Development of a peer teaching-assessment program and a peer observation and evaluation tool

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Volumn 72, Issue 6, 2008, Pages

  Trujillo, Jennifer M ^a   DiVall, Margarita V ^a   Barr, Judith ^a   Gonyeau, Michael ^a   Van Amburgh, Jenny A ^a   Matthews, S James ^a   Qualters, Donna ^a  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Large classroom teaching; Peer assessment; Peer observation and evaluation tool

Indexed keywords

ALLIED HEALTH EDUCATION; ARTICLE; EDUCATION PROGRAM; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; PEER GROUP; PILOT STUDY; TEACHING; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHARMACY STUDENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; EDUCATION, PHARMACY; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER GROUP; PILOT PROJECTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STUDENTS, PHARMACY;

EID: 58149174245     PISSN: 00029459     EISSN: 15536467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5688/aj7206147     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barnett CW, Matthews HW. Current procedures used to evaluate teaching in school of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 1998;62:388-91.
2. Cashin WE. Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA paper No. 32; September 1995. The Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center, Kansas State University. Available at: http://www. theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/Idea_Paper_32.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2008.
3. Barnett CW, Matthews HW. Student evaluation of classroom teaching: a study of pharmacy faculty attitudes and effects on instructional practices. Am J Pharm Educ. 1997;61:345-50.
4. Barnett CW, Matthews HW, Jackson RA. A comparison between student ratings and faculty self-ratings of instructional effectiveness. Am J Pharm Educ. 2003;67(5):Article 117.
5. Arreola RA. Common questions concerning student ratings: what 80 years of research tells us. In: Arreola RA, ed. Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Inc; 2000: 79-92.
6. Leamon MH, Servis ME, Canning RD, Searles RC. A comparison of student evaluations and faculty peer evaluations of faculty lectures. Acad Med. 1999;74:S22-4.
7. Surratt CK Desselle SP. Pharmacy students' perceptions of a teaching evaluation process. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71:Article 06.
8. Hoyt DP, Pallett WH. Appraising teaching effectiveness: beyond student ratings. IDEA paper No. 36; November 1999. The Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center, Kansas State University. Available at: http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/Idea_Paper_36.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2008.
9. Gray M, Bergmann BR. Student teaching evaluations: inaccurate, demeaning, misused. Academe Online. Sept-Oct 2003. Available at: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/ pubsres/academe/2003/SO/Feat/gray.htm. Accessed November 12, 2008.
10. Wolfgang AP, Gupchup GV, Plake KS. Relative importance of performance criteria in promotion and tenure decisions: perceptions of pharmacy faculty members. Am J Pharm Educ. 1995;59:342-7.
11. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and guidelines for the professional program in pharmacy leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. Guideline 26.2. Available at: http://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/ ACPE_Revised_PharmD_Standards_Adopted_Jan152006.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2008.
12. Northeastern University Faculty Handbook. Available at: http://www.facultysenate.neu.edu/documents/facultyhandbook.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2008.
13. Webb J, McEnerney K. Implementing peer review programs: a twelve-step model. In: To Improve the Academy, vol. 16. San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1997.
14. Qualters D. Observing students in a clinical setting. Fam Med. 1999;31:461-2.
15. Schon DA. Education the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Profession. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers 305-44.
16. Chism NVN. Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers 85-99.
17. Piburn M, Sawada D. Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): reference manual. ACEPT Technical Report no. IN003. Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers. Available at: http://physicsed. buffalostate.edu/AZTEC/rtop/RTOP_full/PDF/RTOP_ref_man_IN003.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2008.
18. Schultz KK, Latif D. The planning and implementation of a faculty peer review teaching project. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70:Article 32.
19. Hansen LB, McCollum M, Paulsen SM et al. Evaluation of an evidence-based peer teaching assessment program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71:Article 45.
20. Centra JA. Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 205-13.
21. Braxton JM, Bayer AE, Finkelstein MJ. Teaching performance norms in academia. Res Higher Educ. 1992;33:533-69.
22. Nelson MS. Peer evaluation of teaching: an approach whose time has come (commentary). Acad Med. 1998;73:4-5.
23. Feldman P. Faculty performance reviews: accountability in teaching education. Education. 2005;125;349-52.
24. Rosenbaum ME, Ferguson KJ, Kreiter CD, Johnson CA. Using a peer evaluation system to assess faculty performance and competence. Fam Med. 2005;37:429-33.
25. Koops JB, Winsor KA. Creating a professional learning culture through faculty evaluation. J Educ. 2005;186:61-70.
26. Cohen PA, McKeachie WJ. The role of colleagues in evaluation of teaching. Improving Coll University Teaching. 1980;28:147-54.
27. DeZure, D. Evaluating teaching through peer classroom observation. In: Seldin P, ed. Changing Practices in Evaluation Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publisheres. 1999: 70-96.
28. Shrout, PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull, 1979;86:420-8.
29. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:30-46.
30. Shulman LS. Teaching as community property: putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change. 1993;25:6-7.
31. Chism NVM. Why introducing or sustaining peer review of teaching is so hard and what you can do about it. The Department Chair. 2007;18 (2):6-8.