Development of Enduring Educational Materials
Summary
This award will be given to faculty whose contributions to the development of high quality, enduring educational materials matches or exceeds the contributions contained in the standard-setting portfolio examples at the bottom of this page.
Development of Enduring Educational Materials might include authoring a textbook or textbook chapter; publishing a review article (particularly one intended to aid learners primarily); preparation of teaching cases (such as those used in problem-based learning); writing computer-based instructional programs; producing an educational video; or authoring test questions for national testing organizations.
To qualify as "enduring," materials must be used repeatedly over an extended period of time by educators other than the author(s) and by learner groups other than the one taught by the author(s).
To qualify as "educational," materials must have been designed explicitly to promote knowledge, skills, or attitudes of specific populations of learners, (as opposed to materials designed specifically to communicate results of research or patient care activities to other scientists or to other health-care practitioners, respectively). Possible populations of learners that are relevant to a program’s educational mission may include: Allied Health, Graduate, and Medical Students; Residents; Physicians in CME Courses, Patient Groups, and K-12 Students, etc.
Evidence of Quality should include a description of your rationale/goals for dedicating professional time to the development of enduring materials; a description of your preparation/background and ongoing self-improvement which enables you to prepare high-quality materials; letters of support; peer review of completed materials; usage statistics; and learner evaluations. This criterion will count 50 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Evidence of Quantity might include the number of distinct items developed (e.g., number of textbook chapters); the scope or size of each item (e.g., number of pages, number of learning "contact hours"); estimates of the number of learners or distinct populations of learners using each item; and the number of years each item has been in use. This criterion will count 40 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Dimensions of Breadth might include: the number of different formats in the design of the materials (e.g., print, video, computer); the number of distinct populations of learners for which your materials are intended; and the number of distinct content areas addressed in the materials. This criterion will count 10 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Instructions for Submitting Portfolios
Before starting your portfolio:
- Review the NAOME Portfolio Preparation Criteria
- Check out the Portfolio Examples below
- Understand the Evaluation Rubric below
Portfolio Examples
The following examples illustrate how a variety of faculty satisfy the standards of quantity, quality, and breadth for the Development of Enduring Educational Materials Category. As a candidate, you should accumulate and document at least as much overall evidence of accomplishment as contained in the individual examples. While your exact combination of accomplishments related to quality, quantity, and breadth will be unique, you will be required at the start of your mini-portfolio to identify which standard-setting portfolio example(s) best match(es) the types of enduring materials you include.
The examples have been prepared using a template which you should use in your portfolio. (
See a copy of this portfolio template.)
You can use the 'save as' feature to copy the template into a Word document for creation and uploading of your portfolio.
- Portfolio Example 1 - Faculty member or possessing a terminal degree in a clinical department
- Portfolio Example 2 - Physician in a basic science department
- Portfolio Example 3 - Faculty member or possessing a terminal degree in a basic science department
- Portfolio Example 4 - Physician in a clinical department
Just as the examples are not maximally strong in all areas, it is expected that faculty mini-portfolios will vary and not be maximally strong in all areas. In effect, weaker areas may be balanced out with stronger areas, so long as the overall combination compares favorably to the examples.
Evaluation Rubric for Development of Enduring Educational Materials
Applicant Name: __________________________________________________________________
Reviewer Name: __________________________________________________________________
Type of Review: ___Primary, ___Secondary, or ___General
Assign points based on comparison to prototypes—assume prototypes would earn 85-95 points.
Use sample questions after each criterion as a guide for interpretation.
| Maximum Points Possible | Reviewer Assigned Points | |
1. The applicant’s personal standards of osteopathic focus or impact within/upon osteopathic medical education. (The standards of osteopathic focus or impact within/upon osteopathic medical education will be awarded based on the applicant's personal statement and mini-portfolio.)
| 10 points | ||
Application Quality – evidence of quality | 2. Clear, realistic, and important goals (e.g., Are personal goals specific and appropriate? Do goals reflect the needs of learners? Is the development of enduring materials guided by a cohesive set of professional goals?) | 5 points | |
3. Adequate personal preparation and ongoing self-reflection/improvement (e.g., Does faculty have skills matching his/her role in preparing enduring educational materials? In what ways has faculty prepared to develop educational materials? Does teacher, leader, or developer solicit and use feedback from learners and peers?) | 10 points | ||
4. Adequate methods/Quality of presentation of results (e.g., Are systematic instructional design methods used to prepare enduring educational materials? Do learners use the enduring educational materials as intended? Are desired learning outcomes achieved? Is mini- portfolio clear? Does designer effectively share lessons learned with peers? Are "lessons" learned about teaching, educational leadership or the preparation of enduring educational materials shared with peers at local, regional, or national levels?)
| 30 points | ||
5. Quantity (e.g., Numbers of: Textbook or textbook chapter; Manuals, Guidelines, Curriculum Guides; Patient education materials; Case vignettes produced in print, video or electronic formats; Items used in learner evaluations; Computer-assisted instruction distributed in CD or WWW formats; Audio-visual materials; Simulations created with computers and/or physical models; Tools to create enduring materials (e.g., template for creating cases); CME program materials; Resources used in conducting workshops or other teaching sessions; Resources developed for community outreach, K-12, or collegiate education or patient education; Review articles and extended abstracts with clear educational value, etc.) | 35 points | ||
6. Breadth (e.g., number of different learner populations, number of different types of enduring materials, etc.)
| 10 points | ||
Total (80 points minimum needed to receive award) | 100 points | 0 | |