Matrix for the evaluation of teaching skills in the Faculty of Medicine
The purpose of this matrix is to determine clear and transparent assessment criteria. The matrix should support the evaluation of teaching skills. The matrix aids in the
comparison of the teaching qualifications of various applicants for teaching positions and the assessment of the teaching qualifications of prospective docents.
Evaluation
Satisfactory
Good
Very good
Excellent
1. Pedagogical training1
A small amount of
pedagogical studies or
training
Some pedagogical studies or
training
A fair amount of pedagogical
studies or training
A large amount of
pedagogical studies or
training
A very large amount of
pedagogical studies or
training
• Docentship
• ≤ 1 cr2 (e.g., pedagogical
orientation)
• Fewer than 5 cr (e.g., 1.5 cr
Basics of PBL, or equivalent
short training)
• 5 cr Higher education
pedagogy
or other studies in the field with
an equivalent scope
• 10 cr Higher education
pedagogy or
5 cr Higher education pedagogy
as well as the special
qualifications of a
medical/dental trainer 3
• 25 cr Higher education
pedagogy or 10 cr Higher
education pedagogy as well as
the special qualifications of a
medical/dental trainer
• 25 cr Higher education
pedagogy or
10 cr Higher education
pedagogy as well as the special
qualifications of a
medical/dental trainer
• Degrees and studies providing
qualifications as a teacher
• 60 cr Higher education
pedagogy or
25 cr Higher education
pedagogy as well as the special
qualifications of a
medical/dental trainer
• Teaching position
1
Passable
• ≤ 1 cr (e.g., pedagogical
orientation)
• 10 cr Higher education
pedagogy
• Fewer than 5 cr (e.g., 1.5 cr
Basics of PBL, or equivalent
short training)
University of Helsinki, other university or other equivalent training provider (e.g., Association for Medical Education in Finland, Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Finska Läkaresällskapet,
Finnish Medical Association, Finnish Dental Society Apollonia and Pro Medico)
2 1 cr = an average workload of 27 hours (1.5 x credit unit in the previous degree system)
3 Special qualifications of a medical/dental trainer: http://www.laaketieteenkoulutuksenyhdistys.fi/laakarikouluttajan-hammaslaakari/
Evaluation
Passable
Satisfactory
Good
Very good
Excellent
2. Practical teaching
experience4
Little teaching experience
Some teaching experience
A fair amount of continuous
teaching experience
A large amount of
continuous teaching
experience
A very large amount of
continuous teaching
experience
2.1 Undergraduate
education
• Sporadic teaching experience
• Less than 2 years of full-time
teaching experience
• 2 years of full-time teaching
experience6
• 5 years of full-time teaching
experience
• A wide range of education
experience
• 10 years of full-time teaching
experience
• A very wide range of
education experience
• As above
• As above
• As above
• As above
• As above
• No supervised theses or
dissertations
• 1–2 supervised theses or
dissertations
• 3–5 supervised theses or
dissertations
• 6–10 supervised theses or
dissertations
• More than 10 supervised
theses or dissertations
2.2. Postgraduate education
and/or professional
postgraduate and continuing
education as well as doctoral
education
2.3. Supervision of theses
and dissertations of
different levels5
a) Bachelor’s thesis (6–8 cr)
b) advanced-studies thesis (20
cr)
c) Master’s thesis (40 cr)
d) doctoral dissertation
4
The application documents must describe the amount and nature of teaching experience in relation to the position applied for and its field, if specified, as well as indicate the diversity of
the teaching experience.
5
Applicants must list the registered, completed and uncompleted theses and dissertations (number), their titles and authors, as well as the relevant units (university or other institution of
higher education) and year of completion.
6
The good teaching skills required for a docentship require at least two years of full-time teaching experience. The docentship committee can use the evaluation matrix to assess the
sufficiency of other evidence provided by the applicant.
2.4. Expertise in various
learning methods and
environments7
• No evidence of expertise in
various learning methods
and/or environments, or
narrow expertise
• Some evidence of expertise in
various learning methods and/or
environments
• A fair amount of evidence of
expertise in various learning
methods and/or environments
• A large amount of evidence of
expertise in various learning
methods and/or environments
2.5. Development of one’s
teaching, learning methods
and assessment methods
• No evidence of development
• Routine-like provision of
teaching
• Some evidence of
development
• A fair amount of evidence of
development; substantial
evidence in one’s own discipline
and/or unit
• A large amount of evidence of
development; substantial
evidence in one’s own degree
programme and/or faculty
Good
Very good
3. Production of learning
material
3.1 University-level
publications and learning
material8
3.2. Textbooks
3.3 Pedagogical
publications9
4. Other teaching merits
7
Passable
Satisfactory
• Has produced and/or
published little learning
material
• Has produced and/or
published some learning
material
• Has published no textbooks
• Has produced some textbooklike material (e.g., handouts and
manuals)
• Has produced no pedagogical
publications or abstracts
Passable
• Has produced a national
pedagogical abstract
Satisfactory
• Has produced and/or
published a fair amount of highquality learning material
• Has participated in the writing
of a textbook text as a member
of a work group
• A very large amount of
evidence of development at the
university level; substantial
evidence at the national and/or
international level
Excellent
• Has produced and/or
published a large amount of
high-quality and diverse
learning material
• Has produced and/or
published a very large amount
of high-quality and diverse
learning material
• Has had primary responsibility
for writing a section of a
textbook
• Has participated in editing a
textbook or has written a
textbook
• Has produced an international
pedagogical abstract
• Has produced a national
pedagogical publication
Good
• A very large amount of
evidence of expertise in various
learning methods and/or
environments
Very good
• Has produced an international
pedagogical publication
Excellent
Learning methods include lectures, interactive lectures, problem-based small group teaching, practical assignments, individual supervision, mentoring and web-based teaching. Learning
environment typically means locations, facilities, communities or approaches that have been pedagogically designed to support and promote learning (e.g., virtual and mobile learning
environments, skills workshops, health centres or hospitals). [EVALUATION MATRIX]
8 Evidence must be presented, and the publisher must be specified (web addresses, etc.). Publications and learning material prepared for other levels of the education system must also be
separately listed.
9 Applicants must present their publications on educational development, teaching experiments or other research on higher education.
4.1. Participation in
curriculum design, academic
administration and the
preparation of documents
that guide teaching10
4.2. Teaching responsibilities
and other teaching merits
5. Feedback on teaching
5.1. Student feedback and
other feedback on one’s
teaching and the use of such
feedback in the further
development of one’s
teaching
5.2. Awards, recognition and
grants11
• Little or no participation
• Sporadic participation in a
work group or close equivalent
at the
department/institute/discipline
level
• No responsibility for other
than one’s own teaching (e.g.,
individual lectures)
• Responsibility for one’s own
teaching as part of a course
Passable
• No evidence of student
feedback
Satisfactory
• Some evidence of student
feedback
• Regular and active
participation in a work group at
the department/institute/unit
level
• Responsibility for one’s own
teaching as part of a course and
participation in the
development of the course
(e.g., as the coordinator of a
multidisciplinary course)
Good
• A fair amount of evidence of
student feedback and its use in
the further development of
one’s teaching
• Regular and active
participation in a work group at
the degree programme/faculty
level
• Responsibility for one’s own
teaching and the coordination
and development of a course
(e.g., as a course coordinator)
Very good
• Regular and active
participation in a work group at
the
university/national/international level
• Responsibility for one’s own
teaching as well as extensive
study modules and their
development and coordination
with other courses
Excellent
• A large amount of diverse
evidence of student, peer and
expert feedback and its use in
the further development of
one’s teaching
• A very large amount of
diverse evidence of student,
peer and expert feedback and
its use in the further
development of one’s teaching
• Teaching award/recognition
at the
discipline/department/institute
/unit/degree programme level
• University-level teaching
award/recognition
10 Applicants must report the work groups, committees and councils of departments, institutes, degree programmes, the Faculty and the University as well as external bodies associated
with education in which they have participated, and must describe the nature and duration of their activities in them (e.g., chair, member, deputy member, expert member).
11 E.g., a grant received for the development of teaching; the provider/source and the year must be indicated.
6. Demonstration of
teaching skills
Passable
6.1. Previous teaching
demonstrations for teaching
positions12
Satisfactory
Good
Very good
Excellent
• An approved teaching
demonstration
6.2. Teaching demonstration
for the position applied for13
12 Applicants must report their previous lectures associated
with docentships as well as demonstration lectures given for previous teaching positions, together with the year and grade.
13 Teaching demonstrations may include a preliminary assignment. The demonstrations are assessed using a separate form (Flamma link).