• What is a portfolio?
• How can it be used to document accomplishments related to teaching?
• What resources are available to guide faculty and RPT committees?
Objectives
• Living document
• Extension of your CV
• Personal annual report (annual review)
• Necessary part of many promotion and tenure packages
What is a portfolio?
• Originally conceptualized like those used with artists or architects
• Demonstrates quality of your work
• Records breadth of your work
• Illustrates professional development
What is a portfolio?
“…a method of encouraging adult and reflective learning … based on developing a collection of evidence that learning has taken place”
What is a portfolio?
Snadden and Thomas 1998, p. 192
Personal reflection• Central to successful portfolio• Explains –What is included?–Why it is included?– How it is organized?– How it relates to program or
institutional goals?
What is a portfolio?
• Tell your story
–Where have you been?
–What have you done?
–What have you learned?
–Where are you going?
• How to build a portfolio?
– Find a place to store your work
– Keep everything
– Ask for it in writing
– Be organized
– Paper vs electronic
What is a portfolio?
Documenting Competence
Miller GE. The Assessment of Clinical Skills/Competence/Performance; Acad Med 1990 65(9):63-67. Adapted by Drs R. Mehay & R. Burns, UK (Jan 2009).
• AAMC Taskforce on Educator Evaluation: 2010 – 2012
• The Charge: To provide resources that will aid decision-makers in developing clear, consistent and efficient evaluation processes for faculty with a career focus in education
Documenting Accomplishments
Task Force MembersMaryellen Gusic
Indiana UniversityChair of the Task Force
Jonathan AmielColumbia University
Brian MavisMichigan State University
Suzanne RoseUniversity of Connecticut
Constance BaldwinUniversity of Rochester
Kathe NelsonUniversity of Alabama
Deborah SimpsonMedical College of Wisconsin
Latha ChandranSUNY Stony Brook
Lois NoraThe Commonwealth
Medical College
Henry StrobelUniversity of Texas
Medical School at Houston
Ruth-Marie E. FincherGHSU/Medical College of
Georgia
Jamie PadmoreMedStar Health
Craig TimmUniversity of New Mexico
Nancy LowittUniversity of Maryland
Pat O’SullivanUCSF
Tom ViggianoMayo Medical School
• Teaching• Learner Assessment• Curriculum Development• Mentoring and Advising• Educational Leadership and
Administration
What do educators do?
Simpson et al, 2007
Four typical indicators of competence:• Quantity• Quality• Scholarly approach• Scholarship
Evaluating the work of educators?
• Quantity– Duration, number, scope of teaching
activities
• Quality– Teaching effective and well-received
• Scholarly approach– Incorporates best practices
• Scholarship– Workshops, peer-reviewed presentations– Adoption by others
Contributions in Teaching
• Scholarship involves:
– Discovery of new knowledge
– Application of knowledge
– Integration of knowledge
– Dissemination of knowledge
Scholarship Reconsidered
Boyer, 1990
1. Clear goals2. Adequate preparation3. Appropriate methods4. Significant results5. Effective presentation6. Reflective critique
Glassick’s Criteria
Glassick, 2000
• Learning objectives for teaching session/curriculum are:– Clearly stated– At level appropriate for learners– Specified to measure learner’s
performance
1. Clear Goals
• Learning objectives are:– Based on documented needs– SMART (specific, measurable,
achievable, realistic and timely)– Address multiple domains (e.g.,
knowledge, skills and/or attitudes)
1. Clear Goals
• Congruence/integration with other curricular components
• Use of best practices
• Necessary resource planning
2. Adequate Preparation
• Best Practices– Content is up-to-date and evidence-
based– Content is logically integrated with
other curricular components– Content to be covered appropriate for
time available– Content depth and breadth matched
to learners’ needs
2. Adequate Preparation
• Resource Planning– Specific needed resources are
specified– Needed resources are available– Adequate preparation for use of
technology
2. Adequate Preparation
• Teaching methods aligned with learning objectives
• Methods are feasible, practical and ethical
• Innovative teaching methods used to achieve learning objectives
3. Appropriate Methods
• Chooses teaching strategies that incorporate a variety of approaches
• Variety of approaches is evidence-based
• Uses interactive approaches and promotes self-directed learning
• Includes strategies for monitoring learner progress
• Provides evidence of innovation
3. Appropriate Methods
• Satisfaction/reaction of learners• Learning: Measures knowledge,
skills, attitudes and/or behaviors• Application: desired performance
demonstrated in other settings• Impact: educational programs and
processes here or elsewhere
4. Significant Results
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006
• Satisfaction/Reaction– Teaching ratings by learners or
peers/experts– Compare learner ratings across
teachers
• Learning–Measurable changes in knowledge,
skills, etc.– Comparison to benchmarks or prior
data
4. Significant Results
• Application– Demonstration of knowledge, skills, etc. in
subsequent settings or curricular components
• Impact– Evaluation by knowledgeable peers,
educational leaders, etc.– Internal or external awards or recognition
4. Significant Results
• Recognized as valuable (internally or externally) through:– Peer review– Dissemination– Use by others
5. Effective Presentation
• Invitations to conduct faculty development, workshops, presentations
• Peer review of other teachers
• Dissemination and adoption of teaching materials or methods
5. Effective Presentation
• Ongoing improvement– Personal reflection– Learner performance data– Evaluation results– Peer review
6. Reflective Critique
• Critical analysis of teaching activities using information from others and self-reflection
• Evidence of continuous quality improvement of teaching activities
6. Reflective Critique
1. Clear goals2. Adequate preparation3. Appropriate methods4. Significant results5. Effective presentation6. Reflective critique
Glassick’s Criteria
Glassick, 2000
Toolkit
Criteria Teaching
Assessm’t
Curric Develop
mt
Mentoring/
Advising
Leadership/Admin
Clear goals √ √ √ √ √AdequatePreparation
√ √ √ √ √
AppropriateMethods
√ √ √ √ √
Significant Results
√ √ √ √ √
Effective Presentation
√ √ √ √ √
Reflective Critique
√ √ √ √ √
AAMC Toolbox for Evaluating Educators
• Available through MedEdPortal:www.mededportal.org/publication/9313
Where to Find It
• Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1990.
• Glassick CE. Boyer’s expanded definition of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med. 2000; 75:877-880.
• Kirkpatrick DL and Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd Ed). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006.
• Miller GE. The Assessment of Clinical Skills/Competence/Performance; Acad Med 1990 65(9):63-67.
• Simpson D, Fincher RM, Hafler JP, Irby DM, Richards BF, Rosenfeld GC, Viggiano TR. Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship. Med Educ. 2007;41:1002-1009.
• Snadden D. & Thomas ML. The use of portfolio learning in medical education. Med Teach. 1998; 20: 192-199.
References
• Baldwin C, Chandran L, Gusic M. Guidelines for evaluating the educational performance of medical school faculty: priming a national conversation. Teach Learn Med. 2011; 23(3):285-97.
• Hutchings, P. and Shulman, L.S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: new elaborations and developments. Change, 31(5), 10-5.
• Van Tartwijk, J. & Driessen, EW. Portfolios for assessment and learning: AMEE Guide No. 45. Med Teach. 2009; 31: 790-801.
Additional Resources