Resolutions Committee: Todd Brown, Chair
Committee Members:
Gina Carbonara (West Virginia)
Dan Hansen (SDSU)
Faruk Khan (SW Oklahoma State)
Day Marice Scott (Palm Beach Atlantic)
The Resolutions Committee did not receive any resolutions for consideration. The following recommendations were submitted by the committee.
The committee should:
send an email message to all Council of Faculties members requesting resolutions each January, August, and October;
send an email message to faculty delegates in each school asking them to stimulate resolutions from their institution each October and February;
provide a link to the AACP website that contains general information about the resolution process, as well as a template to assist individuals in constructing a resolution;
internally assign a member of the committee to each incoming resolution to ensure it is disseminated to AACP Officers and staff and others as appropriate for feedback and review;
develop instructions and policies to facilitate the use of the AACP Message Board to allow for a review and discussion of proposed resolutions prior to the Annual Meeting.
Committee Members:
Gayle Brazeau (Buffalo)
Michelle Kalis (MCPHS)
Kem Krueger (Wyoming)
The committee completed its charge of recruiting and selecting candidates for Chair-elect of the Council of Faculties. The committee distributed the call for nominations as widely as possible through use of the COF listserv, the AACP E-Lert Newsletter, by contacting the leadership of all sections and SIGs for distribution within their respective units, and reaching out to colleagues informally. After a thorough review and vetting process of an excellent field of candidates, the following individuals have been slated:
Virginia (Ginger) G. Scott (West Virginia)
Robert P. Soltis (Drake)
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEECommittee Members:
Amy Broeseker, Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy
Catherine Hatfield, University of Houston College of Pharmacy
Cynthia Kirkwood, Virginia Commonwealth University
Donald Kishi, University of California, San Francisco School of Pharmacy
James Kuperberg, College of Pharmacy, Touro - California
Manas Mandal, University of Southern Nevada College of Pharmacy
Susan Staggs, University of Iowa College of Pharmacy
The committee met via teleconference six times.
Charge 1.Address how faculty can best be familiarized with the accreditation standards and how they can contribute to overall assessment activities in order to improve the educational process as well as meet accreditation standards.
Recommendation 1.Schools and colleges focus on enhancing the knowledge of faculty members on the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education's (ACPE) Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for the Professional Program in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree.
Recommendation 2.AACP commission an organization external to pharmacy education and pharmacy accreditation to evaluate and determine whether the quality and scope of pharmacy education adequately prepares pharmacy students to practice in the 21st century.
Charge 2.Identify and evaluate means by which compensation/salaries can be improved to reward existing faculty and recruit new faculty.
Recommendation 3.AACP survey the faculty or add questions to the existing AACP's faculty survey to determine the non-monetary needs of the faculty based on age, faculty rank and title—as well as reasons for both entering and leaving academia.
Recommendation 4.AACP compile the reasons why faculty currently leave academia or move to another academic institution.
Charge 3.Explore the issue regarding the availability of experiential sites and suggest what can be done to ensure that adequate quality sites are available.
Recommendation 4.AACP compile the reasons why faculty currently leave academia or move to another academic institution.
Recommendation 5.AACP convene a task force to develop standardization for introductory and advanced pharmacy practice sites which may include expectations of experiential sites and preceptors, students and preceptor evaluation tools, expected outcomes for both IPPE and APPE, and site development visits.
COD/COF TASK FORCE ON FACULTY WORKFORCECommittee Members:
Lunawati Bennett (Palm Beach Atlantic)
Dan Brazeau (SUNY-Buffalo)
Jean Carter (Montanta)
Naushad Ghilzai (LECOM)
Anandi Law (Western)
Jeanne Van Tyle (Butler)
Robin Zavod (Midwestern)
Gary Matzke (Virginia Commonwealth, COF Chair-Elect, ex-officio)
Mehdi Boroujerdi (Albany)
Kathy Knapp (Touro)
Shane Desselle (Oklahoma),
Charge 1.Prioritize the resources presented in the July 2008 report based on needs and feasibility. We will discuss the items outlined from the 2008 Annual Report and will prioritize on those items that need further delineation and those that should be made available on the AACP web site for use by all Colleges and Schools.
The committee recommends that the AACP web page on faculty recruitment and retention should be expanded with the resources identified in the Task Force Report from 2007-2008. The Task Force has identified priority areas and have forwarded these to the appropriate AACP staff.
Charge 2.Discuss the evolving employment situation and determine if there are any issues that directly impact the recruitment and retention of faculty.
The task force recommends that 1) AACP must recommend to the Pharmacy Manpower Project, Inc. to expand their data collection to include pharmacy faculty manpower and other emerging career fields and 2) AACP should encourage and support research to evaluate issues of pharmacy faculty climate.
TASK FORCE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF TEACHING EXCELLENCECommittee Members:
Alicia Bouldin, PhD, University of Mississippi
Freddy Creekmore, PharmD, East Tennessee State University
Melissa Medina, EdD, University of Oklahoma,
Peggy Piascik, PhD, University of Kentucky
Amy Pittenger, PharmD, University of Minnesota
Renee Rose, PharmD, University of Florida
Lindsay Schwarz, PhD, University of Houston
Steven Scott, PharmD, Purdue University
Robert Soltis, PhD, Drake University
The charges were to:
Identify methods for faculty development and encouragement of the Scholarship of Assessment, Learning and Teaching (SALT).
Identify and collect “Best Practices” of methods to assess teaching excellence, recommend means by which teaching excellence can be acknowledged and rewarded by the college/school and university.
Share the task force findings and recommendations via a manuscript or resource tool kit.
The task force has accumulated a great deal of information which will be available in a White Paper that is ready for submission. The task force stated that it is important to recognize teaching excellence for the goals of improved student learning and faculty retention. It is also necessary to create valid and reliable methods by which to judge and recognize teaching excellence.
This executive summary of a more comprehensive white paper (to be submitted to AJPE) serves not only as a final report of this task force, but also as a call to action for schools and colleges of pharmacy to enhance their faculty development efforts in the area of teaching, and review their teaching award criteria and practices with an aim toward greater emphasis, clarity and evidence-based models. The white paper explores the concept of teaching excellence, provides an extensive background on teaching awards, addresses each of the charges, and concludes with recommendations and next steps for the academy to continue this important work.
Although there is no one definition of teaching excellence, the task force collected information and references regarding characteristics that define teaching excellence and developed a list of these attributes. These include positive student-faculty contact, effective active learning, achievable expectations, respects diverse talents and ways of learning, effective communication skills, and commitment to teaching well.
The task force also collected information regarding teaching awards and determined that there is a common assumption that teaching awards foster a commitment to teaching improvement. But such is not necessarily the case. The task force determined what other incentives exist and the impact/perception regarding teaching awards. They further addressed faculty development and the scholarship of assessment, learning and teaching. In addition, ideas of how to develop faculty into excellent teachers by becoming a scholarly teacher were explored. The distinction between scholarly teaching, the scholarship of teaching, and educational research, and training and mentoring needed for faculty to develop in these areas was discussed. The task force also identified challenges and barriers to this development, and suggested methods by which this work can be recognized.
The task force further explored how teaching excellence should be assessed and determined that there are 3 primary categories of sources of evidence/data used to measure teaching excellence (1) students/learners and alumni, (2) peers, administrators, and/or instructional specialists, and (3) the teacher him/herself in the form of self-assessment and reflection. A teaching portfolio can serve as the data repository about one's teaching. The task force summarized these sources and provided recommendations for their use.
How teaching excellence should be acknowledged and rewarded was also a topic of discussion. The topics addressed included: (1) the purpose of the recognition; (2) the criteria for teaching excellence; (3) the source of the nominations and the final recognition; (4) determination process for selecting the winners; (5) the right number and mix of awards; (6) how often to give the awards; (7) the form of the actual award.
Recommendations were:
There should be an expectation that ALL teaching faculty engage in professional development to improve theirs and others' teaching, with an emphasis on a scholarly, collaborative approach
Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy should provide more than a single award to recognize teaching excellence
a. If providing a single award, however, the criteria should be comprehensive and multiple sources of data should be used in the selection process
b. If providing more than a single award, awards should be based on different criteria and employ different methods of selection
Criteria and selection process for the awards should be known to faculty
Criteria should ensure that many different faculty members over time are eligible for the awards
The selection process should include broad representation and valid methods of selection
The award itself should be significant and include multiple components
Committee Members:
Patrick Callery (West Virginia)
Chandrahar Dwivedi (SDSU)
Seher Khan (LECOM)
Russell Melchert (UAMS)
Robert Riggs (Samford)
Edward Roche (Nebraska)
Nathan Shanker (Oklahoma)
Mark Stratton (Oklahoma)
Martin Zdanowicz (South)
Two major charges were addressed: The Task Force was divided into two subcommittees (teams) to address each of the major charges.
1. Develop quantitative requirements for all pharmaceutical science courses.
This team utilized various sources of data to evaluate the Pharm.D. curriculum of a large number of schools and colleges. Collected data provided the following information regarding science content in colleges/schools of pharmacy.
23/56 (41%) Integrate medicinal chemistry, pharmacology and therapeutics
27/56 (48%) Integrate just medicinal chemistry and pharmacology
1/56 (2%) Integrate medicinal chemistry, pharmacology and pharmaceutics
It was not possible to determine contact hours devoted to each of the didactic content from the data collected, primarily because of the considerable number of integrated curriculums. However, it was possible to estimate the distribution of the major content headings:
Basic Biomedical Sciences = 21%
Pharmaceutical Sciences = 29%
Social and Administrative Sciences = 15%
Clinical Sciences = 35%
Therefore at this time the Team cannot make any recommendations as to the quantitative requirements for the individual pharmaceutical sciences. However the Team feels that the current levels form an adequate basis for the scientific foundation of the Pharm.D. curriculum but is concerned that any further decrease would effect the quality of the education.
2. Develop quantitative and qualitative measures related to the Standards on teaching.
The team was asked to look at the ACPE Institutional ratios of students/teachers for teaching (13:1) and research (10:1). The Team was asked to keep Standards Number 24 and 25 in mind as they deliberated on their charge to develop quality enhancement of faculty who teach in the basic biomedical, pharmaceutical and social and administrative sciences.
The team supports guideline 25.1 of the ACPE standard 25 and wants to emphasize the following quote from guideline 25.4: “Faculty, regardless of their discipline, must have or develop a conceptual understanding of current and proposed future pharmacy practice in a variety of settings. To assure understanding of the foundations of the curriculum and foster collaborative teaching and research, faculty should have a general awareness of the scholarship and research of their colleagues in the other academic disciplines”. It therefore follows that schools and colleges should establish faculty development programs aimed at bringing all faculty together to better understand their role in the education of our students. The team recommends AACP develop programming aimed at accomplishing this goal.
Submitted by Julie Szilagyi, June 17, 2009