The design and utility of institutional teaching awards: A literature review
ABSTRACT Background: Institutional teaching awards have been used widely in higher education since the 1970s. Nevertheless, a comprehensive review of the literature on such awards has not been published since 1997. Aim: We conducted a literature review to learn as much as possible about the design (e.g., formats, selection processes) and utility (e.g., impact on individuals and institutions) of teaching awards in order to provide information for use in designing, implementing, or evaluating award programs. Methods: We searched electronic databases for English-language publications on awards for exemplary teaching. Targeted publications included descriptions and/or investigations of award programs, their impact, and theoretical or conceptual models for awards programs. Screening was conducted by dual review; a third reviewer was assigned for disagreements. Data were analyzed qualitatively. Results were summarized descriptively. Results: We identified 1302 publications for initial relevancy screening by title and abstract. We identified an additional 23 publications in a follow-up search. The full text of 126 publications was reviewed for further relevance. A total of 62 publications were identified as relevant, and of these 43 met our criteria for inclusion. Of the 43, 19 described the design features of 24 awards; 20 reports discussed award utility. Nomination and selection processes and benefits (e.g., plaques) varied as did perceived impact on individuals and institutions. Conclusion: Limited evidence exists regarding design and utility of teaching awards. Awards are perceived as having potential for positive impact, including promotions, but may also have unintended negative consequences. Future research should investigate the impact of awards on personal and professional development, and how promotion and tenure committees perceive awards.
SourceAvailable from: Stanley J. Hamstra[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Growth in the field of medical education is evidenced by the proliferation of units dedicated to advancing Medical Education Research and Innovation (MERI). While a review of the literature discovered narrative accounts of MERI unit development, we found no systematic examinations of the dimensions of and structures that facilitate the success of these units. We conducted qualitative interviews with the directors of 12 MERI units across Canada. Data were analyzed using qualitative description (Sandelowski in Res Nurs Health 23:334-340, 2000). Final analysis drew on Bourdieu's (Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977; Media, culture and society: a critical reader. Sage, London, 1986; Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1991) concepts of field, habitus, and capital, and more recent research investigating the field of MERI (Albert in Acad Med 79:948-954, 2004; Albert et al. in Adv Health Sci Educ 12:103-115, 2007). When asked about the metrics by which they define their success, directors cited: teaching, faculty mentoring, building collaborations, delivering conference presentations, winning grant funding, and disseminating publications. Analyzed using Bourdieu's concepts, these metrics are discussed as forms of capital that have been legitimized in the MERI field. All directors, with the exception of one, described success as being comprised of elements (capital) at both ends of the service-research spectrum (i.e., Albert's PP-PU structure). Our analysis highlights the forms of habitus (i.e., behaviors, attitudes, demeanors) directors use to negotiate, strategize and position the unit within their local context. These findings may assist institutions in developing a new-or reorganizing an existing-MERI unit. We posit that a better understanding of these complex social structures can help units become savvy participants in the MERI field. With such insight, units can improve their academic output and their status in the MERI context-locally, nationally, and internationally.Advances in Health Sciences Education 01/2014; 19(3). DOI:10.1007/s10459-013-9479-z · 2.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Promotion for academic faculty depends on a variety of factors, including their research, publications, national leadership, and quality of their teaching. We sought to determine the importance of resident evaluations of faculty for promotion in obstetrics-gynecology programs. A 28-item questionnaire was developed and distributed to 185 department chairs of US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs. Fifty percent (93 of 185) responded, with 40% (37 of 93) stating that teaching has become more important for promotion in the past 10 years. When faculty are being considered for promotion, teaching evaluations were deemed "very important" 60% of the time for clinician track faculty but were rated as mainly "not important" or "not applicable" for research faculty. Sixteen respondents (17%) stated a faculty member had failed to achieve promotion in the past 5 years because of poor teaching evaluations. Positive teaching evaluations outweighed low publication numbers for clinical faculty 24% of the time, compared with 5% for research faculty and 8% for tenured faculty being considered for promotion. The most common reason for rejection for promotion in all tracks was the number of publications. Awards for excellence in teaching improved chances of promotion. Teaching quality is becoming more important in academic obstetrics-gynecology departments, especially for clinical faculty. Although in most institutions promotion is not achieved without adequate research and publications, the importance of teaching excellence is obvious, with 1 of 6 (17%) departments reporting a promotion had been denied due to poor teaching evaluations.12/2013; 5(4):620-4. DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-13-00002.1
01/2013; 30(3):Doc30. DOI:10.3205/zma000873