Korean Medical Education Review (의학교육논단)

Yonsei university college of medicine (연세대학교 의과대학)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Current Status and Performance Evaluation Systems of Faculty in Korean Medical Schools

의과대학 교원 현황과 업적평가제도 특징 분석

  • Yang, Eunbae B. (Department of Medical Education, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Tae Seon (Graduate School of Medical Humanities and Social Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Cho, Myung Ja (Graduate School of Nursing, Kyungpook National University)
  • 양은배 (연세대학교 의과대학 의학교육학교실) ;
  • 이태선 (연세대학교 대학원) ;
  • 조명자 (경북대학교 대학원 간호학과)
  • Received : 2018.11.07
  • Accepted : 2019.01.21
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the current status and performance evaluation systems of faculty in Korean medical colleges and professional graduate medical schools (called medical schools). We developed a research tool based on previous studies and distributed it to 40 medical schools from July to October 2017. The response rate was 100%. We calculated the number of faculty members and analyzed the faculty evaluation systems and awareness according to national and private medical schools. As of 2017, the number of medical faculty in Korea was 11,111 (4,973 faculty were employed by their alma mater, which is 44.76% of the total), with non-medical doctor faculty accounting for 754 of the total. The medical schools reflect research achievements as most important for re-appointment and screening to promote faculty, and the area of education is secondary excepting clinical faculty of private medical schools. However, important issues in the faculty evaluation deal with the relevance of research achievement and the need for qualitative assessment. Some medical schools revised or have been revising the faculty evaluation system in areas such as minimum standards of education for promotion and separation of promotion and tenure review. Opening non-tenure track lines for faculty show positive effects such as increasing the number of positions for hire and easing the financial burdens of medical schools. Downfalls include inconsistencies between the responsibilities and actual practices of tenure not being available and the instability of faculty's status. In conclusion, medical schools need to prepare a faculty evaluation system that fits the position of faculty members and attempt to establish a reasonable compensation system.

Keywords

Table 1. Number of full-time faculty in medical schools (N=40)

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_41_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Assessment weights of faculty activities for faculty promotion (unit: %)

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_41_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Problematic issues of faculty evaluation system perceived by medical schools

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_41_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Number of medical schools which made efforts to improve their faculty evaluation system (N=35)

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_41_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Positive and negative effects of non-tenure track faculty appointments

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_41_t0005.png 이미지

References

  1. Na MJ, Yoon HJ, Kim WJ, Lee SB, Shin IS, Jang JH, et al. Analysis of faculty evaluation system of national universities in Korea. Sejong: Ministry of Education; 2010.
  2. Kim SJ, Woo HS. The study on the effects of the external accountability policies on research performances of the faculties. Korean J Educ Adm. 2014;32(2):137-60.
  3. Sahlberg P. Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. J Educ Change. 2010;11(1):45-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2
  4. Ohrr H, Yang EB, Chung MH, Lee MS. The study on the faculty evaluation system of teaching ability in Korea. Korean J Med Educ. 1999;11(2):297-312. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.1999.11.2.297
  5. Han KS. Faculty performance evaluation, annual salary and student course evaluation. Korean J Appl Stat. 2011;24(2):435-43. https://doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2011.24.2.435
  6. Fleming VM, Schindler N, Martin GJ, DaRosa DA. Separate and equitable promotion tracks for clinician-educators. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1101-4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.9.1101
  7. Shin JC. Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: a performance-based approach. High Educ. 2009;57(2):247-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9150-4
  8. Oh SE, Yu JH. The difference of higher education institutions' functional types on their accountability: focusing on analyzing faculty member's perception. J Res Educ. 2015;28(2):1-26.
  9. Kim HB, Myung SJ, Yu HG, Chang JY, Shin CS. Influences of faculty evaluating system on educational performance of medical school faculty. Korean J Med Educ. 2016;28(3):289-94. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2016.34
  10. Colbeck CL. Integration: evaluating faculty work as a whole. New Dir Inst Res. 2002;(114):43-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.45
  11. Lee YS. Inbreeding in faculties of Korean medical schools. Korean J Med Educ. 2001;13(2):299-308. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2001.13.2.299
  12. Lee YS, Chae SJ, Shin JS. Faculties in Korean medical schools: their specialties and inbreeding. Korean J Med Educ. 2004;16(3):269-79. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2004.16.3.269
  13. Kim YI, Kim JY. Faculty evaluation in Korean medical schools: part I. designing of basic guideline for assessment of faculty activities. Korean J Med Educ. 2000;12(2):153-62. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2000.12.2.153
  14. Seo KH, Lim SM, Lee BI, Park CH, Park YH. A survey on the education, medical practice, research, and fringe benefits of Korean medical school faculty. J Korean Med Assoc. 2012;55(11):1128-41. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.11.1128
  15. Kim WJ, Yun HJ, Rah MJ. A comparative analysis of faculty evaluation systems of national universities in Korea. J Korean Teach Educ. 2012;29(1):143-65. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2012.29.1.143
  16. Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
  17. Kang Mk. How do we evaluate faculty performances: knowledge production and university ranking. Asian Commun Res. 2014;10(1):127-68.
  18. Ban SJ. Discussions on improvement of faculty evaluation. Seoul: The Korean Educational Administration Society; 2010.
  19. Lee SH. Korean faculty: who are they? what are they doing? Seoul: Hakgisa; 1992.
  20. Park NK. Analyzing the status of the faculty performance evaluation and developing a model for professors' performance by each university. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development; 2006.
  21. Kim BJ, Na MJ, Park DY, Jung SS, Jung JC, Choi JY, et al. Government finance to enhance educational power of universities. Sejong: Ministry of Education; 2009.
  22. Yun HB. A study on the faculties' satisfaction of medical university. Health Policy Forum. 2005;3(1):149-54.
  23. Meng KH. Medical education plan for the twenty-first century in Korea: hopes and challenges. Korean J Med Educ. 2004;16(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2004.16.1.1
  24. Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical faculty job satisfaction: thematic overviews from ten focus groups. Washington (DC): Association of American Medical Colleges; 2006.
  25. Nyquist JG, Hitchcock MA, Teherani A. Faculty satisfaction in academic medicine. New Dir Inst Res. 2000;(105):33-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.10503
  26. Kim CH. Analysis research for implement of faculty-evaluation. J Educ. 1995;13:1-42.
  27. Bunton SA, Mallon WT. The continued evolution of faculty appointment and tenure policies at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2007;82(3):281-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180307e87
  28. Walling A, Nilsen KM. Tenure appointments for faculty of clinical departments at U.S. medical schools: does specialty designation make a difference? Acad Med. 2018;93(11):1719-26. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002346