Deborah A. Sturpe

Readiness for self-directed learning and academic performance in an abilities laboratory course.

Objective. To assess the relationship between readiness for self-directed learning, academic performance on self-directed learning activities, and resources used to prepare for an abilities laboratory course. Methods. The Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) was administered to first-year (P1) doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) candidates at the University of Maryland. Additional data collected included final course grades, quiz scores, resources used to prepare for laboratory activities, and demographics. Results. The mean SDLRS score was 148.6 ± 13.8. Sixty-eight students (44%) scored > 150, indicating a high readiness for self-directed learning. These students were more likely to complete assignments before the laboratory, meet in study groups, and report postgraduation plans to enter noncommunity pharmacy. No significant association was found between academic performance and the SDLRS. Conclusions. Readiness for self-directed learning is associated with self-directed learning habits, but may not be necessary for learning foundational knowledge, provided students are given specific instructions on what to study. Whether high readiness for self-directed learning is necessary for more complex learning or for self-identification of learning needs is unknown.

A Primer for Objective Structured Teaching Exercises

The objective structured teaching exercise (OSTE) is a high-fidelity training method for advancing the teaching and interpersonal communication skills of faculty members and preceptors. This paper is a primer for implementation of OSTEs as part of a comprehensive faculty development program. This primer addresses teaching and precepting skills that can be most effectively enhanced and assessed by the OSTE method. Development of case scenarios, recruitment and training of standardized students, OSTE session implementation processes, and OSTE evaluation methods are discussed. The experience of the authors as well as recommendations from a review of the literature and discussions with educators with OSTE experience are included.

Prevalence of and Factors That Influence Board Certification Among Pharmacy Practice Faculty at United States Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

Board certification is a means of demonstrating expertise above the minimum licensing standards. For many health care professionals, this credential is a necessity. As pharmacists become involved in more advanced patient care services, board certification becomes an essential component to ensuring quality care. The prevalence of United States pharmacy practice faculty members who are board certified, however, is unknown. In addition, to our knowledge, factors that serve to motivate or discourage faculty from obtaining board certification have not been previously described; thus, 900 pharmacy practice faculty members listed in the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) online directory were invited to complete an online survey regarding motivators and barriers for board certification. In addition, a list of board‐certified pharmacists, obtained from the Board of Pharmacy Specialties, was used to check the board certification status of all pharmacy practice faculty members listed in the AACP directory. In 2011, the prevalence of board certification among the 2867 pharmacy practice faculty members was 37% (1063 pharmacists), with the highest prevalence found among assistant professors (39.4%). A total of 322 faculty members (36% response rate) completed the survey; of these, 308 self‐identified as pharmacy practice faculty, and their responses were included in the analysis. Current board certification in pharmacy specialties was reported by 163 respondents (52.9%); 14 (4.5%) were previously certified. Among the 308 respondents, the most common perceived reason why pharmacy practice faculty become board certified was the desire to be recognized as an expert in the field (71.5%). Those who were currently board certified indicated personal growth as the most important reason (60.1%). Those previously certified indicated no perceived benefit as the most common reason for not recertifying (71.4%). Among those never certified, no perceived need (52.0%) or benefit (44.8%) were the most common reasons for not becoming certified; however, a majority of those never certified (68%) stated that they would become board certified if there was no associated cost and they were confident they would pass. To increase the prevalence of board certification in pharmacy practice faculty at U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy, the benefits of this credential must be addressed at each institution. Steps should be taken to assist and encourage board certification.

Regarding Use of Objective Structured Teaching Exercises (OSTE) for Summative Evaluations (Authors' Response).

To the Editor: We read with interest the comments regarding use of objective structured teaching exercises (OSTE) for summative evaluations made by Drs. Peeters, Kelly, and Cor.1 We hope that readers ultimately view OSTE as a tool best reserved for formative skill development as opposed to summative evaluation. However, we agree that should OSTE be used for a true “high stakes” summative evaluation of preceptor or faculty teaching performance, then careful attention during OSTE development to minimize construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance must be made.2 It should be noted, however, that Quirk et al did demonstrate a generalizability coefficient nearing the ideal of 0.70-0.80 in a 5-station OSTE that utilized a single rater per station3—a number of stations far fewer than the 14-18 stations recommended for achieving similar generalizability coefficients in high-stakes objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE).4 This difference may perhaps be attributed to a narrower scope of focus of their OSTE compared to high-stakes OSCEs. We feel it is unlikely that an OSTE would be used as the sole determinant of teaching effectiveness in decisions regarding promotion and tenure, the only true “high stakes” endpoint for most faculty members and preceptors. We intended to promote “summative” OSTE as a method for identifying those with weaker teaching skills who require further development and/or as an evaluation component of other faculty development efforts. In both situations, an OSTE with a small sampling of stations that focus on a single teaching skillset (eg, addressing lapses in student behavior) would likely suffice. We also encourage investigators with interest in the method to continue to grow the body of literature that identifies the optimal number of OSTE stations appropriate to its intended use.