1 / 28

Methods of Rewarding Teaching

Methods of Rewarding Teaching. N. Kevin Krane, M.D., F.A.C.P. Tulane University School of Medicine Vice Dean for Academic Affairs Floyd C. Knoop, Ph.D. Component I Director Creighton University School of Medicine. Session Format.

homer
Télécharger la présentation

Methods of Rewarding Teaching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Methods of Rewarding Teaching N. Kevin Krane, M.D., F.A.C.P. Tulane University School of Medicine Vice Dean for Academic Affairs Floyd C. Knoop, Ph.D. Component I Director Creighton University School of Medicine

  2. Session Format • Contrasting approaches from two institutions: • Background Issues • Presentations: • Rewarding teaching using Mission Based Management • Rewarding teaching without Mission Based Management • Open Discussion: Solutions?

  3. Common Concerns • More faculty time necessary for all the committees necessary to oversee educational activities • More faculty time has been necessary to both initiate and maintain curriculum reform by course/clerkship leaders • More faculty time has been required for small group teaching • More interdisciplinary courses have been created requiring institutional support

  4. Rewarding Teaching: Issues • Stimulating curricular change and improvement • Maintaining curricular change and improvement • Academic advancement • Institutional advancement • Personal achievement

  5. Methods of Reward • Promotion • Recognition • Personal • Institutional • Financial • Time for other activities

  6. Local Solutions • Promotion • Using educational effort as a “real” criteria • Include teaching as both necessary and important in tenure decisions

  7. Stimulating and Maintaining Curricular Change • Interest in being personally involved • Personal recognition • Altruism • Value to one’s department • “the Personal Mission”

  8. Academic Advancement • Promotion and ???? Tenure • Using teaching portfolios • Education as a scholarly activity • Presentations • Publications • Educational materials: syllabi, development of on-line materials

  9. Recognition of Teaching • Student Awards: At Tulane its “the Owl Club” • Peer Awards • Recognition for Teaching Innovation (Virginia Furrow Award): small cash award • Recognition for Promising Basic Science Educators (Auxiliary Award for Teaching): provides funding to attend teaching meeting • Recognition for Educational Scholarship (Tulane Teaching Scholar Award): permanent increase in base salary • Institutional Awards (Presidents Award, Recognition Certificates)

  10. Financial • Infrastructure Support • Send faculty to meetings • Provide educational hardware and software • Administrative support • Classrooms • Improved technology • Direct payment • Creation and leadership of new institutional courses

  11. What Does “Reward” Really Mean? • What are the “obligations” of a faculty member in terms of educational effort? • Are there differences between departmental efforts and institutional efforts? • Are there differences between basic and clinical science faculty? • Are there differences across disciplines?

  12. Mission Based Management: Implementation • AAMC program on MBM: preserve viability of medical schools and protect academic mission • Implementation is “school specific” • Creighton, 1999 • What is MBM? • New reporting system that tracks medical school revenues and expenses and measures faculty activities • Implementation of new management structures

  13. Teams/Changes • Education Design Team • Clinical Design Team • Research Design Team • Administrative Design Team • Finance Design Team • New Leadership Model (added Executive Advisory Committee)

  14. http//:mbm.citizen.creighton.edu

  15. Why do we need all these data? • Assume “search and destroy” mission • Align the effort distribution for hard working faculty members • To reallocate teaching, patient care, administrative and service contributions • To manage workloads in an efficient and equitable manner

  16. Questions and Comments: • How precise does the data need to be?Enough to assess the contribution • Do we really need point/bean counters?Simply a management aid/A tool to inform management judgment • MBM provides a frameworkFaculty provide the color and substance

  17. Rewards • Promotion • Areas to be Evaluated: • Teaching Achievement • Demonstration on basis of evidence from supervisors, peers and students • Demonstration of a range of courses taught, course development, instructional innovation, textbook publication, curriculum design, teaching awards and student success after graduation

  18. Rewards • Recognition • Student Awards: “Golden Apple” • Peer Awards: • Recognition for dedication (Dedicated Teacher Award): plaque & gift • Recognition for service and education (Distinguished Service Award): plaque & gift • Recognition for teaching, scholarship & service (Distinguished Professor Award): plaque & gift • Institutional Awards (Presidents Teaching Scholar Award, Distinguished Faculty Award)

  19. Rewards • Financial • Infrastructure Support • Faculty to meetings • Technology support • Educational software, textbooks • Administrative support • Direct payment • Key education faculty $$$ • Department education $$$

  20. Creighton University 1928

  21. Open Discussion • Solutions?

  22. Open Discussion • Is There a Difference? • “Obligations” of faculty for educational effort • Basic vs. clinical science faculty • More time for small group teaching = better satisfaction? • More time for committees – better structure? • Teaching important for tenure?

  23. Question? • Whether the scholarship of teaching should become an alternative to the scholarship of discovery (research) in faculty promotion and tenure decisions in higher education?

  24. Question? • We may have difficulty evaluating the act of teaching, just as we have difficulty evaluating the act of research. For research, we have accepted the peer evaluation of papers describing the research as a reasonable proxy for evaluating the research itself. What should be accepted for teaching?

  25. A Few Thoughts • For teaching, several proxies have been proposed or used • student comments on teaching • student outcomes (in standardized exams or subsequent classes) • classroom visitation by peers • classroom visitation by "trained observers" • course portfolios • reflective essays by the teachers • faculty "observers" who don't just visit once, but take a full course • published papers about teaching • published textbooks • artifacts of teaching: lab manuals, workbooks, software • published research into teaching methods

More Related