从教师成长角度看同行评议教学:全校范围的、可定制的同行评议方法。

IF 1.6 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-21 DOI:10.1007/s10880-024-10043-3
Krista Longtin, Tara Hobson, Matthew Holley, Nancy Van Note Chism, Mary E Dankoski, Megan M Palmer
{"title":"从教师成长角度看同行评议教学:全校范围的、可定制的同行评议方法。","authors":"Krista Longtin, Tara Hobson, Matthew Holley, Nancy Van Note Chism, Mary E Dankoski, Megan M Palmer","doi":"10.1007/s10880-024-10043-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As academic medical centers have moved away from using learner ratings of instruction as a demonstration of quality teaching in the promotion process, Indiana University School of Medicine sought to create a peer review of teaching system. We created our system in 2010 and have engaged in continuous quality improvement since. In these efforts, we sought to answer the question, \"How can we create a system of peer review of teaching that provides high-quality feedback to faculty and encourages autonomy and growth?\" Our peer review of teaching system includes a website, with a brief introduction to the concept of peer review, as well as a series of customizable forms that allows faculty and peer reviewers to choose items for observation and feedback based on teaching setting. This system, called the Peer Review Form Builder (PRFB), combines interactive technology with evidence-based faculty development and is innovative in structure and scope. On the macro level, departments and programs have seen success with the tool by engendering conversations on the values and effectiveness of teaching and education efforts. This systematic, tailored system of peer review of teaching has advanced the stature, quality, and innovation within all aspects of teaching throughout the institution. Further, we have incorporated these values into promotion and tenure documents, by encouraging consistent, systematic peer review as a primary source of evidence to demonstrate teaching effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":15494,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings","volume":" ","pages":"750-760"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Faculty Growth Perspective on Peer Review of Teaching: An Institution-Wide, Customizable Approach to Peer Review.\",\"authors\":\"Krista Longtin, Tara Hobson, Matthew Holley, Nancy Van Note Chism, Mary E Dankoski, Megan M Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10880-024-10043-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As academic medical centers have moved away from using learner ratings of instruction as a demonstration of quality teaching in the promotion process, Indiana University School of Medicine sought to create a peer review of teaching system. We created our system in 2010 and have engaged in continuous quality improvement since. In these efforts, we sought to answer the question, \\\"How can we create a system of peer review of teaching that provides high-quality feedback to faculty and encourages autonomy and growth?\\\" Our peer review of teaching system includes a website, with a brief introduction to the concept of peer review, as well as a series of customizable forms that allows faculty and peer reviewers to choose items for observation and feedback based on teaching setting. This system, called the Peer Review Form Builder (PRFB), combines interactive technology with evidence-based faculty development and is innovative in structure and scope. On the macro level, departments and programs have seen success with the tool by engendering conversations on the values and effectiveness of teaching and education efforts. This systematic, tailored system of peer review of teaching has advanced the stature, quality, and innovation within all aspects of teaching throughout the institution. Further, we have incorporated these values into promotion and tenure documents, by encouraging consistent, systematic peer review as a primary source of evidence to demonstrate teaching effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"750-760\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-024-10043-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-024-10043-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着学术医学中心在晋升过程中不再将学生对教学的评分作为教学质量的证明,印第安纳大学医学院试图创建一个同行评议教学系统。我们于 2010 年创建了这一系统,并从那时起开始不断改进质量。在这些努力中,我们试图回答这样一个问题:"我们如何才能创建一个同行评议教学制度,为教师提供高质量的反馈,并鼓励自主和成长?我们的同行评议教学系统包括一个网站,上面简要介绍了同行评议的概念,以及一系列可定制的表格,允许教师和同行评议者根据教学环境选择观察和反馈项目。这个名为同行评议表生成器(PRFB)的系统将互动技术与循证教师发展相结合,在结构和范围上都具有创新性。在宏观层面上,各院系和项目已经成功使用了这一工具,就教学和教育工作的价值和有效性展开了讨论。这种系统化的、量身定制的同行评议系统提高了全校各方面教学的地位、质量和创新性。此外,我们还将这些价值观纳入了晋升和终身教职文件,鼓励将一致、系统的同行评审作为证明教学效果的主要证据来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Faculty Growth Perspective on Peer Review of Teaching: An Institution-Wide, Customizable Approach to Peer Review.

As academic medical centers have moved away from using learner ratings of instruction as a demonstration of quality teaching in the promotion process, Indiana University School of Medicine sought to create a peer review of teaching system. We created our system in 2010 and have engaged in continuous quality improvement since. In these efforts, we sought to answer the question, "How can we create a system of peer review of teaching that provides high-quality feedback to faculty and encourages autonomy and growth?" Our peer review of teaching system includes a website, with a brief introduction to the concept of peer review, as well as a series of customizable forms that allows faculty and peer reviewers to choose items for observation and feedback based on teaching setting. This system, called the Peer Review Form Builder (PRFB), combines interactive technology with evidence-based faculty development and is innovative in structure and scope. On the macro level, departments and programs have seen success with the tool by engendering conversations on the values and effectiveness of teaching and education efforts. This systematic, tailored system of peer review of teaching has advanced the stature, quality, and innovation within all aspects of teaching throughout the institution. Further, we have incorporated these values into promotion and tenure documents, by encouraging consistent, systematic peer review as a primary source of evidence to demonstrate teaching effectiveness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers related to all areas of the science and practice of psychologists in medical settings. Manuscripts are chosen that have a broad appeal across psychology as well as other health care disciplines, reflecting varying backgrounds, interests, and specializations. The journal publishes original research, treatment outcome trials, meta-analyses, literature reviews, conceptual papers, brief scientific reports, and scholarly case studies. Papers accepted address clinical matters in medical settings; integrated care; health disparities; education and training of the future psychology workforce; interdisciplinary collaboration, training, and professionalism; licensing, credentialing, and privileging in hospital practice; research and practice ethics; professional development of psychologists in academic health centers; professional practice matters in medical settings; and cultural, economic, political, regulatory, and systems factors in health care. In summary, the journal provides a forum for papers predicted to have significant theoretical or practical importance for the application of psychology in medical settings.
期刊最新文献
Understanding the Landscape of Consultation Liaison Psychologists in Academic Medical Centers. The Medical Writing Center Model in an Academic Teaching Hospital. Psychology Recognition Week: A Blueprint for Recognizing and Promoting the Contributions of Psychology at Academic Health Centers. Leaders' Perspectives on Approaches and Challenges in Enacting Faculty Vitality in the Contemporary Landscape of Academic Medicine: A Deductive Thematic Analysis. A Faculty-Centered Career Consultation Service in an Academic Health Sciences Center: Five Years of Presenting Problems, Demographics, and Recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1