1. Remediation of Faculty with below average student evaluations
Composite student evaluations of teaching data for all faculty in all modules and courses are sent to the associate dean for faculty affairs each term and to the Office of the relevant senior associate dean (basic sciences or clinical studies) for review. Faculty who consistently (≥ 2 consecutive terms) receive student evaluations that are >1 standard deviation below the faculty average will be sent a Letter of Concern from the senior associate dean of basic sciences or senior associate dean of clinical studies, to give them the opportunity to identify and resolve the contributing factors. The faculty member will then develop and implement an improvement plan in consultation with their Chair or DME and will file it with the associate dean for faculty affairs or a nominated administrator in the Office of the senior associate dean for clinical studies. Evaluations from the Peer Review Task Force will also be used to provide feedback for lecturing faculty. A timeframe will be specified in the improvement plan, during which the specified improvement must occur.
If the faculty member’s evaluations do not improve in the time specified, then the faculty member will be placed on a formal warning and notified of such in writing by the senior associate dean of basic sciences or clinical studies, as applicable. The warning will involve a period of close monitoring for a defined period, during which faculty are expected to make substantial changes and demonstrate substantial and sustained improvement in their evaluations by improving to the faculty average or higher. Faculty who are placed on a warning for low evaluations, or any other reason, are not eligible to receive their performance bonus for any academic year containing a warning period.
Continued failure to substantially improve once on a warning, or failure to improve within the timeframe specified and/or receiving multiple warnings may result in non-renewal or termination. A warning is lifted when both the department chair and the senior associate dean of basic sciences or clinical studies, as applicable, both agree that substantial improvement has occurred and been sustained for a minimum of two full academic terms. The faculty member will be notified in writing of the lifting of the warning.
2. Faculty Peer Review Task Force
The following process can be implemented in response to student assessments of teaching, during the yearly appraisal process, in the faculty member’s self-evaluation, and/or as identified by the clerkship director, DME, department chair, senior associate dean and/or Dean of the School of Medicine.
A Peer Review Task Force reviews the teaching of faculty who have been identified as requiring remediation as per the process described above. The task force is comprised of a minimum of two experienced faculty who are consistently evaluated in the top 33rd percentile, and who have a track record of effective teaching and student engagement based on student assessments, or as assigned by the DME.
Narrative feedback from the Peer Review Task Force members, based on their observations of the faculty member’s teaching, e.g., via attendance at ward rounds or lectures, is provided to the relevant senior associate dean and to the chair of the department. The chair is responsible for discussing the Peer Review Task Force’s evaluation with the faculty member and for coordinating any necessary remediation efforts. Administrative oversight and tracking of the remediation implemented will be carried out from the Office of the relevant senior associate dean.