BackgroundPeer observation of Teaching involves observers providing descriptive feedback to their peers on learning and teaching practice as a means to improve quality of teaching. This study employed and assessed peer observation as a constructive, developmental process for members of a Pediatric Teaching Faculty.MethodsThis study describes how peer observation was implemented as part of a teaching faculty development program and how it was perceived by teachers. The PoT process was divided into 4 stages: pre-observation meeting, observation, post-observation feedback and reflection. Particular care was taken to ensure that teachers understood that the observation and feedback was a developmental and not an evaluative process. Twenty teachers had their teaching peer observed by trained Faculty members and gave an e-mail ‘sound-bite’ of their perceptions of the process. Teaching activities included lectures, problem-based learning, small group teaching, case-based teaching and ward-based teaching sessions.ResultsTeachers were given detailed verbal and written feedback based on the observer’s and students’ observations. Teachers’ perceptions were that PoT was useful and relevant to their teaching practice. Teachers valued receiving feedback and viewed PoT as an opportunity for insight and reflection. The process of PoT was viewed as non-threatening and teachers thought that PoT enhanced the quality of their teaching, promoted professional development and was critical for Faculty development.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that PoT can be used in a constructive way to improve course content and delivery, to support and encourage medical teachers, and to reinforce good teaching.

Few educational studies have investigated how well information learned by medical students is retained over time. The primary aim of this study was to investigate how much of the paediatric core curriculum undergraduates remembered a year after originally passing their paediatrics examination. In addition, we looked at whether students' repeat performance is related to their approach to learning. Medical students were presented with 8 out of a possible 46 core curriculum short answer questions (Mark 1). A year later these same students were re-tested, without prior warning, on the same 8 questions (Mark 2) and a further 8 questions (Mark 3) from the bank of 46. The participants also completed the Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire to characterise their approach to learning. After a year, students scores had diminished by 51.2 % (95 % CI 48.2-54.2 %, p < 0.0001) from a Mark 1 average of 89.1 % (standard deviation, SD = 9.2 %) to a Mark 2 average of 37.9 % (SD 6.1 %). Students who reported a superficial approach to learning achieved higher scores for mark 1 (4.1 % increase (95 % CI 0.9-7.4 %) per one standard deviation unit increase in Surface Approach score (p = 0.01)). Neither deep nor surface approach to learning significantly predicted performance a year later (Marks 2 and 3). Students had forgotten more than half of the paediatric core curricular content that they had previously proven that they knew for their summative assessment. Adopting either a deep or superficial approach to learning did not predict ability to retain this information a year later.