Accelerating Educational Innovation in the MPH Degree Program: What Is the Role of Peer Review of Teaching?.

Purpose: The environment of public health practice is rapidly changing, creating the need to adapt graduate education and accelerate educational innovation. Formative peer review is a strategy designed to promote critical reflection on teaching and to develop faculty as teachers. Through case study methods, we explore how peer review of teaching may catalyze reflective practice and contribute to the redesign of public health education. Methods: We conducted a detailed contextual analysis of a peer review of teaching program implemented from 2011-2014 in a global health department with approximately 200 students and 26 teaching faculty. The case study used multiple data sources including peer review feedback reports, a survey of participating instructors and reviewers, and administrative data. Results: Faculty had favorable attitudes toward peer review, especially the opportunity to learn by observing others teach. Peer review reports confirmed existing good teaching practices and suggested ways to improve student engagement and develop teachers in ways which are aligned with MPH program redesign goals. Both peer reviewers and instructors reported benefiting from the process. Conclusions: Formative peer review may help to spread innovative teaching practices among faculty by providing opportunities for reflection, increasing motivation and confidence to adopt pedagogical changes, and strengthening teaching community. Increased knowledge of other teachers’ courses and social ties created through peer review can be resources in promoting MPH curriculum integration and collaboration across disciplines. Recommendations: Schools of public health should consider peer review of teaching as a pathway to promote greater student engagement and practice-based learning. In planning for peer review of teaching programs, leaders need to find ways to address time-related concerns and align the peer review process with other efforts to promote program redesign goals and strengthen teaching community. Journal of Health Education Teaching, 2015; 6(1): 43-56 Copyright: www.jhetonline.com All rights reserved Accelerating educational innovation in the MPH degree program Page 44 INTRODUCTION The curriculum for the Masters of Public Health (MPH) degree program is undergoing significant changes. In 2011, a task force of the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) studied the role of public health education for the 21 st century (Petersen & Weist, 2014). The task force emphasized the need to adapt education to a rapidly changing environment in public health practice and to accelerate educational innovation. The skills which students of public health need are interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and systems oriented (Frenk et al., 2010; MPH Expert Panel of the Framing the Future Task Force, 2014; Petersen & Weist, 2014). They reflect work-force competencies from the core disciplines of biostatistics, epidemiology, health policy and management, environmental health sciences, and social and behavioral sciences in addition to cross-cutting skills in communication, change management, informatics, political and cultural sensitivity, and leadership (Bernstein, Jonson, & Smith, 2000; McKee & Tew, 2013). The new focus on applied learning and integration was expected to require major changes in teaching (Frenk, Hunter, & Lapp, 2015). Research supports the assumption that the quality of teaching affects student learning, and continuous development of faculty as teachers is critically important to successful education redesign (Bernstein et al., 2000; Clayson, 2009; McKee & Tew, 2013; MPH Expert Panel of the Framing the Future Task Force, 2014). To achieve the goals proposed by the ASPPH task force, course design and teaching must change in ways that promote student engagement and practice-based learning to build competencies in public health, with more time devoted to applying skills such as data analysis or critical reasoning, and practicing communications and leadership (Brame, 2013; Frenk et al., 2015; Fulton, 2013; Herreid & Schiller, 2013). Yet to date, most of the literature on redesigning the MPH has focused on curriculum choices (what to teach) rather than teaching methods and professional development of teaching faculty (how to teach). Peer review of teaching (PRT) is one method of promoting professional development of teachers, encouraging reflective practice, and motivating faculty to teach from a different perspective (Thomas, Chie, Abraham, Raj, & Beh, 2014). PRT is defined as “informed colleague judgment about teaching for either fostering improvement or making personnel decisions” (Chism, 2007). Formative PRT programs are designed to develop faculty members’ self-awareness and provide teachers with information and an opportunity for critical reflection to improve their teaching practice, while evaluative PRT programs seek to compare teaching to standards to make judgments related to hiring, promotion, tenure, or salary review (Chism, 2007; Thomas et al., 2014). PRT can help teachers reflect on weaknesses and build on teaching strengths, select teaching methods that can best meet the goals for a course, develop more practice-based exercises and assessments, and integrate technology into the classroom (Carter, 2010; Kohut, Burnap, & Yon, 2010; Thomas et al., 2014; Yon, Burnap, & Kohut, 2010). Faculty peers may be better qualified than students to assess the appropriateness of course objectives, quality of course content, whether important points are being emphasized, and the aptness of examples used in class (Courneya, Pratt, & Collins, 2008; d'Eon, Overgaard, & Harding, 2000; Nelson, 1998). The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health includes peer review of teaching as a component of their new educational agenda, suggesting that it can be a vehicle to adapt the values of collaborative, team-based research to the teaching enterprise (Frenk et al., 2015). Yet, little is known about the application of peer review of teaching in the context of MPH education. Implementation of PRT programs in other disciplines has proven challenging because the goals and format must be adapted to institutional context, including the department’s mission, values, student demographics, resources, and faculty disciplines (Chism, 2007; Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000). Other obstacles or barriers to successful program operation include fear on the part of the instructor being reviewed, uncertainty about what to review, resistance to innovation that involves participants doing more work, and implementation factors such as how reviewers are chosen, power differentials, and the amount of guidance or flexibility built into the process (Costello, Pateman, Pusey, & Longshaw, 2001; Courneya et al., 2008; Frenk et al., 2010; Kell & Annetts, 2012; Thomas et al., 2014). We examine issues encountered in using PRT to help faculty in one department reflect on teaching practice, and explore what role PRT might play in accelerating educational innovation Journal of Health Education Teaching, 2015; 6(1): 43-56 Copyright: www.jhetonline.com All rights reserved Accelerating educational innovation in the MPH degree program Page 45 in MPH programs across departments and schools of public health.