Characteristics of good teaching are reasonably consistent in the literature and can be used as evaluation criteria. In one review of academic dean's views of effective teaching, five criteria were described:
When comparing good teaching characteristics as viewed by students and academic deans, being a good role model was the highest rated characteristic of both groups.
The most commonly identified evaluators of teaching effectiveness are students, peers, self, and college administration. However, each group may have its unique role.
In order to be most helpful, students must be asked the correct questions. Typically these deal with teaching behaviors they can directly observe.
Peers can be a valuable source of information about the instructor's mastery of the content being taught, the teaching strategies used, and the appropriateness of teaching materials including: course syllabus, objectives, and reading lists. Peers can make reasonable judgements on the appropriateness of the scope of content being taught, its sequencing, and placement in the curriculum (horizontal and vertical integration).
Faculty self-evaluation, when used with student and peer evaluation, is helpful in faculty growth and development. Like evaluations from students, faculty need appropriate guiding questions to encourage accurate self-appraisal rather than simply a self-report (e.g., list area of greatest strength, areas needing improvement, most innovative teaching strategy used this year, area of greatest improvement). The administrative growth contract is one technique that is valuable to assist faculty. This consists of a written set of goals and objectives and plans to achieve the goals. It forms the basis for periodic faculty self-appraisal.
In order for any rating system to be effective, it must be valid and reliable. For the purposes of faculty evaluation, validity may be presumed if the items being rated are grounded in the major components or factors of clinical teaching effectiveness that are found in the medical literature. Reliability refers to consistency in ratings from the evaluators.
In one study, by Irby, seven factors were included on a student evaluation form used in a clinical rotation and included:
The overall reliability of the form ranged from .7 to .82 using 10 student raters, but increased to .83-.90 for 20 student raters. Inter-rater reliability correlation ranged from .37-.8, with instructor knowledge having the lowest reliability and overall teaching effectiveness and enthusiasm the highest. Four of the seven ratings accounted for 86% of the variance. The reliability of this clinical evaluation by students was comparable to reliability ratings found in the classroom.
Faculty development and evaluation are related processes. The former aspires to improve faculty performance and the latter aims to make judgements regarding worth. The processes can be integrated, and can be a powerful technique in changing behavior. On the other hand, there is little evidence that faculty evaluation alone improves instruction. Those studies that do report an association between ratings and improved faculty performance are often biased, examining faculty who volunteered to participate in an evaluation study. In contrast, a review of 7 educational studies support the contention that a combination of student ratings and personal consultation favors instructional improvement. In these studies, personal consultation consisted of a respected colleague who would help the target faculty interpret the student ratings, and suggest ways of improving teaching skills in the areas of concern. Interestingly, the faculty who were most likely to show positive changes in their behavior were those who rated their own teaching skills significantly higher than the ratings given to them by the students. Finally, as with any feedback system, faculty evaluation conducted early in the course of instruction favored instructional improvement because it allows faculty the time and opportunity to make modifications.
A model has been proposed, based upon these findings, that has the potential to improve faculty instruction. The four components of the Evaluation/Faculty Development Model include:
It would appear that our faculty evaluation system is on track with what is reported in the medical education literature. Our teaching effectiveness criteria are similar to those proposed in the literature; it is possible that ours is unnecessarily too long. It may be prudent to have students evaluate fewer faculty attributes and evaluate them well.
Our sources of evaluation data are remarkable consistent with, if not identical to, that reported in the literature. Each component of the evaluation system has its unique role, and the multiple sources of data will also allow comparisons that will help the faculty development process.
We are justified to trust student ratings of faculty performance. It will be prudent to continue to analyze student ratings to determine which are most reliable and eliminate those that are not.
It is possible to change faculty behavior and improve teaching. We may wish to better define our faculty development component of the evaluation system to make it most effective. This will require thought, resources, and a willingness of faculty to "buy into" the final product. This short review of the education literature also suggests that we are on the cutting edge by linking teaching effectiveness to the promotion-tenure-retention-salary process.
Rous SN, Bamford JC, Gromish D, Rich H, Rubin S, Sall S. The improvement of faculty teaching through evaluation. A follow-up report. J Surg Res 1972; 262-266.
Jacobs JB. Faculty status for clinician-educators: guidelines for evaluation and improvement. Acad Med 1993; 68-128.
Irby D. Rakestraw P. Evaluating clinical teaching in medicine. J Med Educ 1981; 56: 181-186.
Whitman N. Schwenk T. Faculty evaluation as a means of faculty development. J Fam Prac 1982; 14: 1097-1101.
Ward-Griffin C, Brown B. Evaluation of teaching. A review of the literature. J Adv Nurs 1992; 17: 1408-1414.
Donnelly MB, Wooliscroft JO. Evaluation of clinical instructors by third-year medical students. Acad Med 1989; 64: 159-164.