The design and utility of institutional teaching awards: A literature review
Creighton University , USA.Medical Teacher (Impact Factor: 1.68). 10/2012; 34(11). DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.731102
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.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Clinical teaching at medical schools needs continual improvement. We used a new evaluation instrument to gather student ratings on a departmental level across all clinical rotations. The ratings were used to enable cross comparison of departmental clinical teaching quality, official ranking and feedback as a method to improve teaching quality. This study was designed to evaluate whether these interventions increased the quality of clinical teaching. Methods: A web-based questionnaire consisting of 10 questions (Likert scale 1-6) was introduced into all hospital departments at Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden. Specific feedback was given to participating departments based on the assessments collected. Action plans were created in order to address areas for departmental improvement. Questionnaire scores were used as a measure of clinical teaching quality. Results: Mean follow-up time was 2.5 semesters. The student response rate was 70% (n = 1981). The departments' median ratings (25th-75th percentile) for the baseline were 4.05 (3.80-4.30). At follow-up, the median rating had increased to 4.56 (4.29-4.72) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The introduction of a uniform clinical teaching evaluation instrument enabled cross comparison between clinical departments. Specific feedback enabled the development of action plans in the departments. This caused a rapid and substantial increase in the quality of clinical teaching.Medical Teacher 06/2013; 35(10). DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2013.802302 · 1.68 Impact Factor
- GMS Zeitschrift fü medizinische Ausbildung 08/2013; 30(3):Doc30. DOI:10.3205/zma000873
- [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
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.