For the past few months we have presented the Scholarly Teaching Series and highlighted various projects at the MN-COP as we discuss each step in the process. Today we are going to wrap up the series and review each of the eight steps in the process.
We launched the series by learning about the work Jean Moon has done with the project Peer Review of Clinical Teaching. She noted most of the feedback preceptors get is from student evaluations and sought an additional way for preceptors to provide formative feedback to their peers.
Step 2: Consult Literature
Next, Kerry Fierke shared how consulting the literature was integral to the work she and colleagues have been doing with Emotionally Intelligent Leadership. She explained that using the literature helped the team identify a model and instrument to use in the classroom.
Step 3: Choose and Apply an Intervention
A key step in the Scholarly Teaching process is choosing and applying an intervention. Shannon Reidt told us about an intervention selected for her Evidence Based Medicine work. The intervention, Education Rx, was chosen because was could be easily integrated into clinical practice and complements the other EBM activities in the curriculum.
Step 4: Conduct Systematic Observation
Next, Keri Hager shared how her team has conducted systematic observations in her Peer Teaching of Pharmaceutical Care work with first and second year pharmacy students. One of the pieces of data collected was audio recordings made by students. Pairs of students answered one of three questions describing the connections they see in the curriculum.
Step 5: Document Observations
Laura Palombi served as a faculty facilitator for an Evidence Based Medicine Peer Teaching activity. She describes that the act of documenting a teaching experience gave her an opportunity to think critically about her own teaching.
Step 6: Analyze Results
Analyzing results will look different for each scholarly project. For example, the Practice-Education Dialogue (PED-Rx) project described by Todd Sorensen had observations from students, pharmacist facilitators, and guest speakers, which were reviewed and analyzed to determine if any consensus emerged in the reactions from the various participants.
Step 7: Obtain Peer Evaluation
To exemplify the peer evaluation step, we reviewed the peer review process conducted following the completion of the first year Evidence Based Medicine sequence. The faculty peers in attendance discussed the process, results, resources used, and future evolution of the work.
Step 8: Check Results Against Baseline
The final step in the process was illustrated with Sarah Schweiss’ work with the Diabetes Attitude Scale. She compared the views of students’ who took a diabetes elective and those who only received diabetes education in the core curriculum. Her team used this information to modify the diabetes content in new therapy courses.
The Connection to Your Work
Regardless of how far a scholarly project has progressed, the figure above can help you to evaluate your work. With a particular project in mind, consider giving a grade (A-F) for each step. You may find that some steps are weaker than others, providing insights for future iterations or identifying areas where you may want more consultation. In addition, some steps might be still be before you, needing to be completed at some point in the future. This evaluation may help to strengthen that future work.
You’ll notice in the figure above, the Scholarly Teaching Process leads to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL), which involves writing up and sharing your scholarly work as a publication or conference presentation. SOTL has its own multi-step process and more can be found in the Richlin (2001) article cited below.
Stay tuned for our next series on Collaborations coming this spring!
As always, feel free to contact the Wulling Center for assistance in any stage of your scholarly work.
Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2001(86), 57–68.