OBJECTIVE: To determine faculty perceptions about an evidence-based peer teaching assessment system. METHODS: Faculty members who served as instructors and assessors completed questionnaires after year 1 (2002-2003) and year 4 (2005-2006) of the peer assessment program. Factors were evaluated using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and included logistics, time, fostering quality teaching, diversifying teaching portfolios, faculty mentoring, and value of structured discussion of teaching among faculty members. Mean responses from instructors and assessors were compared using student t tests. RESULTS: Twenty-seven assessors and 52 instructors completed survey instruments. Assessors and instructors had positive perceptions of the process as indicated by the following mean (SD) scores: logistics = 4.0 (1.0), time = 3.6 (1.1), quality teaching = 4.0 (0.9), diversifying teaching portfolios = 3.6 (1.2), faculty mentoring = 3.9 (0.9), and structured discussion of teaching = 4.2 (0.8). Assessors agreed more strongly than instructors that the feedback provided would improve the quality of lecturing (4.5 vs. 3.9, p < 0.01) and course materials (4.3 vs. 3.6, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This peer assessment process was well-accepted and provided a positive experience for the participants. Faculty members perceived that the quality of their teaching would improve and enjoyed the opportunity to have structured discussions about teaching.
OBJECTIVE: To determine faculty perceptions about an evidence-based peer teaching assessment system. METHODS: Faculty members who served as instructors and assessors completed questionnaires after year 1 (2002-2003) and year 4 (2005-2006) of the peer assessment program. Factors were evaluated using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and included logistics, time, fostering quality teaching, diversifying teaching portfolios, faculty mentoring, and value of structured discussion of teaching among faculty members. Mean responses from instructors and assessors were compared using student t tests. RESULTS: Twenty-seven assessors and 52 instructors completed survey instruments. Assessors and instructors had positive perceptions of the process as indicated by the following mean (SD) scores: logistics = 4.0 (1.0), time = 3.6 (1.1), quality teaching = 4.0 (0.9), diversifying teaching portfolios = 3.6 (1.2), faculty mentoring = 3.9 (0.9), and structured discussion of teaching = 4.2 (0.8). Assessors agreed more strongly than instructors that the feedback provided would improve the quality of lecturing (4.5 vs. 3.9, p < 0.01) and course materials (4.3 vs. 3.6, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This peer assessment process was well-accepted and provided a positive experience for the participants. Faculty members perceived that the quality of their teaching would improve and enjoyed the opportunity to have structured discussions about teaching.
Authors: Anandi V Law; Cynthia Jackevicius; Wallace I Murray; Karl Hess; David Q Pham; David I Min; Jennifer Le Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Jennifer M Trujillo; Margarita V DiVall; Judith Barr; Michael Gonyeau; Jenny A Van Amburgh; S James Matthews; Donna Qualters Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Margarita DiVall; Judith Barr; Michael Gonyeau; S James Matthews; Jenny Van Amburgh; Donna Qualters; Jennifer Trujillo Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Margarita V DiVall; Greg L Alston; Eleanora Bird; Shauna M Buring; Katherine A Kelley; Nanci L Murphy; Lauren S Schlesselman; Cindy D Stowe; Julianna E Szilagyi Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 2.047