Methods of Rewarding TeachingMethods 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 FormatSession Format• Contrasting approaches from two

institutions: – Background Issues– Presentations:

• Rewarding teaching using Mission Based Management

• Rewarding teaching without Mission Based Management

• Open Discussion: Solutions?

Common ConcernsCommon 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

Rewarding Teaching: IssuesRewarding Teaching: Issues

• Stimulating curricular change and improvement

• Maintaining curricular change and improvement

• Academic advancement

• Institutional advancement

• Personal achievement

Methods of RewardMethods of Reward• Promotion

• Recognition

–Personal

–Institutional

• Financial

• Time for other activities

Local SolutionsLocal Solutions

• Promotion –Using educational effort as a

“real” criteria

–Include teaching as both necessary and important in tenure decisions

Stimulating and Maintaining Stimulating and Maintaining Curricular ChangeCurricular Change

• Interest in being personally involved

• Personal recognition

• Altruism

• Value to one’s department

• “the Personal Mission”

Academic AdvancementAcademic Advancement

• Promotion and ???? Tenure• Using teaching portfolios• Education as a scholarly activity

– Presentations– Publications– Educational materials: syllabi,

development of on-line materials

Recognition of TeachingRecognition 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)

FinancialFinancial• 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

What Does “Reward” Really What Does “Reward” Really Mean?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?

Mission Based Management: Mission Based Management: Implementation 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

Teams/ChangesTeams/Changes• Education Design Team• Clinical Design Team• Research Design Team• Administrative Design Team• Finance Design Team• New Leadership Model (added Executive

Advisory Committee)

Mission Based Management Credit for Educational Activities

Teaching Activity

MBM Credit Formula (per hour of contact)

Lecture 7 (1 hour contact + 6 hours prep time)

Repeated Lecture 2 (1 hour contact + 1 hour prep time)

Laboratory 2 (1 hour contact + 1 hour prep time)

Small Group Teaching 2 (1 hour contact + 1 hour prep time)

Conference 2 (1 hour contact + 1 hour prep time)

Outpatient Teaching 20% of patient care time in presence of students

Inpatient Teaching 30% of patient care time in presence of students

http//:mbm.citizen.creighton.edu

Why do we need all these data?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

Questions and Questions and Comments: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 framework Faculty provide the color and substance

RewardsRewards• 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

RewardsRewards• 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)

RewardsRewards• Financial

–Infrastructure Support• Faculty to meetings • Technology support• Educational software, textbooks• Administrative support

–Direct payment• Key education faculty $$$• Department education $$$

Creighton University 1928Creighton University 1928

Open DiscussionOpen Discussion• Solutions?

Open DiscussionOpen 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?

Question?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?

Question?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?

A Few ThoughtsA 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