Positioning the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Squarely on the Center of the Desk

Developing a framework for promoting interest and engagement of scholarship of teaching and learning for medical students

BACKGROUND

The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is a field of academic research that focuses on improving learning through reflective and informed teaching. Currently, most SoTL-related work is faculty-driven; however, student involvement in SoTL has been shown to benefit both learners and educators. Our study aims to develop a framework for increasing medical students' interest, confidence, and engagement in SoTL.

METHODS

A student-led SoTL interest group was developed and a year-round program of SoTL was designed and delivered by student leaders of the group under the guidance of a faculty advisor. Individual post-session surveys were administered to evaluate participants' perceptions of each session. Pre- and post-program surveys were administered to evaluate the program impact.

RESULTS

The year-round SoTL program consistently attracted the participation of medical students and faculty. Survey responses indicated strong medical student interest in the program and positive impact of the program. Increased interest and confidence in medical education research were reported by the student participants. The program design provided opportunities for student participants to network and receive ongoing feedback about medical education research they were interested or involved in.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides insights for developing a framework that other institutions can reference and build upon to educate and engage students in SoTL.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders Journals: An Exploratory Survey of the Recent Literature

PURPOSE

Inspired by a preliminary survey of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) literature conducted by Friberg et al. (2014), the current study aimed to expand the original study's findings-that SoTL was rarely published in the communication sciences and disorders (CSD) literature from 2009 to 2013-to the subsequent 8-year period (2014-2021). The latter period was of particular relevance considering the dissolution of one American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)-affiliated publication and the addition of another non-ASHA-affiliated publication during that time.

METHOD

Ten peer-reviewed CSD journals and the articles published in them were identified via a survey of the literature that used narrowly defined criteria developed in collaboration with a librarian. Five trained CSD graduate student raters compared a definition of SoTL to article abstracts to determine whether each should have been categorized as SoTL. Part 1 of the study investigated an 8-year time span, Part 2 investigated the remaining nine journals in the subsequent 5 years, and Part 3 investigated publication rates of SoTL in Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders (TLCSD) alone.

RESULTS

Part 1 of the study revealed that publication rates of SoTL were extremely low in the 10 surveyed CSD journals in the 8-year time span investigated. A similar and diminishing trend was found in Part 2. Even smaller percentages of journals were dedicated to SoTL. Part 3 confirmed that relatively large amounts of CSD-specific SoTL have been published in TLCSD since its inception in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

As of 2021, SoTL articles continued to be uncommonly published in CSD journals. Until recently, scholarly teachers attempting to apply SoTL in the classroom had limited resources. Beginning in 2017, TLCSD has provided an outlet for SoTL, whereas other CSD journals seem to have published less of it. Reform of publication, peer review, tenure, and promotion policies and procedures is called for so that SoTL might be included as a valid scientific endeavor.

What Types of Data are Pharmacy Education Scholars Using in their Abstracts for Poster Presentations?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the data being used to support poster presentations in pharmacy education scholarship.

METHODS

Research and education posters presented at the 2020 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Annual Meeting were unitized to isolate text to be coded, and two coders categorized the quantitative and qualitative data by type and source. Questionnaires, instruments, and exams were categorized as new (ie developed and used for this particular inquiry) vs. existing. Qualitative data types were categorized as interviews, focus groups, self-reflections, analysis of student work products (eg lab reports assessed for student understanding), comments (ie written or verbal comments), and other (eg course reports).

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixteen abstracts were included in the analysis, with 80 (37%) of abstracts relying on data derived from respondent's perceptions. Further, 143 abstracts (66%) used at least one new questionnaire, instrument, or exam. In 57% of the cases where multiple data sources were used, the study involved interprofessional education (eg multiple health professions learners) or pharmacy student-investigator combinations, and 28 abstracts (13%) did not use pharmacy students as a source. Less than 5% of all abstracts analyzed used traditional qualitative methods of interviews and focus groups.

CONCLUSION

This study can open conversations around how to improve the quality of pharmacy education research and the identification of areas within the scholarship of teaching and learning that may benefit from improvement.

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Promotion and Tenure Process for Experiential Education Faculty

OBJECTIVE

To understand the process of the promotion and tenure (P&T) as experienced by faculty members in experiential education (EE).

METHODS

A quantitative survey of EE faculty at any academic rank investigated the general landscape of experiences in P&T. Phenomenological qualitative interviews with faculty who currently work in EE and who achieved promotion to full professor while working within EE provided additional context. Analysis was completed using a mixed-methods approach. Incomplete survey responses were excluded.

RESULTS

Survey respondents indicated feeling different from other clinical faculty, particularly in the need to justify their work to the P&T committee (26/38; 68%). Respondents noted how challenging the P&T process was and perceived a lack of understanding of EE work among P&T committee members, chairs, and/or colleagues. In qualitative interviews, 3 themes emerged, which were characterizing a misunderstood role; navigating an unclear process with creativity and courage; and seeking outside-of-the-box mentoring.

CONCLUSION

Experiential education faculty may require specific guidance and a thoughtful approach in tailoring their dossier for the P&T process, especially in accounting for administrative work and other unique aspects of the role. To promote inclusivity and retention of EE faculty, greater understanding of the EE role is needed as it applies to guidelines for P&T. Furthermore, EE faculty and others with unique roles should receive guidance to meaningfully apply P&T guidelines in a manner that best represents their role.

The State of Pharmacoeconomics Education in the Doctor of Pharmacy Curriculum amid the Changing Face of Pharmacy Practice

(1) Background: Continuous growth in pharmaceutical expenditure indicates the need for more advanced pharmacoeconomics evaluations to optimize healthcare outcomes and resource allocation. This study assesses the extent to which accredited pharmacy colleges in the United States cover pharmacoeconomics content within the didactic curriculum of their Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) programs. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the websites of accredited professional-degree programs in pharmacy schools located in the United States to identify pertinent content related to pharmacoeconomics. (3) Results: Out of 141 pharmacy programs, a total of 111 programs of varying sizes were found to have publicly accessible information regarding the content of their pharmacoeconomic curricula on their websites. All these programs required the inclusion of pharmacoeconomics content in their curricula. An examination of course syllabi revealed that the goals and descriptions were broad, aiming to provide students with an introductory understanding of the principles of pharmacoeconomics. The number of credit hours allocated to pharmacoeconomics education ranged from one to seven across the programs. The approach to delivering pharmacoeconomics content varied among the programs. (4) Conclusions: Advanced knowledge of the principles of pharmacoeconomics must be an integral component of all PharmD curricula to prepare pharmacists to assess the rational use of pharmacy products and services, improve clinical outcomes, and mitigate healthcare expenditures.

Interrogating Our Views on the Impact of Education-Related Scholarship

From junior faculty members to seasoned full professors, pharmacy educators have likely all felt pressure to focus on peer-reviewed publication. Although publication is an important part of an academician's work, have we missed something critical by not focusing greater attention on a more inclusive conceptualization of education-related scholarship's impact? How can we describe the full impact of our education-related scholarship beyond traditional metrics (ie, publications, presentations, and grant funding) if the issue is not critically examined? With the growing expectations for scholarly teaching and interest in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in academic pharmacy in both the United States and Canada, this commentary examines and questions the current, often narrow, views on pharmacy educators' scholarly impact. In addition, it provides a new definition of education-related impact to encourage a more expansive view.

Scholarly maturation and other factors supporting publishing productivity in educational scholarship for clinical faculty

INTRODUCTION

In order to advance curricula and faculty career progression, it would be helpful to increase publishing success and productivity in educational scholarship. The objective of this study was to describe the key factors and strategies that contribute to publishing success and productivity in the publication of educational scholarship by clinical pharmacy faculty.

METHODS

Participants were identified from 2007 to 2016 PubMed and Science Direct publication records or by having received the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Emerging Teaching Scholars Award. Participants were required to have an active clinical practice and not have administrative positions or doctor of philosophy training. Qualitative data were gathered through dyadic and individual interviews and analyzed to identify core factors contributing to publishing success and productivity.

RESULTS

Nine clinical pharmacy faculty participated in dyadic or individual interviews, including seven associate professors and two professors. Participants' teaching and learning publications covered two to 13 topic areas, and participants had 20 to 70 unique co-authors. Five core factors and 17 strategies were identified as supporting publishing success and productivity in educational scholarship. The five factors included inputs/assets, the team, the project, the process, and scholarly maturation.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' responses confirm some conceptions, while also disputing common misconceptions that may discourage clinical faculty from pursuing educational scholarship. Fundamental research skill development is required in educational scholarship as in other scholarly areas. In addition, the roles of team building, receiving and providing mentorship, and the development of small significant networks merit further investigation as assets to productivity.

Analysis of Research and Scholarship Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents of US Pharmacy Schools

Objective. To describe criteria for evaluating faculty scholarship within the promotion and tenure guidance documents of US schools and colleges of pharmacy.Methods. Promotion and tenure documents were obtained from the websites of US pharmacy schools or requested via electronic mail, and institutional characteristics were collected from publicly available online data. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to systematically catalogue document characteristics and criteria for promotion and tenure.Results. Promotion and tenure guidance documents from 121 (85%) of 142 pharmacy schools were analyzed. Institutions were 55% public and equally distributed across Carnegie institutional classifications as well as geographic and extramural funding stratifications. Publications (94%) and grants and contracts (87%) were the most frequently included criteria for faculty advancement. More than 50% of schools recognized the criteria within promotion and tenure guidance documents but did not explicitly require faculty to achieve them before receiving promotion and/or tenure. For institutions that required publications for advancement, the most frequently required criterion was publication in peer-reviewed journals (47%). Few schools (22%) documented a specific number of required publications.Conclusion. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of scholarship criteria in academic pharmacy promotion and tenure guidance documents. There was wide variability among scholarship criteria, and documents often lacked specific language defining scholarship requirements. As a result, faculty may find the documents less helpful for self-assessment and preparation toward promotion and/or tenure. These benchmark data can assist pharmacy faculty and administrators in developing and revising promotion and tenure guidance documents to include clear criteria and better align with peer institutions.