Educational Leadership
Summary
This award will be given to faculty who demonstrate a record of significant leadership in a range of curriculum development or educational administration which matches or exceeds the record presented in the standard-setting portfolio examples at the bottom of the page.
Educational Leadership activities could include: serving on an education-related committee; receiving an education-related grant; letters of support; developing an evaluation program; serving as director of a course, program or clerkship. See a list of activities specific to basic science faculty.
Evidence of Quality might include: peer review; administrator ratings (e.g., "360" evaluation); description of accomplishments; outcome indicators as a result of accomplishments; external recognition. This criterion will count 50 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Evidence of Quantity of these activities might include: number of positions held; duration of positions held (years); total time commitment. This evidence should focus on activities as a faculty member within the past five years. This criterion will count 40 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Dimensions of Breadth might include: different types of committees; different courses; different roles; inter- versus intra-departmental involvement; or national roles. 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 set the standards of quantity, quality and breadth for this category of Educational Leadership. The examples also illustrate how a variety of faculty satisfy the standards of quantity, quality and breadth for Educational Leadership. A candidate should accumulate and document, at least as much overall evidence of accomplishment as contained in the individual examples. While the exact combination of accomplishments related to quality, quantity and breadth will be unique, at the beginning of your mini-portfolio, you should identify which example(s) best match(es) the type of educational leadership you list in the portfolio. 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.
As you review these examples, pay particular attention to the format of the structured summary. Note that each summary contains a list of positions. For each position, the structure summary then presents a limited number of leadership-oriented activities directly related to the educational mission of the college. For each activity, the structured summary then includes a brief description of key steps taken to complete the activity (in the quantity of effort column) and a description of outcomes achieved (in the evidence of quality column). We strongly recommend that your mini-portfolios follow this template and that you use the best matched portfolio example(s) as a guide. ( Download a copy of the portfolio template.)
- Portfolio Example 1
Faculty member or possessing a terminal degree in a basic science department who participates in both medical school and graduate school courses and committees. - Portfolio Example 2
Physician in a clinical department involved in courses and committees at the undergraduate, graduate and CME levels. - Portfolio Example 3
Physician in a clinical department with leadership responsibilities in graduate medical education, undergraduate medical education and national professional societies.
Evaluation Rubric for Educational Leadership
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 | |