This Section:

Medical Education

NAOME: Educational Leadership Category


This award will be given to faculty who demonstrate a record of significant leadership in a range of curriculum development or educational administration which matches or exceeds the record presented in the standard-setting portfolio examples at the bottom of the page.

Educational Leadership activities could include: serving on an education-related committee; receiving an education-related grant; letters of support; developing an evaluation program; serving as director of a course, program or clerkship. (See a list of activities specific to basic science faculty.)

Evidence of Quality might include: peer review; administrator ratings (e.g., "360" evaluation); description of accomplishments; outcome indicators as a result of accomplishments; external recognition. This criterion will count 50 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.

Evidence of Quantity of these activities might include: number of positions held; duration of positions held (years); total time commitment. This evidence should focus on activities as a faculty member within the past five years. This criterion will count 40 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.

Dimensions of Breadth might include: different types of committees; different courses; different roles; inter- versus intra-departmental involvement; or national roles. This criterion will count 10 percent of the final judgment of the Review Panel.

Instructions for Submitting Portfolios

Before starting your portfolio:

Portfolio Examples

The following examples set the standards of quantity, quality, and breadth for this category of Educational Leadership. The examples also illustrate how a variety of faculty satisfy the standards of quantity, quality, and breadth for Educational Leadership. A candidate should accumulate and document at least as much overall evidence of accomplishment as contained in the individual examples. While the exact combination of accomplishments related to quality, quantity, and breadth will be unique, at the beginning of your mini-portfolio, you should identify which example(s) best match(es) the type of educational leadership you list in the portfolio. Just as the examples are not maximally strong in all areas, it is expected that faculty mini-portfolios will vary and not be maximally strong in all areas. In effect, weaker areas may be balanced out with stronger areas, so long as the overall combination compares favorably to the examples.

As you review these examples, pay particular attention to the format of the structured summary. Note that each summary contains a list of positions. For each position, the structure summary then presents a limited number of leadership-oriented activities directly related to the educational mission of the college. For each activity, the structured summary then includes a brief description of key steps taken to complete the activity (in the quantity of effort column) and a description of outcomes achieved (in the evidence of quality column). We strongly recommend that your mini-portfolios follow this template and that you use the best matched portfolio example(s) as a guide. (View a copy of the portfolio template.)

  • Portfolio Example 1
    Faculty member or possessing a terminal degree in a basic science department who participates in both medical school and graduate school courses and committees.
  • Portfolio Example 2 
    Physician in a clinical department involved in courses and committees at the undergraduate, graduate and CME levels.
  • Portfolio Example 3
    Physician in a clinical department with leadership responsibilities in graduate medical education, undergraduate medical education and national professional societies.

Evaluation Rubric for Educational Leadership

Applicant Name:________________________________________________________________

Reviewer Name: ________________________________________________________________

Type of Review: ___Primary, ___Secondary, ___General 

Assign points based on comparison to prototypes—assume prototypes would earn 85-95 points:

Use sample questions after each criterion as a guide for interpretation.

Maximum Points Possible

Reviewer Assigned Points

1. The applicant’s personal standards of osteopathic focus or impact within/upon osteopathic medical education. (The standards of osteopathic focus or impact within/upon osteopathic medical education will be awarded based on the applicant's personal statement and mini-portfolio.)

10 points


Application Quality – evidence of quality may also be found in multiple places throughout the portfolio including summary statement, personal statement, and appendices.

2. Clear, realistic, and important goals

(e.g., Are educational leadership goals specific and appropriate? Do goals reflect the needs of learners and/or educators?)

5 points


3. Adequate personal preparation and ongoing self-reflection/improvement

(e.g., Is educator prepared to lead effectively? Does educator participate in educator development opportunities? Does educator solicit and effectively use evaluations from learners and peers?)

10 points


4. Adequate methods/Quality of presentation of results

(e.g., Are appropriate educational techniques used effectively and flexibly? Does educator’s strategy serve as a model for others? How do peers regard process and perceive outcomes? Evaluations might include: peer review, administrator ratings, description of accomplishments, outcome indicators as a result of accomplishments, external recognition. Is educational leadership portfolio clear? Does educator effectively share lessons learned with peers?)

30 points


5. Quantity

(e.g., Number of positions held, duration of positions held (years), total time commitment.)

35 points


6. Breadth

(e.g., Different types of committees, different courses, different roles, inter-versus intra-departmental involvement, college wide roles, or national roles.)

10 points


Total (80 points minimum needed to receive award)

100 points