Purpose The promotion of educators is challenged by the lack of accepted standards to evaluate the quality and impact of educational activities. Traditionally, promotion is related to research productivity. This study developed an evaluation tool for educational performance of medical school faculty using educator portfolios (EPs).
Methods Design principles and quantitative items for EPs were developed in a consensus workshop. These principles were tested in a simulation and revised based on feedback. The changes of total educational activities following introduction of the system were analyzed.
Results A total of 71% faculty members answered the simulation of the system and the score distributed widely (mean±standard deviation, 65.43±68.64). The introduction of new system significantly increased the total educational activities, especially in assistant professors.
Conclusion The authors offer comprehensive and practical tool for enhancing educational participation of faculty members. Further research for development of qualitative evaluation systems is needed.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A proposal to address faculty recruitment challenges in regional medical schools: incorporating clinical performance into scholarly evaluation Ji Young Lee, Heesung Song Journal of Medicine and Life Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Enhancing Faculty Satisfaction and Performance in Higher Education: The Transformative Role of HR and Technology Integration Alice Alakoum, Elvira Nica, Mohammad Abiad Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence.2024; 18(1): 2951. CrossRef
Evaluation of medical school faculty members’ educational performance in Korea in 2022 through analysis of the promotion regulations: a mixed methods study Hye Won Jang, Janghee Park Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 7. CrossRef
Current Status and Performance Evaluation Systems of Faculty in Korean Medical Schools Eunbae B. Yang, Tae Seon Lee, Myung Ja Cho Korean Medical Education Review.2019; 21(1): 41. CrossRef