Elsevier

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning

Research

Peer review of the curriculum as a continuous process of improvement

Abstract

Background

Peer review has always been an important part of the scientific process. As academicians, it is important that we bring the same level of rigor to review of the curriculum. Within our institution, we began this process in an effort to ensure quality in a team-taught integrated curriculum.

Objective

It is the goal of this manuscript to share the peer review process developed for our institution as a continuous improvement process for the curriculum. Second, we include preliminary results on the first cycle of reviews of our curriculum.

Methods

A five-phase process was developed to allow involvement of the entire faculty and allow student input in the review process. Courses are evaluated for their teaching and learning, content, assessment, and evaluation.

Results

Throughout the initial three-year review cycle, 21 courses were reviewed using the criteria. The results of those reviews are presented.

Conclusions

This innovative approach to peer review of courses has been an important step to implementing an integrated curriculum within our institution. A continual process of review that integrates stakeholders and the relevant members of the faculty should allow for maintenance of a high standard of curricular outcomes.

Section snippets

Objective

Course and curricular reviews are an important component of the peer review system in institutions of higher learning to ensure the most up-to-date content is being taught at an appropriate level for student progression, using appropriate pedagogical methods. It is the goal of this manuscript to share the peer review process developed at our institution as a continuous improvement process for the curriculum. Secondarily we include preliminary results on the first cycle of reviews of our

Methods

In 2004, the faculty of our institution engaged in a total curricular revision beginning with adoption of ability-based curricular outcomes and continuing with implementation of a new curriculum, based on course tracks (Fig. 1). This change was initiated by the move to a three-year prepharmacy curriculum and several subsequent adjustments in the first two years of the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum. The first class of students enrolled in this curriculum in the fall of 2005. The curriculum was

Peer review of courses

Reviews of courses are conducted on a three-year rotating cycle and are assigned to three subcommittees of the Curriculum Committee. On a semiannual basis, the Curriculum Committee outlines the master calendar of reviews for the year. It is then the responsibility of the individual subcommittees to schedule and conduct the reviews before the next offering of the course.

A five-phase process for conducting course reviews was developed by the committee. Initially, in the "pre-preview phase," a

Discussion

The committee has encountered several barriers in the facilitation of this process. Despite the fact that the review process was approved by the entire faculty in 2006, new faculty members join yearly. As part of new faculty orientation at our institution, there is a review of the curriculum as well as the course peer review each fall. However, unless new faculty participate in a course review early in their tenure at the school, they are not engaged in the process and it often remains

Conclusion and steps for the future

This innovative approach to peer review of courses has been an important step to implementing an integrated curriculum within our institution. A continual process of review that integrates stakeholders and the relevant members of the faculty should allow for maintenance of a high standard of curricular outcomes. The described procedure for course reviews meets several of the criteria outlined in ACPE Guideline 15.2, including being data-driven, achievement of the desired competencies and

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members of the Curriculum Committee (Professional Education Committee) for their contributions to the production of this manuscript.

Cited by (3)

View full text

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.