1 / 73

Faculty Self-assessment As a Tool for Strategic Planning Toward Promotion and Tenure

Faculty Self-assessment As a Tool for Strategic Planning Toward Promotion and Tenure. Yvonne Bronner, ScD, RD Professor Morgan State University School of Public Health & Policy. The Problem. The small number of minority faculty in schools of Public Health

temple
Download Presentation

Faculty Self-assessment As a Tool for Strategic Planning Toward Promotion and Tenure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Self-assessmentAs a Tool forStrategic Planning Toward Promotion and Tenure Yvonne Bronner, ScD, RD Professor Morgan State University School of Public Health & Policy

  2. The Problem • The small number of minority faculty in schools of Public Health • The even smaller number of minority faculty in schools of Public health who achieve the rank of full professor • The fact that there is not a single accredited school of Public Health among Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

  3. Minority Public Health Degree Graduates from Schools of Public Health, 2000 Number of Graduates n = 1,527 (31.9%)

  4. Minority Public Health Degree Graduates as Percentage of Total Graduates From Schools of Public Health, 2000 Minority Percentage

  5. MPH Graduates • 4% Asian • 3.2% AA • 1.7% Hispanic • 0.002% Native American

  6. DrPH Graduates • .0001% Asian • .001% AA • .0005% Hispanic • Native American – no percentage calculated

  7. SPH Faculty by Race

  8. Minorities are: • three times more likely to indicate that they plan to practice in under-served area • More likely to consider access to healthcare to be a problem. • More likely to believe that everyone is entitled to receive adequate care. • Association of Medical Colleges, 1998

  9. The Problem • Eliminating health disparities is a primary initiative for the US driven by healthy people 2010 • Populations with health disparities are disproportionately minority

  10. “Compelling Interest”IOM Report-2004, page 1 • “Increasing racial and ethnic diversity among health professionals is important because evidence indicates that diversity is associated with improved access to care for racial and ethnic minority patients, greater patient choice and satisfaction, and better educational experiences for health professions students, among many other benefits.”

  11. Commitment to Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Percent, N=22P, 20 SPH)

  12. Courses Devoted to Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N=21 P, 19 SPH)

  13. Centers Devoted to Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N=20 P, 20 SPH)

  14. Degrees/Certificates Devoted to Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N=20 P, 17 SPH)

  15. Research Devoted to Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N=18 P, 18 SPH)

  16. Office for Recruiting Minority Faculty or Students (Numbers, N=19 P, 19 SPH)

  17. Faculty Self-AssessmentAs a Tool for Strategic Planning • HBCUs - Only Junior Faculty reporting

  18. Methodology • This survey is part of a multi-phased process: • Phase I, (1980-1990) under the direction of Dr. L. Perez, was designed to increase research productivity among health care practitioners in HBCUs • A toolkit was produced

  19. Methodology • Phase II, (2001 – 2003), under the direction of Dr. L. Perez, was designed to identify policies necessary for infrastructure development in HBCUs to enhance their capacity to provide additional national leadership in the elimination of racial health disparities. • Methods. • Focus groups. • Roundtable discussions.

  20. Methodology • Phase II – among the findings was a directive to learn more about factors in health related programs at HBCUs associated with timely promotion and tenure of minority faculty

  21. Methodology • Phase III – Faculty Self-assessment survey • Survey goal: To determine what junior faculty in health related HBCU training programs know about elements of faculty development determined to be associated with promotion and tenure.

  22. Methodology • Small work group (SWG)under the leadership of Dr. Y. Bronner was formed to oversee the work of developing and implementing the survey. • 18 month project funded by SAMHSA & HRSA-OMH (2004 – 2005) • SWG business was conducted by one face-to-face meeting and monthly conference calls

  23. Methodology • Survey development • Conduct literature review to determine list of elements that might impact faculty promotion and tenure • Draft survey instrument • Establish face and content validity by subjecting the draft survey instrument to: • Review by the SWG • The Delphi process using three experts • Pilot test with narrative comments for each section (20) • In-depth interviews (5)

  24. Methodology • The final instrument reflected findings from each of these processes • The sample: (N=65; Analysis based on 60) • Eligible programs were those offering training in medicine, dentistry, nursing, allied health, pharmacy, and public health • List of all eligible programs was formed from the list of HBCUs in consultation with the national association for equal opportunity in higher education (NAFEO)

  25. VIII. Demographics and Background Data Race/Ethnicity white african american/black asian 10.2% 33.9% 55.9%

  26. VIII. Demographics and Background Data Faculty Degrees

  27. VIII. Demographics and Background Data

  28. VIII. Demographics and Background Data

  29. VIII. Demographics and Background Data

  30. VIII. Demographics and Background Data

  31. VIII. Demographics and Background Data

  32. VIII. Demographics and Background Data Areas of Faculty Research Areas of Faculty Research

  33. Findings • Rated using a five (5) point Likert scale: • 0 = inadequate • 1 = somewhat adequate • 2 = adequate • 3 = more than adequate • 4 = exceptional • SPH and PH Program findings are grouped estimates

  34. I. Teaching • Domains: • Knowledge of current information in core area of teaching (3.07time spent reviewing scientific journals, books and websites • Time spent enhancing teaching skills/knowledge by attending conferences, technical workshops (2.07), seminars or accumulating CEUs • HBCUs = ~3.0 • ASPH = ~4.0

  35. I. Teaching How would you rate yourself on your use of : - “Blackboard” (an online tool) - Mapping devices - Powerpoint - VHS/DVD - Teleconferences - Distance learning technology 4 3 Mean Adequacy Rating 2 1 0 Blackboard Teleconfer. DVD Powerpoint GIS Distance learning

  36. I. Teaching • Time spent developing students • Critical thinking (2.76) • Scientific writing (1.78) • Scientific presentation • Team building skills • HBCU Range: 1.78 - 2.76 • SPH Range: 2.71 – 3.42

  37. I. Teaching • Use of the following teaching methods • Problem based learning • Competency based learning • Group process • Seminars • Active learning • HBCU Range: 2.57 – 2.98 • SPH Range: 3.64 – 3.96

  38. I. Teaching • Use of student evaluation to improve teaching • Student advisement • Assessment of strengths and weaknesses • Strategic planning • Career planning • Networking • HBCU range: 2.47 - 2.78 • SPH range: 3.29 - 3.62

  39. I. Teaching On average, how many students do you advise per academic year? Mean = 25.47 (SD=29.76) (Minimum-Maximum: 0-150)

  40. I. Teaching How many courses are you solely responsible for teaching, on average, each academic year? Mean = 3.07 (SD=2.8) (Minimum-Maximum: 0- 12)

  41. I. Teaching Are you involved in team-teaching for any of your courses?

  42. I. Teaching Conclusions • On a scale from inadequate to exceptional, most Junior faculty respondents rated themselves as: • Adequate in teaching skill and advising • Advising about 10 students per year • Teaching 2 – 4 courses per year • As would be expected for junior faculty, there is room for growth to achieve excellence in teaching.

  43. N Mean SD Minimum Maximum Focus area 60 2.45 3.67 S .946 0-4 Strategic plan for funding 60 1.88 3.34 S 1.043 0-4 II. Research How would you rate your ability to develop a research focus area? strategic plan for funding?

  44. II. Research How would you rate your ability to develop a viable research network with local organizations? State? National? Foundations? Private donors ?

  45. II. Research How would you rate your tenacity in …? - Submitting proposals - Achieving research funding - Resubmitting proposals - Obtaining peer reviews of proposals - Accepting constructive feedback

  46. II. Research • How would your rate your skills to write research protocols for: • campus/internal funds • foundation funds • - national funds How would you rate your grant writing skills? your grant management skills?

  47. II. Research How would you rate your publication productivity in peer-reviewed journals? Mean =1.25 (SD=1.12), Minimum/Maximum: 0- 4 (N=57) Please provide details on the following productivity for the past year: - number of articles published - number of articles submitted - number of articles in draft stage - number of articles in planning stage

  48. II. Research How would you rate your productivity in submitting abstracts for scientific conferences? Mean=1.75 (SD=1.44) (Minimum/Maximum: 0-4) (N=56) Please provide details regarding abstracts for the past year: - number accepted - number of submitted - number in preparation stage

  49. II. Research How would you rate your effort to involve students in: - publications - abstract submission - posters - oral presentations

  50. II. Research How would you rate your effort to involve community partners in: - publication - abstract submission - posters - oral presentations

More Related