Using the AAMC Toolbox for Evaluating Educators: You be the Judge!
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction In the past two decades, significant progress has been made in defining and justifying the value of scholarship in education. However, educators at many academic health centers continue to struggle with advancement and promotion because the process for evaluating their contributions is often cumbersome and accepted standards for evaluation are vague or lacking. The basis for evaluating educators has been strengthened by defining educational scholarship and by developing templates for faculty to document their educational contributions using educator's portfolios. This toolbox presents a sound framework for evaluating educational contributions in a rigorous manner analogous to the peer review process used for assessment of a faculty member's work in research and other scholarly work. Methods This 90-minute workshop is designed to provide hands-on opportunities for members of promotions/tenure committees to utilize the AAMC Toolbox for Evaluating Educators resource in the assessment of faculty member performance whose careers focus across the following five domains of educator activity: learner assessment, curriculum development, mentoring and advising, education leadership and administration, and teaching activities. The exercises in the workshop allow participants to use the indicators to reach summative decisions through a rigorous and consistent application of clear yet flexible standards. The workshop consists of an introductory PowerPoint presentation and small-group activities followed by a facilitated large-group discussion that allows the participants to explore how the evidence-based standards in the toolbox can be integrated with existing institutional processes for the evaluation of the performance of educators. The workshop and its resources can be adapted and used for training/professional development sessions for other decision making committees/members (e.g., awards committees or selection committees for a teaching academy). Results A professional development workshop using the Toolbox has been presented at each of the regional Group on Educational Affairs meetings, at the Group on Faculty Affairs annual Professional Development Conference, and in plenary sessions at two annual AAMC meetings. The participants have reviewed, critiqued and applied the indicators in the Toolbox during interactive exercises. The authors used written and oral feedback to refine the structure and content of the Toolbox. Discussion The resource was created primarily for faculty and committees charged with faculty evaluation and decision making; however, it is also useful for educators who are seeking promotion and their mentors including faculty affairs and education administrative leaders. Knowledge of the standards by which one's performance will be judged helps an educator create a portfolio that documents his/her activities and the impact of their work, in a standardized format that can be readily assessed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,206 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,043 | 0,040 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».