New faculty have an inordinate amount of resources, financial and other, invested in their doctoral degrees. Yet, the first few years can be overwhelming adapting to the plethora of academic life demands. One area of concern that all new faculty deal with is attempting to decode the various stakeholder groups (i.e., students, colleagues, personnel committee, administration, community and industry members, respective profession colleagues) expectations of the new faculty member and reconciling those with their own personal goals and aspirations. Knowing what each group considers important and highlighting similarities or differences allows new faculty to address stakeholder expectations to better position themselves for a successful and fulfilling career.This paper derives from a study that looked at the two groups (i.e., students and department colleagues) expectations who most closely affect the daily life of the new faculty member. Study respondents were ask to identify which teaching dimension each group valued most from a list of thirteen questions used by students in evaluating faculty members classroom performance. Students and faculty members concurred in their clear preference for the instructor knowing the material being presented and the instructor explaining the material in a clear and understandable manner, but differed in their view of the least important teaching dimension depicting a faculty members classroom performance. The faculty members surveyed concurred with the student ranking that the instructor increasing the students interest in the subject matter was the second least important teaching dimension depicting a faculty members classroom performance. This teaching dimension was only superceded by the faculty ranking that the amount of work required being appropriate for the number of credits offered and the student ranking that the instructor stimulating questions was the least important teaching dimension depicting a faculty members classroom performance.
Medical Student Evaluation of Faculty in Student–Preceptor Pairs
