Briefly describe your philosophy of education. Consider the following points in your description:

1. What is your personal theory of learning?
2. What do you believe are the goals for instruction?
3. What are the roles and responsibilities of the student in the process?
4. What are the roles of the instructor in the process?
5. Provide a description of the variables which promote learning?

Philosophy of Education Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

I teach because I enjoy it. Much of my passion for teaching comes from my expectation that others should be as driven to learn as I am. Learning is fun for me and much of my teaching style comes from my own observations of how I learn best. Zeal for learning is infectious and if I can show my enthusiasm for a subject, those I teach are more likely to focus their attention and remember. Learning requires an interchange between teacher and student that is respectful, nonthreatening and not distant. I strive to provide a friendly, professional environment that emphasizes knowledge and improvement. Making mistakes, is an expected and unavoidable process of learning. I have (unapologetically) high expectations of my students. I see more value in continually encouraging a student to meet a goal (without relaxing the standards) rather than condescension and negative consequences when that standard is not met. I read once that learning is not a spectator sport. Active participation and relating the topic to personal experience and interest are crucial to my success in learning and usually to others. I work hard to find the relevance of a topic to the audience. It is a long and difficult journey from my short term memory to long term and repetition is crucial for this to be successful. My lectures have a similar (repetitious) outline; the subject is introduced, the details are explored and the subject is summarized again in "take home points." My approach to curriculum development builds in this concept of repetition as well. Feedback has been a difficult area for me as a teacher but it is clear that good feedback, sometimes pleasant, sometimes not, is crucial to successful learning. Finally, for experienced and mature students, self-evaluation and self-directed learning are the goals. Evolution to such self-directed learning is the ultimate educational goal for all physicians today and is the endpoint I work towards as I interact with students at all levels.

Professor (Tenure Track)

My personal belief is that my responsibilities as a teacher in a variety of settings fall under two major categories - the clear and comprehensible transmission of factual information, and the teaching of how to think and reason clearly and critically. The weight given to each differs depending upon the context in which my role as a teacher is occurring.

For example, when I am the instructor in a large undergraduate lecture course, my major role is to transmit factual scientific information to the students. My major responsibilities in such a role are 1) to make clear to the students what the goals and expectations of the course are, 2) to transmit information which is as timely and accurate as possible in a clear and understandable a manner, and 3) to be available and diligent in responding to students’ questions. I believe that the responsibilities of the students in such a course are to attend class regularly and to pay attention while in class, to carefully read the assigned material in the textbook and/or course handouts, and to approach me in a timely manner when they have questions or confusions about the material being taught. Although the major emphasis in such a setting is didactic transmission of material, I also try to ask the class leading questions when appropriate during my lectures, and to emphasize understanding processes, rather than just memorizing isolated facts.

When I am teaching a smaller group of students in a graduate course or an upper-level small undergraduate class, my emphasis shifts. During such a course, the early sessions or the beginning of each new topic may consist more of didactic material, to bring the class to a more homogenous knowledge base about the subject. After this, however, I move to a more Socratic teaching style. The class is assigned readings which emphasize the primary scientific literature, rather than reviews or book chapters, and the class time focuses strongly upon developing an understanding of how scientific knowledge is obtained (how hypotheses are developed, how experiments are designed, how data are interpreted). These skills are practiced both in class sessions which include extensive student participation, as well as by designing open-book examinations which require understanding rather than memorization. My responsibilities are the same as listed in the preceding ¶, but number 2) now also includes selecting appropriate references from the primary literature which best illustrate important advances in a particular area, and particular approaches of which the students should be aware. It is also my responsibility to be prepared to ask leading questions while presenting material to the students, to stimulate development of their critical thinking skills. The responsibilities of the students are as above, but they are relieved of any need to memorize facts, and have greater responsibility for knowledge synthesis and classroom participation.

If I am the leader of a discussion group or a seminar course, my responsibilities again shift. Here my participation as a didactic instructor should be minimal. My greatest responsibility is to choose appropriate vehicles for discussion. I am also responsible for making goals and expectations clear, and again, to be available for student questions and discussion outside of class. For such a class, I need to maintain a balance between allowing (or forcing!) the students to be the major discussants, while being prepared to enter the discussion when necessary to clarify an point which the students may be missing, and to encourage shyer students to participate, while preventing a few students from dominating the discussions. In this type of class, the students have the responsibility for coming to class prepared to participate in a discussion, in addition to the responsibilities common to all types of classes.

The final type of teaching in which I daily participate is mentoring of undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate students in my own laboratory. Here I feel my role as a mentor is to develop, in consultation with the student, appropriate projects for the particular needs of the student. The students are expected to take the appropriate level of responsibility for their projects, and to develop increasing independence and resourcefulness in pursuing them. Further details of mentoring techniques I follow are described in a separate section.

Present evidence of development of new or substantially revised courses, clerkships, rotations, seminars; for each one show:

1. Educational objectives
2. Development of instructional unit keyed to objectives
3. Teaching methods
4. Instructional materials and resources
5. Evaluations

Curriculum Development Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

I expanded and integrated the curriculum for medical students and residents (internal medicine and orthopedics) who rotate through rheumatology at the University of Iowa. The curriculum includes an orientation to the rheumatology clinic, a recommended reading list, a bibliography of important articles, a set of educational objectives, a self-assessment test (part 1) and an exit questionnaire to evaluate the rotation. The educational objectives are in question format and are designed to guide self-study during the rotation. The answers can be found in the Rheumatology Primer (which is provided to the rotators), textbooks, articles and discussions with staff. In addition, the "correct" answers are also available in the clinic if the answer to a question is not easily found. Finally, I provide the senior residents with a 3-hour "board-review" in rheumatology. I use a second self-assessment test which draws from the educational objectives they receive during their rotation. In this way, the residents have another chance to review the same objectives to remind themselves of the core material in rheumatology. They are also encouraged to keep the educational objectives, self-tests, lecture handouts, and bibliography together with their primer; a concise overview of rheumatology they can use prior to boards or in practice.

I also designed, tested and implemented a program to teach arthrocentesis to residents and students rotating through rheumatology. I initially designed a set of educational objectives, a written test and a practical test to measure the knowledge and skill level of the residents and students. A self-assessment (by the students and residents) of confidence in performing arthrocentesis was also included. A panel of experts reviewed the objectives, written test and practical test for applicability to medical practice and feasibility of teaching. These experts included specialists in Rheumatology, Orthopedics, Internal Medicine and Family Medicine as well as a Biostatistician. Modifications were made from the suggestions of the expert panel, a brief pilot study was performed, and the testing period was initiated. Residents and students were assigned to different groups: one group was tested at the beginning of their month rotation to give us an idea where resident knowledge begins; another group rotated through rheumatology without specific instruction in arthrocentesis; another group was given only the didactic lecture about arthrocentesis; another group was given the didactic lecture and the workshop; and finally some of the last group were retested 6 months later to evaluate recall. All groups were tested at the end of their month-long rotation. The students and residents who participated in the lecture and workshop scored significantly higher on both the written and practical tests and reported a significantly higher confidence level in performing arthrocentesis. This program has now become part of the curriculum for the rheumatology rotation and is being added to the Internal Medicine Core Curriculum for residents.

I improved the existing curriculum for rheumatology fellows by taking faculty expectations for learning and developing written learning objectives and a written curriculum. The program director and I (with faculty input) developed a new, written curriculum for a clinician-educator track with emphasis on clinical excellence and teaching. I started a book (chapter) review during which the fellows review a chapter from a standard textbook monthly with a faculty member. I also set up a continuity clinic for fellows that will allow long-term follow up of patients with minimal time spent waiting to "staff" the patient to allow a greater exposure to patients. Our rheumatology program was evaluated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and received full accreditation in 2000.

Professor (Tenure Track)

Undergraduate teaching: My first significant teaching assignment as a faculty member here was to teach the immunology section of a rather large undergraduate course, General Microbiology. For some years prior to this, the immunology section had been taught by non-immunologists, who were thus not exposed as part of their work to the most current developments in immunology. Thus, although both the previous immunology syllabus and the sections in the assigned Microbiology textbook were adequate, they were not up-to-date, and I felt contained both inaccuracies and dated emphasis. Thus, as it is difficult for a Microbiology textbook to be completely up-to-date and accurate in its immunology information, I decided to supplement the textbook section for the students by providing an extensive handout containing a detailed outline of each of my lectures. I hoped that this would also relieve the students from some note-taking, and allow them to spend more time listening and hopefully absorbing more of the lecture material. This approach turned out to be quite popular with the students, and I continued to use these handouts for each of the 4 years in which I taught the immunology section. Each year, I revised and updated the outlines to incorporate both new information, and to shift emphasis or clarify certain points, based upon student comments received on course evaluations. Since that time, a number of colleagues have used these handouts to give medical personnel and overview of immunology, or to form a basis for teaching introductory immunology sections themselves. A copy of a handout is in the Appendix material.

Graduate teaching: During the Spring of 1991, in my third year as an Assistant Professor, I agreed to assist a senior faculty member in teaching a course offered to both senior undergraduate and graduate students called Cellular Immunology, to be offered in Spring 1992. The senior faculty member had organized and taught in the course several times before, as had one other senior faculty member on campus. However, in the mid-fall of 1991, I learned that unexpectedly, neither of these faculty would be able to participate in teaching the course or provide any assistance in doing so.

As I had been thrust suddenly into the role of Course Director, with no senior faculty available to assist, I decided that this cloud might have a silver lining. The course had previously been taught as a didactic lecture course, and the topic had been restricted to cellular immunology. However, the past several years had led to an explosion in work done in the area of molecular immunology, and recent developments in this field were not being adequately covered in the advanced immunology curriculum. In addition, my teaching philosophy for advanced classes, as covered in the previous section, is that they should be taught using the primary scientific literature as the major source, and that class participation and Socratic teaching is preferable to didactic lecturing. I decided to develop a course taught according to this philosophy, and covering the major current areas most relevant to advanced students of immunology, renamed Advanced Immunology. To cover those areas in which I had less expertise, I enlisted the aid of Dr. Charles Lutz, who shares my philosophy of teaching and was willing to work within the framework of the kind of teaching I wanted to provide. The class turned out to be very successful - students were challenged by the approach, but by the end of the course most felt that they much preferred this method of learning in an advanced class. The course was continued as I had developed it, and in 1994 was expanded into a 2-semester course, called Immunology I and II. The first semester concentrates on antigen-specific immunity, and covers much of the topics emphasized in the original Advanced Immunology. The second semester focuses upon mechanisms of innate immunity. I have served as course director for Advanced Immunology/Immunology I three of the five times it has been offered since 1992, and am serving as Director again in Fall 1997. Even in years where I have not been the course organizer, I have contributed 9-12 hours of teaching plus exam questions. The course has continued to fllow my original design, which has the following features:

1. Students are expected to have had a basic immunology course before this class. A textbook is suggested if a reference is needed, but no textbook is assigned. Instead, for each topic, the instructor assigns a review article from the scientific literature. For each class session, 1-2 primary papers are assigned. These are chosen to best illustrate important advances which led to current understanding of a given area, and particular experimental approaches. Readings are placed on reserve in two locations. Typical course schedules and reading lists are provided in the Appendix.
2. For each topic covered, the instructor provides a brief didactic overview, but much of the class is devoted to discussion by the instructor of the assigned paper(s), with many questions to the class to stimulate them to learn to think critically about hypothesis building, experimental design and data interpretation. Typical questions include: Why was this control included/What control is missing here? What are the limitations/caveats of this approach? Do you agree with the authors’ interpretation - why or why not? What alternative approaches might be taken to address this question?, etc.
3. Exams are open-book, and consist of questions asking students to interpret hypothetical research findings, or design an experimental plan to test a given hypothesis, or some combination of these. A sample exam is provided in the Appendix to this document.
4. Students are requested to fill out evaluations after each topic covered, to provide instructors with more immediate feedback than waiting until the end of the entire course. Thus, if an instructor covers more than one topic, he or she can receive feedback between topics. I have provided sample summaries of my own evaluations for this course in the Appendix.
5. As part of the COM desire to have greater peer evaluation of teaching, a system has been set up for Immunology I by Dr. Lutz, in which two other Immunology faculty attend a session by a given instructor, and write evaluations which are shared with the instructor and the Program director. My evaluations from Fall 1996 are included in the Appendix.

I have also served on the Curriculum Committees for both the Microbiology Department and the Immunology Graduate Program. For the latter, this involved actually designing a curriculum from scratch, as the Program was new during the time I served on the committee. We based our course requirements on currently offered courses, but also designed a new course, Immunology II, based upon the Immunology I model, as well as a student seminar. In addition, the course Advanced Topics in Immunology was redesigned to offer a greater variety of topics. In Fall 1996, I served as Course Director for Advanced Topics in Immunology, and designed the first student evaluation form ever used for this course, to provide instructor feedback. This form, and my own evaluation results, are included in the Appendix.

Medical student teaching: In 1995-96, the COM began implementation of a new "problem-based" medical school curriculum. As part of this plan, Immunology became a separate subject, and the lecture section of the course is supplemented with sample "case analysis" sessions, using hypothetical patient cases to illustrate the basic immunology concepts being taught in lectures. Both in 1995 and 1996, I have served on a committee to write and revise these cases, and wrote one of the cases myself, which is included in the Appendix. The case is presented, and questions are provided to the students, to which they are expected to have found answers prior to the post-lecture discussion groups. The case author includes answers and extra questions for the discussion group leaders.

1. Peer Review

• Colleagues
• Departmental committees
• Supervisor evaluations

1. Learner Review

• Systematic student and/or graduate reviews
• Index of popularity of electives

3. Videotapes of teaching

III. Teaching Skills Examples

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

I am involved in teaching at many levels. I help teach first-year medical students a screening musculoskeletal examination. This is a 2-hour workshop given to half of the class one day and half of the class another day during which they practice musculoskeletal exam skills on each other. I also give a one-hour lecture on low back pain to first year students.

I participate in a clinician-mentor course every year for second-year medical students. Students practice taking histories and perform physical examinations on volunteer patients, present the patients, write up their patients and identify, research and present a 1-3 page learning objective about their patient. I hear all the presentations, review the write-ups, observe their examinations and facilitate the learning objectives. Once during the learning period, the student will have their history and physical examination videotaped which we review and critique together. The total time involved is approximately 50 hours per year. I give three 30-minute lectures every year to second year medical students on osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia and vasculitis. I also lead two 90-minute small group sessions with second year medical students. During these sessions, we review musculoskeletal vocabulary, how to distinguish inflammatory versus noninflammatory arthropathies, patterns of joint involvement as a clue to diagnosis, polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis.

From 1996 through 2000, I taught approximately 15-20 third-year medical students a year in a mentoring environment in the rheumatology outpatient clinic. The student sees my patients, presents the patients to me, picks a patient to write up and identifies a learning issue to review that pertains to their patient.

I teach approximately 8-10 fourth-year medical students in a mentoring environment in the clinic. The circumstances are similar to those described above for the third year students but involve higher expectations for efficiency, knowledge base and self-study. These students take part in the integrated rheumatology curriculum for those rotating through rheumatology as described above. During their rotation, I also give 6-7 one-hour didactic lectures a month on lupus, osteoarthritis, laboratory tests in rheumatology, infectious arthritis, arthrocentesis and low back pain.

I teach approximately 20-30 Internal Medicine and Orthopedic residents in a mentoring environment in the clinic as described above for the fourth year medical students. I give 3 one-hour didactic lectures on low back pain, infectious arthritis and crystalline arthritis as part of the Internal Medicine Core Curriculum. I provided a workshop on arthrocentesis to the residents annually as part of the core curriculum. I attend internal medicine morning report once a week to guide general internal medicine discussions as well as provide rheumatologic expertise to the discussions if appropriate.

I am also involved in continuing medical education (CME) for physicians in practice and other health-care professionals. I gave a one-hour Grand Rounds for the Internal Medicine Department in 1997 on polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis. I gave a one-hour lecture on enteropathic arthritis to the Crohn’s Colitis Society in 1996. I gave a one-hour lecture on joint injections to a family practice CME meeting in 1996. I gave a one-hour lecture on the approach to a patient with a positive ANA to the Iowa Physician Assistants Society annual CME meeting in 1997. I gave a one-hour lecture followed by a 3-hour workshop on joint injections for the Iowa Physician Assistants Society annual CME meeting in 1998, 1999 and 2000. I helped teach a 3-day workshop on the examination of the musculoskeletal system at the National American College of Physicians meeting in 1999 and 2000. I gave 4 one-hour lectures on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to various Iowa Medical Societies in 1999. I gave a one-hour lecture followed by a 3-hour workshop on joint injections for the American Academy of Family Physicians State Meeting in 2000. I gave one-hour lectures on chronic pain management to the Linn County Pharmacy Society and at the Arthritis Foundation (Iowa Chapter) Arthritis Frontiers meeting in 2000. I gave a one-hour lecture on new therapies in rheumatoid arthritis at the University of Iowa’s Update in Internal Medicine meeting in 2000.

My cumulative average evaluation score for lectures, conferences and workshops (1999 – 2000) is 4.34 on a 5 point schedule. The cumulative average evaluation score for lectures, conferences and workshops given by others at the same time as mine is 3.53. My cumulative average evaluation score by students, residents and fellows (2000) is 4.83 on a 5 point scale. I do not have comparative data for other teaching physicians in the Department of Internal Medicine. My cumulative average Peer evaluation score (2000) is 4.77 on a 5 point scale. I do not have comparative data for other teaching physicians in the Department of Internal Medicine.

Professor (Tenure Track)

My teaching history at the University of Iowa is as follows (not including 2 or fewer guest lectures):

Undergraduate Teaching

1. Immunology section of General Microbiology (20% of course): 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94. Student number ranged from 73-110.
2. Laboratory research for credit (Honors or Problems in Microbiology) to 8 Microbiology majors from 1991 to the present.
3. Four students for summer research projects from either the Howard Hughes or NSF summer programs (1990, 1995, 1996, 1997).

Graduate Teaching

1. Advanced Immunology/Immunology I: 1991-92 (40% of course and Course Director), 1993-94 (40% of course and Course Director), 1994-95 (25% of course and Course Director), 1995-96 (25% of course), 1996-97 (25% of course), 1997-98 (30% of course and Course Director). Student number ranged from 12 to 25; students from 10 different Depts./Programs are currently enrolled in the course.
2. Advanced Topics in Immunology: 1989-90 (25% of course), 1996-97 (33% of course and Course Director). Student number ranged from 10 to 11.
3. Graduate Student research rotations: In addition to the 7 graduate students who have completed or are working towards graduate degrees in my lab, I have supervised research rotations for 4 graduate students in Microbiology, 3 in the Molecular Biology Program, and 4 in the Immunology Program.

Medical Student Teaching

1. 1. MS1 small group case analysis based on Immunology lecture material: 1995-96 (6 hours of discussion plus writing one of the sample cases), 1996-97 (6 hours of discussion plus writing one of the sample cases). 14 students.
2. Summer research rotations: one MS1 (1994) and one MSTP (1995) student.

The following evaluative documents of my teaching are included in the Appendix:

1. Student course evaluations from General Microbiology.
2. Course/instructor student evaluations from Advanced Immunology/Immunology I.
3. Peer evaluations of teaching for Immunology I.
4. Student evaluations for my section of Advanced Topics in Immunology.

Provide evidence of the ability to construct and implement reliable and valid assessments of student performance over a range of methods (e.g. written examinations, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations, oral examinations, chart reviews). Two essential qualities are:

1. Reliability: consistency, precision and dependability of the measuremement
   • Test-retest reliability
   • Inter-rater reliability
2. Validity:
   • Face validity: student ratings of the "fairness of the evaluation"
   • Content validity: appropriately samples the instructional experience
   • Criterion validity: How do your evaluations compare with other faculty's?
   • Authorship of administrative reports

Assessment of Learner Performance Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

My most valuable experience in developing valid tools for the assessment of learner performance was in the development of the program to teach arthrocentesis. I initially designed a set of educational objectives, a written test and a practical test to measure the knowledge and skill level of the residents and students. A self-assessment (by the students and residents) of confidence in performing arthrocentesis was also included. A panel of experts reviewed the objectives, written test and practical test for applicability to medical practice and feasibility of teaching. These experts included specialists in Rheumatology, Orthopedics, Internal Medicine and Family Medicine as well as a Biostatistician. Modifications were made from the suggestions of the expert panel, a brief pilot study was performed, and the testing period was initiated. 

Residents and students were assigned to different groups: one group was tested at the beginning of their month rotation to give us an idea where residents knowledge begins; another group rotated through rheumatology without specific instruction in arthrocentesis; another group was given only the didactic lecture about arthrocentesis; another group was given the didactic lecture and the workshop; and finally some of the last group were retested 6 months later to evaluate recall. The test period is complete and the results are very encouraging. As expected, the residents and students who participated in the lecture and the workshop performed significantly better in both the written and practical tests. In addition, they had significantly more confidence in their ability to perform arthrocentesis.

I have participated in a workshop on test question writing focusing on extended matching questions. As we reviewed and integrated the curriculum for the rotating residents and students, we incorporated extended matching questions into the self-assessment tests.

Provide evidence of "informal" instruction of students and the impact of this instruction.

1. List formal advisees, current status and time spent interacting.
2. List informal advisees who would identify you as mentor.
3. Give examples of advisee work under your guidance.
4. Testimonials by student of impact of advisor.

Advising Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

From 1997-2000 I advised and mentored 6 residents. This involved meeting with each of them quarterly, discussing their concerns as well as professional and personal goals. We reviewed their rotation evaluations, in-training exam scores, and conference attendance. Evidence of impact is difficult to measure in our system. Many of my interactions involve individual needs of the resident. For example, one of my advisees commuted approximately 90 minutes daily. By the time she has completed her day as a resident, made her commute home and taken care of her young children, she has no time to read in a general medicine text about her patients’ problems. She and I met, identified the problem and I arranged for her to get an Internal Medicine Board Review Course on audiotape. She reviewed general internal medicine topics in her car during her commute. I also do a good deal of informal advising for the rheumatology fellows. We frequently discuss professional and personal goals and how best to accomplish them.

Professor (Tenure Track)

My philosophy of mentoring was described briefly in the section on Philosophy of Education. I believe my responsibilities as a mentor are as follows. 1) To develop an appropriate research project which will meet the training needs of the student. For example, undergraduate students usually require very circumscribed projects which will fit into the short time-frame in which they are working in the lab. Graduate students require a project which is novel but not highly risky or open-ended, and which will provide a good thesis or dissertation regardless of what the answer to the major thesis question is. Postdoctoral fellows can work on more than one project, and can take on a higher degree of risk, but it is crucial that they work in areas which will provide regularly publishable results, so they can establish records which will allow them to be competitive for future employment. For each type of student, I should provide sufficient background so that they fully understand the rationale behind what they are working on. 2) To provide frequent opportunities for discussion and feedback to each student. I interact with each person in my lab at our weekly 1.5-hour lab meetings, and have frequent scientific discussions with them on a usually daily basis. I still work at the bench myself, and thus maintain "hands-on" knowledge of the techniques being used in the lab. This close interaction also allows me to spot technical problems and potential interpersonal frictions at a very early stage, and to deal effectively with them before major problems arise. 3) To provide students with ample opportunities to learn and practice career skills. In addition to presenting research progress at thesis/dissertation committee meetings, each of my graduate students presents data at student seminar programs specific to the department or program they are pursuing their degrees in. In addition, the Immunology Program runs a summer seminar series at which graduate students and postdoctoral fellows present their researh; my trainees participate in this forum as well. As soon as they have enough data, I provide students and fellows the opportunity to present their work at 1-2 national meetings each year. I also use several methods to improve their critical analysis skills. I have organized a very well-attended Immunology Journal Club since 1992 for students, fellows and faculty. Presentation slots are reserved for students and fellows, with priority given to the former. Each of my students presents papers 3 times/year at this forum, and I give them feedback on their presentations. As an Associate Editor for The Journal of Immunology, and an ad hoc reviewer for a number of other journals, I review a rather large number of manuscripts. When I receive a paper for review, I make a copy and give it to one of my trainees on a rotating basis. Then, after both I and the trainee have read the paper and each written an independent review, we meet and discuss the paper and our reviews. Each of my students also writes their own manuscripts. While I provide ample feedback and advice, I want each student to develop his or her own style, and to leave my lab with good skills in both speaking and writing. All but one of my past and current trainees has been an author on at least one published paper since joining my lab, and the one who has not has only spent one year in the lab thus far. The only student who has completed a degree in my lab who has not had a first-authored full length paper in a high quality peer-reviewed journal was an M.S. student whose research time was very limited due to unusually narrow time constraints placed on him by his employer, the U.S. Army. However, he was a middle author on a subsequent publication from our lab which built in part on his thesis work. Details on trainee participation in publications from my lab can be seen in my C.V.

I also serve a mentoring role by serving as an advisor to students who are not in my laboratory. As a member of the Graduate Studies Committee of the Immunology Program, I have served as a formal advisor to first-year students each year, as they do not yet have dissertation advisors. This has involved providing guidance with selection of courses and research rotations, as well as advice when problems arise. My other advising role has been in service on dissertation committees of students not in my lab. I have served on committees for 19 such students thus far, and am on 7 currently. In the Immunology Program, the student’s mentor does not serve as the committee Chair. I am the Chair of 3 committees for students not in my lab, which involves running the meeting, and generating a summary of the meeting and recommendations for the student, to be sent to the Graduate Studies Committee and other committee members. In the Immunology Program, dissertation advisors who do not have a Ph.D. and have not yet advised a student to completion of a Ph.D. must select a "mentor of record" who meets regularly with student and advisor to oversee the graduate training and provide advice and guidance. I am currently serving as "mentor of record" to Kira Gantt in Dr. Mary Wilson’s lab.

A list of undergraduate and graduate students as well as fellows I have mentored can be found in the appendix.

Evidence of teaching competency should be provided using as many of the data sources as possible. Some examples include:

1. Provide evidence of educational leadership:

• Committee participation
• Recruitment efforts
• Ability to synthesize committee ideas into an action plan
• Preparation for an accreditation or RRC review

2. Include written documentation from:

• Colleagues
• Supervisors
• Committee chairs
• Reports from accreditation review
• Self-assessment of administrative skills
• Authorship of administrative reports

Educational Administration Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

I am the Rheumatology Fellowship Coordinator at the University of Iowa. I am responsible for recruitment, regular evaluation of the fellows, the continuity clinic and the curriculum. We have an active rheumatology training program fully accredited by the ACGME in 2000. In 2000, I became the Associate Program Director for the Internal Medicine Residency. I am also a member of the House Staff Evaluation Committee. In addition, I am the coordinator for the Iowa Rheumatology Update Symposium. This is a CME meeting put on by the Division of Rheumatology for rheumatologists in the state and other interested health care professionals to update them on new advances in rheumatology, review related topics in musculoskeletal medicine. It is a one day conference attended by over 100 health care professionals.

Professor (Tenure Track)

1. Curriculum Committees

• Dept. of Microbiology, 1995-present.
• Immunology Graduate Program, 1993-94.

2. Graduate Studies/Advisory Committees

• Dept. of Microbiology, 1993-95
• Immunology Graduate Program, 1994-96; 1997-present (Chair)
  • Molecular Biology Graduate Program, 1994-present.
  • ORB Graduate Program, 1997-present (Chair).

3. Admissions Committees

• Dept. of Microbiology, 1990-95
• MSTP Program, 1993-present.

4. Executive Committees

• Dept. of Microbiology, 1994-present
• Immunology Graduate Program, 1993-present.
• College of Medicine, 1992-95

5. Comprehensive Exam Committees

• Molecular Biology Graduate Program, 1996-present.

6. Other

• COM Basic Science Teaching Portfolio Committee, 1996-97
• COM Self-Study Committee, 1996-97.

Scholarship refers to those activities which advance knowledge in the discipline of education. By definition, scholarship must be peer-reviewed and public. Typically, two types of scholarly activity meet this definition: 

1) peer-reviewed regional or national presentations or publications; and 

2) receipt of a grant or contract based on peer review. In addition, participation and service in professional educational organizations provide evidence that one's peers respect your knowledge and expertise as an educator. 

Examples include:

1. Regional/National Presentations and Publications

• Publications
• Posters at regional or national meetings
• Invited presentations
• Discussant at meetings
• Reviewer for educational conferences or journals

1. Grant or Contract

• List Title, Source, Principal Investigator, Position, Dates and Amount of funding
• Provide other data as available: funding priority score, reviewers comments

1. Membership and Service in Education-Related Professional Organizations

• Membership in organizations
• Service on committees or projects; document elected positions

Regional/National Scholarship Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

As described above, I designed and implemented a program to teach arthrocentesis to Residents and Medical Students. The project was funded through a peer-reviewed grant from the Office of Consultation and Research in Medical Education. The project has been completed and has been presented as a poster at the 1998 National meeting of the ACR. We have submitted the project for publication. The project has resulted in an addition to the curriculum for the Internal Medicine Core Curriculum and to the Rheumatology Fellowship program.

List continuing educational activities that you have participated in.

Continuing Education Example:

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

I have participated in the following courses to improve my teaching ability:

2/96 Clinical assessment of students and residents

10/96 Test item writing workshop

4/97 Evaluating teaching for promotion and professional development

4/97 The one-minute preceptor: Five microskills for clinical teaching

8/97 Physical examination workshop

8/98 Physical examination workshop

5/99 "Ntitle" workshop (5 day workshop on incorporating electronic media into teaching)

1999 Teaching Scholar Program: weekly sessions (4 hours per session) for a year centered around

2000 improving teaching skills and self-designed faculty development projects

I also participate in 2 one-hour CME conferences every week (The rheumatology division journal club/research conference and our clinical case-management conference). 

In addition, I have attended the ACR National meetings in 1997 and 1998.

List any awards, certificates or honors you have received. Include the times you were a "finalist" for teaching awards and such things as achieving "fellow" status in one's specialty. List a brief description of the criteria used to select award recipients, if not evident from the title.

Teaching Awards Example

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

The internal medicine residents selected me as Teacher of the Year in 1997 and again in 1999. In 1998 I was one of 3 faculty nominated by the Dean of the College of Medicine for the University of Iowa Collegiate Teaching Award. In 1999, I was one of four finalists for teacher of the year as selected by the M4 class. In 1999, I was selected by the Dean of the College of Medicine to attend a weeklong educational conference on integrating electronic media into teaching. The conference was associated with a $3000.00 award to be used toward acquiring electronic hardware and software for use in educational programs. In 1999 I was selected by the Dean of the College of Medicine to participate in the Teaching Scholars Program. In its inaugural year, participants in the program met once monthly for 4 hours with workshops to improve teaching skills and to work on self-designed faculty-development projects. In 1999, I was selected to receive a collegiate teaching award. In 2000 I was identified as one of the "best attendings" by the internal medicine residents.

Write a 1-2 page description of your plans as an educator. Suggestions of things to include:

1. advancement in position or faculty promotion
2. future projects
3. teaching skills to be improved, added or expanded
4. continuing education
5. professional organizations
6. educational administration

Long-Term Goals Example

Associate Professor (Clinical Track)

The first of my goals is to continue to strengthen the fellowship program at the University of Iowa. The need for academic rheumatologists is beginning to be more widely recognized. In order to attract top-quality people to the University of Iowa, we need to identify promising internal medicine residents and students from within our own program (and from without) and encourage their interest through a mentoring process throughout their residency. Letting a resident know we value their skills and see a bright future for them in rheumatology can be a powerful tool. We also need to market rheumatology as an intellectually stimulating and rewarding profession.

I would also like to expand on my arthrocentesis project. We are in the process of exploring ways to measure outcomes of injections (patient satisfaction, observer documentation of "adequate skill", operator confidence, efficacy of injections and lack of side effects). Once these are in place we can measure outcomes for skilled, staff physicians and explore how much training is necessary for a trainee to reach this level.

I plan to work hard this year learning about the residency programs: the organizational structure, recruiting, its problems and its strengths. The key faculty for the residency program will need to be organized into several focus areas: VA, recruiting, and inpatient activities.