Faculty development for the evaluation system: a dual agenda

Figures & data

Table 1 Outline of pre-session preparation and agenda topics

Faculty development framework
Pre-session preparation
Build individualized performance portfolios
Schedule formal sessions across time and geographic sites
Agenda 1: Improve the quality of faculty assessments of learners
Review the evaluation tool faculty complete of learners
Discuss quality assessment language for the narrative component
Discuss determination of RIME synthesis level
Promote self-reflection of evaluator biases
Agenda 2: Use performance data from learner ratings to promote faculty growth
Encourage faculty self-assessment
Provide compiled narrative comments from learner evaluations of faculty
Discuss high-value teaching behaviors
Review faculty rank and comparison reports to identify areas for faculty growth

Abbreviation: RIME, reporter–interpreter–manager–educator.

Table 2 Summary of individualized faculty performance documents provided in portfolio

Document	Description
Self-assessment form	Evaluation form faculty completes at session to rate their own teaching practices
Narrative evaluation comments	Compilation of anonymous free response comments submitted by learners regarding faculty member
Faculty rank list	Departmental list ranked highest to lowest based on summative rating scores on all evaluations, names other than individual are blinded
Comparison report	Item-level comparison of faculty members average score and range in comparison to the departmental average and range
Bias tendencies report	Compares the average score of each learner by the faculty evaluator with the average score assigned by all other evaluators

Table 3 Examples of narrative assessment language for two learners at the level of a reporter

Weak narrative language

“Mr. Learner was a very strong student. He was punctual, enthusiastic, and inquisitive. It was a pleasure to work with him. I have no doubt he will do well on his future endeavors.”

Strong narrative language

“Mr. Learner performed at a level appropriate for his training. He currently is at a reporter level but is transitioning to interpreter (inconsistently at this point in time). His medical knowledge demonstrated an understanding of basic physiology and pathology and this was reflected in his differential diagnoses. He is on target for his progression as a clinician. He was able to complete a history and physical with pertinent positive and negative questions. Examination skills were basic, but not deficient. He was eager and enthusiastic, a valuable member of the team. To improve, he should strive to fill gaps in knowledge and advance his clinical acumen with improvement in physical examination skills. He was a pleasure to work with.”

Figure 1 An excerpt from comparison report of an individual faculty member.

Note: Circle represents a potential area for faculty growth.