The principal problem is not an inadequate data base for assessing faculty teaching. Rather, we need to improve the consistency with which clerkship directors, program directors, and department chairmen review existing data and discuss performance evaluations with individual faculty members. To that end, the task force makes the following specific recommendations.

• The Curriculum Committee should be given "regulatory authority" to conduct oversight audits of each academic department. The purpose of the audits is to ensure that the department has clearly defined educational objectives for students, that faculty members are consistently evaluated by students, residents, and peers, and that they receive timely feedback regarding their evaluations.
• Such oversight surveys of the individual departments should be conducted at least every three years by members of the Curriculum Committee and their staff assistants.
• The surveys should specifically identify strengths and weaknesses of the department's student education program and outline suggestions for improvement.
• The survey team should report directly to the Curriculum Committee and may recommend "full" or "provisional" accreditation. Programs receiving full approval should be resurveyed in three years. Programs receiving provisional approval should be resurveyed in one year.
• The Curriculum Committee will make the final recommendation concerning accreditation status and will forward its recommendation to the Senior Associate Dean for Education. The Associate Dean, in turn, will use the results of this survey to make decisions regarding distribution of funds for student education.
• The Promotion and Tenure Committee should require that all applicants for promotion and/or tenure have a formal teaching portfolio, patterned after the document presently used for the TIP awards.
• In view of the recent approval of the Peer Evaluation of Faculty Teaching rating form by the Executive Committee of the College of Medicine, no changes in this form are recommended at the present time.
• The form used by students for evaluation of the basic science faculty should be revised. The present criteria should be replaced by the ones listed below:
  1. Description of course objectives, assignments, and performance expectations.
  2. Knowledge of subject matter.
  3. Communication of ideas and information.
  4. Facilitation of learning and encouragement of critical thinking.
  5. Enthusiasm for teaching.
  6. Availability to assist students in and out of class.
  7. Professional characteristics when interacting with students (maturity, respectfulness, encouragement, humility, responsiveness)
  8. Evaluation of students (feedback, assessment of performance)
  9. Overall rating.
• The form used by the students for evaluation of the clinical faculty should be revised. The present criteria should be replaced by the ones listed below:
  1. Description of course objectives, assignments, and performance expectations.
  2. Knowledge of subject matter.
  3. Communication of ideas and information.
  4. Facilitation of learning and encouragement of critical thinking.
  5. Enthusiasm for teaching.
  6. Availability to assist students in and out of class.
  7. Professional characteristics when interacting with students (maturity, respectfulness, encouragement, humility, responsiveness).
  8. Adaptation to a variety of teaching situations (lecture, seminar, practical demonstration).
  9. Evaluation of students (provision of feedback, assessment of performance).
  10. Sensitivity to coworkers and to patients and their family members.
  11. Emphasis on cost-effective, practical, efficient patient management
  12. Overall rating.
• The form used by residents for evaluation of the faculty should be revised. The present criteria should be replaced by the ones listed below:
  1. Description of clinical assignments and performance expectations.
  2. Knowledge of subject matter.
  3. Communication of ideas and information.
  4. Facilitation of learning and encouragement of critical thinking.
  5. Enthusiasm for teaching.
  6. Availability to assist residents.
  7. Professional characteristics when interacting with residents (maturity, respectfulness, encouragement, humility, responsiveness).
  8. Adaptation to a variety of teaching situations (lecture, seminar, practical demonstration).
  9. Ability to provide direction and feedback and accurate assessment of resident performance.
• Sensitivity to coworkers and to patients and their family members.
• Emphasis on cost-effective, practical, efficient patient management. #Overall rating.

  ---

    Updated: April 6, 19100

  ---

  Home Page