Educational Research
Summary
This award will be given to faculty whose contributions to educational research matches or exceeds the quality and quantity of research included in the standard-setting portfolio examples at the bottom of this page.
Educational Research includes activities related to many forms of disciplined inquiry (some of which may not traditionally be thought of as "research") which involve the investigation of specific questions and the sharing of results through formal and informal means of dissemination. These forms of disciplined inquiry might include: collecting and reporting the results of an evaluation of a curriculum intervention, organizing and reporting longitudinal outcome information about student performance in a course undergoing "continuous improvement," obtaining and reporting results of a needs assessment, conducting and reporting a comparison of two types of teaching methods.
Evidence of Quality includes activities related to many forms of disciplined inquiry (some of which may not traditionally be thought of as "research") which involve the investigation of specific questions and the sharing of results through formal and informal means of dissemination.
These forms of disciplined inquiry might include: collecting and reporting the results of an evaluation of a curriculum intervention, organizing and reporting longitudinal outcome information about student performance in a course undergoing "continuous improvement," obtaining and reporting results of a needs assessment, conducting and reporting a comparison of two types of teaching methods. This criterion will count 50 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Evidence of the Quantity of educational research might include: the number of specific questions examined, the number of initiatives (i.e., discrete studies) associated with each question, and the number of disseminations. This criterion will count 40 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.
Evidence of Breadth might include: different thematic areas, different types of questions focused on different educational issues and/or learner populations, different types of research methods, different venues for disseminating results. Depth and scope may also be counted as breadth in Educational Research. 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 portfolios satisfy the standards of quantity, quality, and breadth for the Educational Research Category. A candidate 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 portfolio to identify which standard-setting example(s) best match(es) the types of research activities you include. (Download a copy of this 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: Physician in a clinical department
- Portfolio Example 2: Faculty member possessing a terminal degree in a basic science department
- Portfolio Example 3: EdD in an educational section of a department
Just as these examples are not maximally strong in all areas, it is expected that faculty 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 Educational Research
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 | |