ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2024
A Faculty Growth Perspective on Peer Review of Teaching: An Institution-Wide, Customizable Approach to Peer Review.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39305401What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.