Home » Making Teaching Matter: Building a Better Educator’s Promotional Package

Assessing Educators

Conference Workshops

2023 RTA Biennial Summer Conference Workshop– External Peer Review of Teaching

Description: Effectively documenting and evaluating evidence of teaching performance is essential when making discerning decisions about educator career advancement. The RTA External Peer Review of Teaching Initiative has developed guidelines and rubrics to aid both applicants and reviewers. In this workshop, prior applicants and reviewers will share their experiences with using these resources to demonstrate and evaluate teaching quantity, quality, impact and scholarship. Our goal is to better prepare potential applicants and reviewers to engage in this important effort towards Making Teaching Matter!

Workshop Materials – links to downloadable PDF’s

AAVMC Annual Conference – 2020

RTA Workshop: Saturday, March 8, 1:30 – 3:00 PM

  • Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
  • Regency C Room

Workshop Materials – links to downloadable PDF’s

Assessing Professional Educators: Improving Promotion Dossiers and the Review Process  – AAVMC LINK

Abstract: Veterinary medical education is unlikely to advance in significant ways if the faculty who are most invested in the college’s educational mission cannot get promoted. In other words, faculty must be rewarded and ultimately promoted for significant contributions to educational activities, especially when excellence is achieved. In this interactive workshop, participants will work through a mock promotion packet to identify barriers for promotion and propose potential solutions. The group will then discuss an evidence-based, inter-institutional approach launched by a consortium of west region veterinary schools.

  • Stephen Hines, Washington State University
  • Peggy Barr, Western University of Health Sciences
  • Johanna Watson, University of California, Davis
  • Dean Hendrickson, Colorado State University

RTA = The Teaching Academy of the Consortium of West Region Colleges of Veterinary Medicine

Extended Abstract & Workshop Description:

Senior faculty and administrators are asked each year to review professional dossiers and curriculum vitae of junior colleagues to recommend (or deny) promotion and/or tenure. In this workshop, participants will work in small groups to review an example promotion packet and come to a consensus opinion. Through a facilitated discussion, we will consider how well we are able to assess a (fictionalized) promotion applicant who has a large teaching and/or educational leadership appointment. What can we tell? How confident are we in making a recommendation? What additional information would we like? How might the documents and/or review process be improved?

Led by representatives of the Teaching Academy of the Consortium of West Region Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, the workshop will then introduce a multi-institutional program for external peer review of teaching and promotion materials. The program includes (a) an evidence-based format by which faculty might present their teaching and educational leadership activities and outcomes (i.e. the “Applicant Toolbox”); (b) an external review process, and; (c) a product – i.e. a letter of external review that is returned to the home institution. Participants will be invited to provide input and ask questions. Does this inter-institutional, collaborative process allow promotion applicants to better document quantity, quality, impact, and scholarly approach? Does it provide for a more complete and rigorous review that will lead to improved outcomes and help drive innovation in veterinary medical education? How might the model/process be improved?

Session learning objectives:

Following this session, participants will be able to:

  1. Describe the pros and cons of typical curriculum vitae and promotion dossier for evaluation of veterinary medical educators.
  2. Identify methods by which promotion materials and the review process might be improved.
  3. Describe an evidence-based model for external peer review from which other institutions and consortia might build their own programs.