Navigation

Pre Pharmacy Schools

The purpose of this study was to gather data from U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy (SCOPs) in order to describe policies and procedures used in the operation of teaching award and recognition programs. Specific objectives were: to identify changes over the past ten years, to provide suggested "best practices," and to encourage individual program review. A mail questionnaire was sent to a designated contact at every SCOP in April 2001. Multiple reminders were used in the month of May resulting in a 96 percent response rate with 79/82 institutions providing data. Seventy (89 percent) of the institutions bestow at least one teaching award per academic year. Selection policies and procedures, award types and numbers bestowed, and criteria used are highly variable across SCOPs. Institutions should review their policies and procedures based on the criteria and "best practices" presented.

INTRODUCTION

It has been nearly ten years since Smith gathered the data resulting in the article, "Selecting and Rewarding Best Teachers in U.S. Schools of Pharmacy"(1). However, much has transpired in the recent years regarding the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching awards have previously been labeled popularity contests(l), an exercise in public relations, rather than a means to encourage better teaching(2), or in the worst case scenario, the kiss of death to an academic career(3). The latter a potential result of competing priorities, resource considerations, and the relative value of teaching versus research productivity. If these are indeed the case, what can we do to address these concerns? Yet, others have pronounced that good programs do exist to recognize teaching excellence. Characteristics of these programs include: a match with institutional mission and values, grounding in research-based competencies and practices, consideration for a wide-range of instructional settings and approaches, reward for both collaborative and individual achievements, self-reflection aspects, a pay-back from award recipients in contributing to others' development - such as serving on future selection committees or providing mentoring to colleagues, and being open to scrutiny and change(4). Menges contends that an effective teaching awards program will pass three tests(5). The tests and associated dimensions include: (i) selection validity test - accurate selection and representativeness; (ii) faculty motivation test ensuring incentive value and evidence of increasing motivation; and (iii) test of public perceptions.

In passing these three tests, programs should be able to avoid five frequently encountered problems. The first problem speaks to selection procedures - which can be addressed by having stipulated criteria and formalized selection procedures established and making them explicit and public. The second concern is the popularity contest phenomenon. Tradeoffs must be made regarding how student input is used. That is, teaching is more than classroom performance and number of students taught. Procedures should consider the totality of the teaching enterprise including preparation, risk-taking, and the variety of settings in which teaching and learning take place. Thirdly, competition versus collaboration is a natural outgrowth of individual awards as is a win/lose requirement. Ways must be sought in which collaboration as well as competition can be rewarded. A fourth problem considers the questionable incentives surrounding most teaching award programs; that is, in order for teaching awards to actually encourage faculty to value and improve teaching, they must be future oriented, be perceived as highly valuable, be somewhat difficult to attain, yet realistically available. Finally, consideration must be given to special awards replacing continuing awards; for example, approaches such as adjustments to base salary rather than a one-time cash award.

Having a teaching awards program may allow some institutions to possess a false sense of security regarding how it values and rewards teaching. Or as Menges(5) says, "an awards program does not excuse institutions from weighing teaching appropriately in the faculty reward system." In a national survey of U.S. and Canadian medical schools, it was found that teaching skills were the most important aspect of clinician-educators' performance when making promotion and tenure decisions; with teaching awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio the four most important methods for evaluating teaching(6). Wynn stated that it was important to recognize good teaching in order to provide a basis for the motivation to improve both teaching performance and the associated curricular materials to result in positive student outcomes(7). Guidance exists for how to improve teaching award programs and for how to create additional incentives in support and recognition of exemplary teaching(8). Suggestions for improvement center on the selection process, sources of data in the selection process, and the need to provide more and varied recognition. Categories for creating additional incentives include increasing the number of awards, creating teaching communities, developing an academy of distinguished educators, publicizing accomplishments of exemplary teachers, and providing additional resources in support of innovative teaching.

The membership, organizational affiliation and structure, and goals and activities were profiled for a convenience sample of teaching academies(9). A teaching academy was defined as "a group of faculty who are considered excellent or highly interested in teaching and who have been tapped by their institutions to engage in advocacy, service, or advising on teaching matters." A common goal across the institutions was the desire to foster excellence. It was concluded that teaching academies provide an effective as well as powerful means to improve teaching.

In a study conducted in 2000, Chism and Bender analyzed criteria used in teaching awards and the evidence required of candidates primarily at the campus level for programs that had teaching development programs detailed on the World Wide Web (WWW)(10). They were shocked to find that for half of the awards in their sample, there were no associated criteria or only a global statement regarding the association of the award with teaching excellence. As well, eligibility requirements may have been listed as "criteria" and yet, these factors do not denote teaching excellence. Chism and Bender found that some programs implied that it was obvious what constituted excellent teaching and thus it was unnecessary to provide criteria while some named criteria in almost an apologetic fashion. However, there were programs that did specify criteria and some directed candidates to links on a web page or references to institution-specific documents. The most commonly listed criteria were: content expertise, communication skills, high standards, clear goals, enthusiasm, organization, strategies for student engagement, and focus on higher order thinking skills. For those programs that did seek specific forms of evidence to bestow awards, a variety of forms were sought (see Table I). Based on their findings, Chism and Bender recommended the following: be explicit about criteria, tie evidence to criteria, use an overall system of documentation of teaching performance at the institution, use a scholarly approach to teaching awards, and use both the criteria and evidence to direct efforts toward institutional goals, such as the documentation of teaching(10).

The purpose of this study was to assess and summarize teaching award and recognition programs in the nation's schools and colleges of pharmacy (SCOPs). Specific objectives were to: (i) identify changes over the past ten years; (ii) provide suggested "best practices" based on the literature and the collective wisdom of respondents; and (iii) encourage institutions to review their own programs.

METHODS

A 12-item questionnaire was mailed to a designated contact at every SCOP. The institutions, names and addresses were obtained from the 2000-2001 Roster of Faculty and Professional Staff published by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP). Pre-contact occurred with some institutions to identify the best potential recipient of the instrument. The Human Subjects Committee Chairman deemed the project exempt from review.

The instrument contained three analogous items to those included in a previous survey of SCOPs(1) and nine additional items. The questionnaire consisted of forced choice, fill-in, and open-ended items. The instrument was assessed for the four sources of error common to survey research(11). Coverage and sampling error were controlled for by striving for a census rather than a sample and thus included the entire population (or nearly so) of institutions. Measurement error was addressed through pre-testing the instrument. As well, the factual versus attitudinal nature of the items requested, should result in higher reliability and validity. Non-response error was addressed by using multiple reminders.

The mailing was sent via first-class mail on April 11, 2001. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and asked subjects to send additional materials such as award announcements, call for nominations, policies, procedures, criteria, and the like, that would augment data collection. A selfaddressed, postage-metered envelope was also enclosed with the instrument. Telephone and e-mail reminders were used in the month of May. In some cases, replacement instruments were faxed to program contacts.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (96 percent) of the 82 SCOPs responded to the request to provide data. Seventy (89 percent) of the institutions bestow at least one teaching award per academic year. Six of the nine schools with no teaching awards program are currently investigating the possibility of implementing such a program for reasons including: program assessment planning identified this need, faculty and students would like to recognize faculty who are outstanding teachers, the school is looking for guidance in developing objective criteria for selection of recipients, the school is awaiting approval from the university, and the desire to recognize teaching excellence as a scholarly endeavor. Three institutions have no plans to institute a teaching award program with several mentioning the fear of creating a competitive system to recognize faculty and/or the lack of objective criteria available thus potentially resulting in the "popularity contest" phenomenon. One respondent indicated in the comments section that, "many of the faculty believe this to be a personality contest without much thought given to the process." One institution reported that no awards were presented during the 2000-2001 academic year in that the four awards that had been bestowed for the past 25 years were under review and several others indicated that selection processes were being modified.

Approximately half of the institutions use no explicitly stated criteria in the selection process with honorees being selected by student vote using a ballot containing a list of faculty names. Another one-third list the desired qualities in recipients- varying from a sentence to 19 questions posed for consideration. Several categories were prevalent including presentation skills, preparation, enthusiasm, content expertise, strategies for student engagement, and concern for students. Some unique considerations were impact on students, innovation, professionalism, and commitment to the organization. See Appendix A for categories/criteria used. One institution is attempting to incorporate the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education(12) in the selection criteria. That is, students are asked to consider whether teachers encouraged cooperation among students, encouraged active learning, gave prompt feedback, communicated high expectations, and respected different learning styles and talents in addition to dedication and accessibility. One school has the unique criterion of "improvement over previous years in evaluations" in the selection of the "Teacher of the Year."

Twenty percent of institutions reported that at least one award type required a portfolio submission, the majority of which had stipulated components and sections. These evidence-based awards disseminate specific guidelines and forms for completion to nominators, nominees, and/or applicants. Suggested items and formats for evidence-based awards are listed in Appendix B .

Selection procedures ranged from student vote with no formal nomination procedure to formal nominations required with the determination made by an official committee. When selection committees were used, they varied widely; from student council, faculty affairs committee, alumni, administrative management team, or some combination of these parties. One institution uses the College Curriculum Committee and another has a unique approach where the selection committee consists of the past three recipients (chaired by the one with the longest tenure on the committee), two students from the Dean's Advisory Council, and one graduate student. Past recipients were sometimes called upon to sit on selection committees and provide mentoring to others. In some instances student groups such as Academy of Students of Pharmacy, Student Council, Rho Chi, Phi Lambda Sigma, or professional fraternities conducted the nominations and elections.

The awards were typically bestowed at graduation convocation or an honor's convocation and ranged from the honor of being named; a certificate or plaque; miscellaneous gifts (e.g., marble apple, crystal clock, crystal vase, gift certificate, painting); money ($1,000 to $2,000) deposited in a discretionary account; participation in the hooding ceremony for graduates or speaking at commencement; an honorarium; travel support to attend the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Annual Meeting; or in many cases, a combination thereof Honoraria were bestowed by 30 institutions with amounts ranging from $300 to $5,000, with $1,000 the modal amount. One institution even provides marked parking places to its award recipients. About a third of the respondents bestow one award, another third give two to four awards, and the remaining third, five or more teaching awards per academic year. Limits on how often an individual may receive an award are imposed at 26 institutions with restrictions ranging from only being allowed to receive an award once to "sitting-out" from one to five years. Eleven schools have awards endowed and several more indicated plans to seek endowments. Benefactors were primarily alumni. Half of the institutions with awards' programs have permanent plaques commemorating past recipients.

Of the 64 institutions indicating that there are universitywide teaching awards for which pharmacy faculty are qualified, 55 have had faculty receive these honors. Some of these awards are based on all-around excellence; that is, teaching, research, and service. In some instances, the SCOP is guaranteed to have recipients each year whereas this is not the case in others. Collaborative achievements are recognized at one institution where a teaching team of the year award is provided in addition to teacher of the year, for each of the four years of the professional curriculum. One school reported that they had previously conducted a teaching portfolio competition several years ago and there were plans to re-institute this and other efforts related to the development of teaching skills. Although data were not specifically requested on teaching and learning grant initiatives, several respondents provided information in this regard as they viewed these as awards for teaching.

Sixteen institutions specifically described teaching awards for preceptors. Ten of these named one preceptor of the year, five named an institutional and a community preceptor of the year, and one selected four preceptors of the year based on geographic region. These awards typically consisted of a plaque and selection of the winner was usually by student vote. In some instances, an experiential program advisory committee named the recipient. It is unknown if other institutions provide teaching awards for preceptors but simply did not consider them a part of their teaching awards program and thus did not provide the information in this data collection. As well, some institutions specified the Roche Laboratories Inc. award for preceptors whereas others did not. The Professional Relations Department at Roche sends a letter to Deans at all SCOPs each spring and provides an engraved plaque for the "Preceptor of the Year" named by the school.

The most prevalent award title was "Teacher of the Year" with some variations such as Best Teacher of the Year, Instructor of the Year, Mentor of the Year, Outstanding Teacher, Outstanding Professor, TOPS (Teacher of Pharmacy School), Golden Mortar and Pestle Award, and the Golden Apple Award. These awards were generally determined by student vote. Some schools bestow one of these awards for the entire school or college, one per department, or one per professional year class each academic year. Award titles such as President's Award or Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching, Award for Excellence in Teaching, Distinguished Educator, or Awards named for alumni or former faculty members were almost always associated with a formal nomination procedure, selection committees, and evidence-based criteria. Unusual award names and types included: Student Enrichment Award - active with students outside classroom, Faculty Instructional Innovations, Developing Teacher - for teaching excellence demonstrated by a junior faculty member. One institution bestows four awards per year: Excellence in Classroom Teaching, Excellence in Individual Teaching, Excellence in Innovative Teaching, and Excellence in Service to Students.

Approximately one-quarter of the institutions have recognition programs in place to acknowledge a job well done - in this case teaching. These included spotlights in campus newsletters, school newsletters, bulletin board displays, web page articles, university teaching magazines, alumni bulletins, and recognition at President's town hall meeting. In one school, the Dean sends congratulatory letters to faculty receiving the highest ratings on instructor evaluations. One respondent replied that "in the process of answering this survey, I have found that our institution lacks recognition programs which could provide motivation and incentive for faculty." Two respondents indicated that there was not enough recognition and celebration of teaching award recipients.

Thirty-two SCOPs indicated that their faculty qualified for campus programs dedicated to both recognizing teaching excellence as well as continued development of teaching skills. Seemingly, some of the respondents were reporting on traditional faculty development opportunities, but some specifically described teaching academies and societies and master teacher programs. The Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) online Faculty Handbook describes the Board of Visitors Teaching Fellowships. As well VCU has "VCU Teaching," one of the first university teaching periodicals in the country. One school reported on a Health Sciences Campus Distinguished Educators Academy. The Academy was established to: (i) honor and reward excellence in teaching; (ii) recognize and enhance teaching at all levels; (iii) create a core of outstanding faculty who can inspire and enable other faculty; (iv) serve as an advisory group to the Chancellor; (v) organize seminars and workshops on teaching effectiveness; (vi) foster research on the scholarship of teaching and learning; (vii) advise the institution on teaching policies and practice; and (viii) serve as teaching mentors for new faculty members. The Academy has members from each college based on total numbers of faculty. The appointment is for three years and members receive $5,000/year extra pay. Reappointments are possible.

The inVISIBLE College is described on the Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning web page at the University of Wyoming (UW). Twenty-six university faculty members met regularly in the inaugural year to read and discuss a common set of books and articles and implement a teaching and learning inquiry. The group was assembled to create and maintain a high profile, inquiry-oriented faculty development program to foster the renewal of teaching and learning at department, program, and college levels. In a related initiative, the UW joined the American Association for Higher Education's Campus Conversations program (http://aahe.ital.utexas.edu). This web site provides reports regarding the conversations taking place at a wide variety of institutions. Several institutions reported interdisciplinary teaching fellow programs where fellows are selected based on an application procedure, are required to participate in a series of meetings throughout the year, and complete a project and present results. The Medical University of South Carolina Apple Tree Society has the mission statement "seeks to foster dialogue and activity related to the scholarship of health professions teaching through campus and national partnerships" (http://musc.edu/appletree). The society has five working groups to accomplish the following goals: expand the faculty development opportunities related to teaching on campus, initiate programs that recognize and enhance the value of teaching as a scholarly activity, explore and support innovative methods and technologies for teaching and learning, and promote professional development of current and future educators. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences has a Teaching Scholars Program with two scholars per year from the College of Pharmacy participating in a two-year development program, with didactic and developmental activities (http://www.uams.edu/teachingscholars/Homepage.htm).

DISCUSSION

It is difficult to contrast results with the Smith study, which had a 63 percent response rate, making it impossible to know the status of teaching awards at the non-respondent SCOPs at that time(l). Though four of the institutions that had no college/school level award ten years ago now do. Dossier consideration and use of other evidence-based criteria are now more prevalent in selecting award recipients, as is selection by committees and by procedures other than simple student vote. However, similar to what Chism and Bender found, about half the programs use no explicitly stated criteria and another one-third simply list desired qualities to consider in selecting awardees(10). Some simply state "excellence in teaching" whereas others go on to indicate how that excellence is discerned.

Teacher-of-the-Year awards where student ballot determined the recipient still constitutes the sole teaching award type in some institutions. However, in some SCOPs these awards are not even recognized and/or sanctioned by the administration. That is, they are controlled and bestowed by specific student groups in some instances. One college indicated that in addition to the official "Outstanding Professor" award ($1,500, plaque, designation as "Outstanding Professor in the College of Pharmacy) bestowed each year to one individual based on a competitive review of credentials, that each class picks a "favorite professor" - named at the annual Student Awards banquet, where the recipients receive a plaque. This last piece of information was seemingly provided as an after thought. This disparity among institutions causes confusion as to what a "teacher-of-the-year award" actually means. Therefore, based on local practices, administrators and faculty members may inappropriately evaluate the significance and importance of awards at other institutions. This could be important when serving as an external evaluator in promotion and tenure reviews or in reviewing applicants for faculty positions. Several institutions indicated that they were in the midst of reviewing their policies and procedures surrounding teaching awards and were seeking guidance in their review. How many institutions would "pass" the tests of: (i) selection validity; (ii) faculty motivation; and (iii) public perceptions when evaluating their programs?(5).

Teaching awards are instituted for three main reasons "institutions hope to symbolically acknowledge their support for teaching, recognize the accomplishments of excellent teachers, and encourage other faculty to achieve similar levels of performance in teaching"(10). Some institutions may specifically wish to incorporate the student voice in making these selections. Thus, the purposes may influence the method of selection. The effects of teaching awards "have not been rigorously assessed"(10). Yet it has been found that teaching academies improve education, thus if award winners "give back" in some way through teaching academies or some other form of mentoring activities, learning outcomes should improve as a result of award programs.

Institutions are not identified (unless materials were discerned from the WWW) as confidentiality was guaranteed to all respondents and in fact, specifically requested by some. It is unfortunate that some cannot be specifically recognized for their policies, procedures, and innovations. Perhaps their reward is the potential betterment of all programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Institutions should evaluate nomination procedures, criteria development and dissemination, selection procedures, award types, and numbers of awards available and apply the Menges' tests in order to avoid the five problems frequently encountered in teaching awards programs(5). Disclosure and openness regarding policies and procedures should reign. Criteria should relate to evidence such that awards are bestowed with thought. Input should be gathered from a variety of audiences including peers, administrators, students, and candidates themselves(8). If portfolio or other evidence-based approaches are not employed, at least formal nominations procedures should be entertained with criteria provided to potential nominators - versus simply circling names on ballots. Colleges and schools should also nominate their faculty members for universitylevel awards.

Best practices currently applied in SCOPs include: (i) the stipulation on nomination forms as to deadlines, award criteria, eligibility, selection process, and what the award consists of; (ii) established selection committees with diverse representation; (iii) a variety of awards for different kinds of teaching settings, activities, and audiences; (iv) recognition and celebration of teaching success; (v) support for innovation via funding; (vi) reward for collaborative and individual achievements; and (vii) formation of teaching academies.

When evaluating candidate dossiers for promotion and tenure, external reviewers should be made aware of policies and procedures surrounding teaching awards in order to appropriately value this type of recognition. The institution's system for documenting teaching activities and outcomes should inform the award programs and vice versa.

CONCLUSION

Teaching excellence should be recognized and rewarded. To do so requires thoughtful deliberations, creation and implementation of policies and procedures, and resources. Recognition and celebration of excellent teachers can and should elevate the teaching mission in educational institutions. It is hoped that the results of this study will enable those SCOPs without teaching award and recognition programs to initiate such programs and allow others to review and improve their current initiatives with the ultimate goal of exemplary teaching resulting in improved student and programmatic outcomes.

Acknowledgement. This project was conducted while the author was a Carnegie Scholar in the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie experience and support are gratefully acknowledged. I thank Cecilia M. Plaza, PharmD for her thoughtful and helpful review of the manuscript.

Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 66, 112-118(2002); received 1/18/02, accepted 4/25/02.

References

(1) Smith, M.C., "Selecting and rewarding best teachers in U.S. schools of pharmacy," J. Pharm. Teach., 4(2), 31-39(1994).

(2) Schwartz, C., "Is good teaching rewarded at Berkeley?" College Teach., 40(1), 33-36(1992).

(3) Aucott, J.N., Como, J. and Aron, D.C., "Teaching awards and departmental longevity: is award-winning teaching the "kiss of death" in an academic Department of Medicine?" Perspect. Biol. Med., 42(2), 280287(1999).

(4) Svinicki, M.D. and Menges, R.J., "Consistency within diversity: Guidelines for programs to honor exemplary teaching," in Honoring Exemplary Teaching, (edit., Svinicki, M.D. and Menges, R.J.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 65. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA (Spring 1996) pp. 109-113.

(5) Menges, R.J., "Awards to individuals," in Honoring Exemplary Teaching, (edit., Svinicki, M.D. and Menges, R.J.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 65. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA (Spring 1996) pp. 3-9.

(6) Beasley, BW., Wright, S.M., Cofrancesco, J., Babbott, S.F., Thomas, P.A., and Bass, E.B., "Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada," JAM, 278, 723-728(1997).

(7) Wynn, J.E., "The role of good teaching and its recognition in the academic setting: A personal perspective," Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 51, 186189(1987).

(8) Sorcinelli, M.D. and Davis, B.G. "Honoring exemplary teaching in research universities," in: Honoring Exemplary Teaching, (edit., Svinicki, M.D. and Menges, R.J.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 65. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA (Spring 1996) pp. 7176.

(9) Chism, N.VN., Fraser, J.M. and Arnold, R.L. "Teaching academies: Honoring and promoting teaching through a community of expertise," in: Honoring Exemplary Teaching, (edit., Svinicki, M.D. and Menges, R.J.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 65. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA (Spring 1996) pp. 25-32.

(10) Chism N and Bender E. "Teaching Awards: An Analysis of Criteria and Evidence" presented at the American Association for Higher Education 9th Annual Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards Conference, February 2, 2001.

(11) Salant, P. and Dillman, D.A. How to Conduct Your Own Survey, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York NY (1994).

(12) Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. "Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education," AAHE Bulletin, Mar. 1987, pp. 3-7.

JoLaine Reierson Draugalis

College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, PO Box 210207, Tucson AZ 85721-0207

Copyright American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Summer 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved