Assessment and Evaluation of Students, Faculty and Curriculum Policy

It is the policy of the University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix (COM-P) to provide constructive and timely feedback in all settings and to take an active approach to improving or enhancing teaching and assessment skills. 

Feedback is provided in a manner that protects student confidentiality and any potential concerns of retribution. 

Faculty and students are expected to review their evaluations with the goal of learning from both positive comments and constructive criticism.

“Faculty,” as it relates to this policy, refers to any preceptor or affiliate who teaches medical students, including residents, fellows, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows. 

Process

Required Assessments Completed by Faculty

Faculty are expected to identify students throughout the length of the course* who are not meeting required elements in a timely manner and provide corrective mentoring, as well as a specific corrective plan.

Each student is provided regular formative and summative feedback based on the behavior competencies listed in the Competency Assessment Policy and the grading listed in the syllabus. The structure and timing of this feedback is listed in the following policies: 

• Competency Assessment Policy.
• Grading and Progression for Clerkships and Selectives Policy.
• Enrollment, Sequencing and Grading for Pre-Clerkships Policy.

Required Evaluations Completed by Students

Depending on the week length of the course*, the student will be responsible for completing anywhere between one and 35 session evaluations. Ten percent of the students are randomly assigned to evaluate each session, which causes the fluctuation in the range above. This system is designed so that all teaching faculty are provided feedback and student survey fatigue is minimized. Students also have the opportunity to evaluate any session at any time as an optional and additional source of professional feedback.

The overall course* evaluations will use a sampled method for evaluation collection with a 90% confidence interval (CI) and a 10% margin of error (MOE).  Out of 80 students, 38 will receive overall evaluations, out of 100 students, 41 will receive overall evaluations, and out of 120 students, 47 will receive overall evaluations.

Blocks – Students are required to complete the following evaluations in each block:

• All assigned session evaluations.
• Two case based instruction evaluations (mid- and end-)
• Assigned overall block evaluation

Courses – Students are required to complete assigned mid- and end- evaluation in all courses, with the exception of Intersessions. Additionally, students will complete site-specific evaluations at the end of each Capstone course experience.

Clerkships and Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship – Students are required to complete the following evaluations in each clerkship:

• All assigned session evaluations.
• A clerkship evaluation for each site and rotation.
• A student will complete one evaluation form for a faculty member when they have a significant clinical interaction.  (A significant clinical interaction means a minimum of three <3> interactions per faculty and/or if the student worked with one faculty member for the entire rotation at the site.)
• Assigned overall clerkship evaluation.

Electives – Students are required to complete an overall elective evaluation for each site.

Selectives – Students are required to complete the following evaluations for each selective:

•  All assigned session evaluations.
• An evaluation for each site and rotation.
• A student will complete one evaluation form for a faculty member when they have a significant clinical interaction.  (A significant clinical interaction means a minimum of three <3> interactions per faculty and/or if the student worked with one faculty member for the entire rotation at the site.)
• Assigned overall selective evaluation.

Timeliness of Evaluations by Students

Students must complete required evaluations within one week after the middle and end of each block or course, and at the end of each clerkship, selective or elective. 
If the student does not complete the required evaluations within one week after the middle or end of the course*, the student is required to submit the missing evaluation data in narrative form within the second week to the Office of Assessment and Evaluation and will receive a formative Level 1 in Professionalism. 

Once the student has successfully submitted their evaluation in narrative form within the second week after the course*, the student has successfully demonstrated meeting expectations in Professionalism. If the narrative form is not completed within the second week after the course* ends, it will result in a summative Level 1 in Professionalism.  

Multiple incomplete evaluations within the same course* will result in one summative Level 1 towards the cumulative level ratings listed in the Competency Assessment Policy. 

Self and Peer Evaluations – Students are provided with optional opportunities to complete self and peer evaluations of developmental behavior in Interpersonal and Communication Skills and Professionalism. Reports of self and peer evaluations are provided to the Office of Student Affairs. 

Evaluation Anonymity – The student's identity is withheld on all evaluations, and reports are compiled in aggregate for each of the designated course* directors by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation. 

Constructive Feedback Expectations

All comments from students or faculty must be honest, respectful, succinct, focused on issues rather than emotions, be unbiased (see Conflict of Interest Physician-Student Personal Relationship Policy), supportive, genuine and solution-oriented. 

Faculty and students are trained in providing feedback on an ongoing basis. They are instructed to provide feedback that contains references and comments to specific behaviors and/or events (positive or negative). The suggested format is the “W3” model to identify: What worked well? What did not work well? What could be done differently next time?

The primary responsibility for identifying potentially non-constructive feedback relies on the Office of Assessment and Evaluation for written feedback and the course* director or faculty for verbal feedback. For written assessments or evaluations, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation reviews data weekly for the designated period to identify potentially non-constructive feedback. Any comments that are not considered constructive will be returned to the writer for revision. If egregious (containing obscenities or malicious statements) or inappropriate comments are not revised, the evaluation comments and the author’s name (if known) are referred to the dean, student affairs/or designee for comments made by students, and to the deans, curricular affairs, and vice dean, undergraduate medical education/or designees for comments made by faculty. Non-constructive comments will not be included as part of the evaluation of the faculty member or student.

Faculty Receiving and Responding to Student Feedback

Feedback is provided in a manner that protects student confidentiality and any potential concerns of retribution. The primary responsibility for monitoring the quality of teaching rests with the individual departments and is communicated with the Offices of Academic Affairs and Faculty Affairs and Development. 

Blocks and Course Evaluation Circulation and Timing:

• Block/Intersession directors who have the primary responsibility for overseeing the feedback process receive compiled summaries of all evaluations within five weeks after the block/course ends. 
• The faculty teaching in the block or course receive their feedback for their specific sessions within seven weeks of the block or course ending.
• Course directors who have the primary responsibility for overseeing the feedback process receive compiled summaries of all evaluations twice a year: at mid-year in January and at year-end in June.

Clerkship Evaluation Circulation and Timing:

• Clerkship directors who have the primary responsibility for overseeing the feedback process receive compiled summaries of all evaluations twice a year: at mid-year in late November/early December and at year-end in July.
• Clerkship directors share evaluation summaries with program directors, site directors and institutional department chairs annually in July.
• Clinical department chairs receive summaries of evaluations  at the end of the academic year (July).
• Faculty, residents and fellows receive individual evaluations annually in July through one45.
• Clerkship directors are primarily responsible for supporting the feedback process and providing specific feedback as needed. They work with site directors, program directors and institutional chairs as appropriate, as well as the department chairs in providing this feedback.

Elective and Selective Evaluation Circulation and Timing:

• Elective and selective directors who have the primary responsibility for overseeing the feedback process receive compiled summaries of all evaluations twice a year: at mid-year in late November/early December and at year-end in July.

Supervisory Evaluations of Faculty

Department chairs conduct reviews of their full-time faculty on an annual basis. These reviews include direct observation and data from student evaluations in the areas of teaching and delivery, student feedback, professionalism and interpersonal communication. Feedback is provided by the department chair to the faculty member as a part of their annual review. Part-time faculty are evaluated on a rotational basis and provided feedback by their department chair within a timely manner after the session is evaluated.

Peer Evaluations of Faculty

Faculty have the option of participating in a process of peer-reviewed teaching. This feedback is shared with the faculty member evaluated by their respective administrative head for developmental purposes to assist with professional growth. This data, in aggregate, is also shared with the course* director in the area in which they teach, as well as the Office of Faculty Development to assist with offering pertinent and relevant faculty development sessions.

Clinical Curriculum Student Evaluation Release Workflow for Faculty/Resident/Fellow/Graduate Student/Postdoctoral Fellow Feedback

Click to enlarge

Focus on Professionalism in Assessment and Evaluation

The COM-P fosters professionalism at all levels. While the majority of student evaluation comments are positive, the leadership of Academic Affairs, supported by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation and the Learning Environment Office, review and flag evaluations for potential professionalism and student mistreatment issues. See Professionalism Policy.

Course* = Any component of the curriculum where a grade is earned.