Guidelines for Teaching Performance and Support Process

Approved by: Vice Dean, Medical Education
Date of original adoption: March 1, 2021
Date of last review: July 8, 2021
Date of last amendment: July 8, 2021
Date of next scheduled review: June 30, 2022

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for a more consistent and transparent process across the Faculty of Medicine and affiliated sites for faculty teachers who are identified as performing below expectations.

These guidelines were informed by the available literature, a local group of health profession’s educators (faculty developers, evaluation experts and education leaders) from across departments, health professions and education units) and have been shared for consultation and feedback to numerous leadership groups across the Faculty of Medicine.

The current guidelines include the following sections:

1. Teaching Performance and Support Process Algorithm which summarizes the overall process; and
2. Process for Supporting Faculty Teachers-the Teacher ‘in Difficulty’ (for faculty teachers with those with repeated poor evaluations or significant event)

It is anticipated that for some departments, these documents will complement existing processes, whereas other departments may choose to incorporate these guidelines in their entirety. The Faculty of Medicine will work with Department Chairs and identified education leaders in their departments to implement and assess the impact of the Teaching Performance and Support Process.

In addition to the above, there is a need to capture the data about those faculty who do enter into a more formal process for the support to improve the quality of teaching. Currently there is no data as to how many faculty fall into the category of ‘performing below expectations’, the nature of the difficulty (e.g. whether this is a result of a gap in pedagogical knowledge and/or skill, challenges in establishing a safe and effective learning environment, external factors such as excessive demands on their time, or issues of a personal nature). Additional data such as academic rank, gender, race, age, teaching format, level of learner etc. are not collected in a consistent manner to allow for further review to understand how the medical education program and clinical teaching sites can best support faculty teaching.

Section 1: Teaching Performance and Support Process Algorithm

Every faculty member will receive a document that outlines the Faculty of Medicine University Departments’ philosophy and expectations with respect to teaching. For each course or program, teachers will receive an outline of expectations of teachers, a description of how they will receive feedback about their teaching and where they can access support including faculty development and consultation for and about their teaching. This will also outline the common processes by which teaching will be evaluated and that the department is interested in working together to optimize teaching performance of all faculty and the department/program.

Step 1: Teacher identified as performing below expectations and/or receives comments that requires follow- up.

Section 2: Process for Supporting Faculty Teachers-the Teacher ‘in Difficulty’

Faculty teacher self-assessment (to be completed if appropriate and if provided with data of concern prior to first meeting)

Please use this grid to identify your areas of concern, areas of weakness and areas of strength:

Adapted from: Figure 1, Steinert Y. The problem learner: whose problem is it? AMEE guide No. 76. Medical Teacher 2013; 35: e1035-45

During the meeting

• Suggest use of R2C2 model to explore teacher’s reactions to the data provided/concerns Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, Holmboe E, Silver I, et al. Facilitated Reflective Performance Feedback: Developing an Evidence- and Theory-Based Model That Builds Relationship, Explores Reactions and Content, and Coaches for Performance Change (R2C2). Acad Med 2015;90(12):1698- 706.
  https://medicine.dal.ca/departments/core-units/cpd/faculty-development/R2C2.html
• Clear documentation of those present, key points discussed and next steps to include:
  • A plan for further assessment(s) (if required)
  • Additional data (if required)
  • Expected outcomes
  • Intervention(s) (see below)
  • Monitoring
  • Timelines

And who is involved with each of these.

After the meeting

• Intervention to be linked to these:

1. Data source: TES/Learner Assessment of Clinical Teacher (LACT) student feedback (written comments and/or verbal feedback), peer feedback, other?
2. Workload (teaching and other)
3. Duration of ‘service’/faculty appointment/nature of appointment (community vs. full time) academic
4. Wellness
5. Characterological traits/ Resistance to intervention/suggestions/Professionalism issues

• ​​​​​​​Who is involved?
• Monitoring and follow-up plan and timeline