This session built nicely on the plenary session by Rhee Fincher (Evolving Views of the Scholarship of Teaching in the Academic Health Center) in that it involved an in depth discussion of assessing educational scholarship through peer review. The session consisted of three parts. In part 1, participants discussed two issues in small groups. The first issue helped participants focus on the role of peer review in educational scholarship—both in terms of elevating teaching to the level of “scholarship” and in terms of providing evidence of the quality of that scholarship. The second issue helped participants appreciate that peer review related to educational scholarship must occur at two levels: 1) direct observation of the act of teaching (to produce evidence of quality of that teaching) and 2) assessment of accumulated evidence of educational accomplishments to form higher-order judgments of the overall merit and worth of those accomplishments. In part 2, Drs. Seidel, Rosenfeld, and Richards, each presented in turn a brief summary of one form of peer review of teaching used at Baylor College of Medicine: 1) voluntary peer-to-peer coaching to improve teaching and provide evidence of quality; 2) a criterion-based program of providing recognition to faculty who demonstrate that the quantity, quality, and breadth 0f their educational contributions meets published standards; 3) a normative-based program to competitively select four faculty a year to receive a prestigious educational award. These presentations summarized the development, characteristics, and the current status of each form of peer review. Participants freely asked questions and shared ideas about the similarity of related peer review programs at their own institutions. Detailed Information about these three forms of peer review are available on the web at http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/fac-ed. The discussion that followed in part 3 focused on the unique features of the criterion-based program for recognizing educational contributions, especially in contrast to the more common normative-based program. This criterion-based program is known as the Fulbright & Jaworski Faculty Excellence award. Baylor faculty who achieve this award gain a five-year membership in the school’s recently formed Academy of Distinguished Educators (which membership is renewable by achieving another award). Evidence was shared and discussed about the program’s growing impact on the promotions and tenure process as well as on stimulating peer review of teaching activities. In general, participants responded positively to the concept of a criterion-based (or perhaps more accurately put, a “standards-based”) peer review program for judging educational scholarship. Concerns expressed, included the possible dilution in the significance of receiving an award if it is achievable by too many faculty and in the cost of implementing such a program.. Responses to these concerns emphasized Baylor’s approach to obtain wide faculty participation in establishing the standards and in establishing a rigorous peer review process modeled after NIH study sections, but with little direct cost to the institution (i.e., all faculty volunteer to participate without compensation). Dr. Richards concluded the session by suggesting that a follow up session be held in several years when more outcome data can be reported about the numbers of faculty (MD and PhD) receiving the award and then subsequently receiving favorable consideration in promotions decisions. **** **** ****
|
||||||||||||||