educational scholarship과 관련된 근거와 요소를 정의하여 교육자와 교육 발전시키기(Q2Engage) (Med Educ, 2007)

educational scholarship과 관련된 근거와 요소를 정의하여 교육자와 교육 발전시키기(Q2Engage) (Med Educ, 2007)

Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship

Deborah Simpson,1 Ruth-Marie E Fincher,2 Janet P Hafler,3 David M Irby,4 Boyd F Richards,5

Gary C Rosenfeld6 & Thomas R Viggiano7

도입

INTRODUCTION

1990년대 초반, academic medicine 에서는 '승진'에 있어서 education/teaching/scholarship 등의 용어를 거의 쓰지 않았다. teaching은 승진에 있어서 필수(조건)이었지만 충분조건은 아니었다. teaching에 대한 이러한 관점이 대학의학을 지배하였고, 이는 특히 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 에서 Ernest Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate를 출판하기 전 까지는 더욱 그러하였다.

In the early 1990s, the academic medicine commu- nity rarely used the terms  education ,  teaching ,  scholarship  and  academic promotion  in combina- tion. Teaching was an expected aspect of academic citizenship, a necessary but insufficient element for academic promotion. This perspective on teach- ing dominated academic medicine specifically and higher education generally until The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching pub- lished Ernest Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.1

 

Boyer는 당시 널리 퍼져있던 "누구나 가르칠 수 있다.everyone teaches"라는 개념에 도전하는 프레임워크를 통해서 교육자의 역할/교육자에게 기대되는 것/교육자의 recognition/교육자의 advancement등에 대한 논의를 확장시켰다. Boyer는 teaching이란 scholarly work의 한 가지 형태로서 탐구examine되어야 한다고 주장했다.

Boyer’s work reframed and expanded the discussion regarding roles, expecta- tions, recognition and advancement of educators by providing a framework from which to challenge the prevailing concept that  everyone teaches  with the suggestion that teaching be examined as a form of scholarly work.2

 

이 논의는 Scholarship Assessed의 출판과 함께 더 확장되었는데, 모든 형태의 scholarship을 판단하는 공통의 기준을 설명하였다.

The discussion was enriched by the publication of Scholarship Assessed,3 which articulated common criteria for judging all forms of scholarship:

• clear goals;

• adequate preparation;

• appropriate methods;

• significant results;

• effective presentation, and

• reflective critique.

 

가장 최근에는 The Advancement of Learning – Building the Teaching Commons라는 책이 있는데, 교수학습의 scholarship에 초점을 두는 교육자커뮤니티의 중요성을 강조하였다. 이러한 문헌들은 모두 education-related work가 visible하고 valued되기 위해서 필수적인 요소를 설명하고 있다.

The most recent contribution to this emerging literature is The Advancement of Learning – Building the Teaching Commons,4 which highlights the importance of a community of educa- tors focusing on the scholarship of teaching and learning. In combination, this literature outlines the critical elements needed to make education-related work visible and valued.

학교의 리더들이 교육자들을 전문직적/재정적으로 지원해야하고 보상해야 교육 미션을 지속할 수 있다는 것을 인식하게 되면서, 교육의 academic advancement에 대한 인식도 점차 등장하였다. 다음과 같은 것들..

As school leaders recog- nise that educators must be  supported and rewarded, both professionally and financially  to sustain the educational mission, recognition of education in academic advancement has begun to slowly emerge.9

 

• 교수 트랙 Education as a viable faculty career track,10

• 교육 포트폴리오 활용 the use of educator portfolios for academic promotion,11

• 승진 위원회에서의 지속적 심사 the ongoing examination of the ele- ments used by promotion committees,12

• 실습을 책임지는 교수에게 기대되는 바에 대한 유관기관의 기술 delineation by education-related professional organisations of expectations for individuals directing medical student clerkships,13

• 전공의와 교사 간 계약compact의 발달 development of a compact between residents and their teachers,14 and

• 학회의 번영 the proliferation of education academies and societies15

point to the emergence of education as a visible and valued activity.

예컨대, 1996년에 시작된 AAMC의 GEA는 의학교육의 scholarship에 관한 기준을 명확히 하고자 했다. GEA는 educational scholarship의 핵심 요소를 정의하고 교육자를 학자로서 지원하기 위해 필요한 자원과 인프라를 정의했다.

For example, beginning in 1996, members of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) began to elucidate the criteria for scholarship in medical education with a series of case studies.16 The group then began to define the core elements of educational scholarship and the associated resources and infrastructure needed to support educators as scholars.15,17

그러나 교육자의 포트폴리오에 들어갈 교육 활동의 공통의 집합이 등장했음에도, 그것을 기록하는 방법이나 어떤 근거를 기록해야 하는지에 대해서는 다양한 의견이 있다.

However, despite the emergence of a common set of education activities presented within educators’ portfolios (

 

• teaching,

• curriculum development,

• mentoring and⁄ or advising,

• education leadership and⁄ or administration,

• learner assessment),

 

the documentation methods and evidence presented in these portfolios were highly variable.11

 

방법

METHODS

 

결과

RESULTS

교육자 활동 카테고리

Educator activity categories

The 5 education activity categories were re-affirmed as appropriate for academic promotion:

1 가르치기 teaching; 

2 교육과정 개발 curriculum development; 

3 조언과 멘토링 advising and mentoring; 

4 교육 리더십과 행정 education leadership and administration, and 

5 학습자 평가 learner assessment. 

 

교육자의 활동 기록:Q2Engage

Documenting educator’s activities: Q2Engage

교육의 수월성

Educational excellence

교육의 수월성에 대한 기록은 질과 양에 대한 것이어야 한다.

Documentation of educational excellence must present evidence associated with the quantity and quality of the education activity:

• 양: 교육활동과 교육자역할의 유형과 빈도
  quantity: descriptive information regarding the types and frequencies of education activities and roles, and 

• 질: 활동의 효과성과 수월성의 근거. 가능하다면 비교 자료 활용
  quality: evidence of effectiveness and excellence in the activity, using comparative measures when available.

두 번째 common documentation standard는 '교육커뮤니티 관여Engagement with the education community'이며, 이것에 대한 근거는 그 분야에서 이미 알려진 것이 무엇인고(학문적 접근), 그리고 시간에 따라 교육자가 그 분야에 어떻게 기여하는가 (교육적 학자됨scholarship)에 대한 것이다.

Engagement with the education community, the second common documentation standard, is dem- onstrated by presenting evidence that the educator’s work is informed by what is known in the field (a scholarly approach)21 and, how, over time, the educator contributes to the knowledge in the field (educational scholarship).

학문적 접근

Scholarly approach

교육자는 더 넓은 범위의 교육자 커뮤니티에 관여해야 하며, 다른 사람들의 work검토하고 이를 기반으로 (교육)해야 한다.

Educators become engaged with the broader community of educators by reviewing and building upon other educators’ work.

교육적 학자됨

Educational scholarship

 

학문 자원에서의 '관여'란 그 분야를 발전시키는, 새로운 피어-리뷰 리소스를 기여하는 것이다.

Educators engage in scholarship by contributing new, peer-reviewed resources that advance the field.

다음이 포함될 수 있다.

In general, activity documentation should include:

• 교육자의 역할과 활동에 대한 간략한 묘사
  a brief description of the activity and the educator’s role (e.g. author, preceptor, lecturer or leader); 

• 각 활동의 양quantity에 대한 근거. 누가/무엇을/언제/어디서/얼마나 자주/얼마나 많은 시간이 그 활동에 들어갔는가에 대한 질문에 답할 수 있도록 서술식 혹은 표로 보여줌
  evidence of quantity for each activity in a narrative or tabular display that highlights answers to ques- tions related to who(e.g. level of trainee, number of trainees), what, when, where, how often and how much time is devoted to the activity; 

• 프로세스나 성과의 효과성과 관련된 질quality를 보여주는 근거. 학습자 평가 혹은 동료평가를 통한 norm-referenced 요약자료 (교육(수업)평가, 과목/로테이션 종료시 평가, 강의나 교육과정에 대한 동료평가, 교육위원회의 내부 평가), 서술식 자료의 짧은 발췌(편지, 인증 보고서, 학습자 코멘트), 수강통계, 시험통계(난이도, 변별력, 신뢰도), 외부 과/학고/대학/기관에서의 강의 초청, 학습자의 retention, 교육과정 변화의 지속가능성
  evidence of quality associated with the effective- ness of the process and⁄ or outcomes of each activity selected from an array of available datasets including norm-referenced summary data from learner or peer evaluations (e.g. teaching evaluations, end-of-course or rotation evaluations, peer reviews of lectures or curricu- lum, internal education committee ratings), short excerpts from narratives data (e.g. letters, accreditation reports, learner comments), enrol- ment or test statistics (e.g. difficulty, discrimina- tion, reliability), invitations to teach outside one’s own department, school, college and⁄ or institu- tion, impact on learner performance (e.g. pre)post improvement in test scores, successes of advisee), retention of learners, sustainability of curriculum change, and 

• 교육커뮤니티에 관여한 근거. 교육자가 교육커뮤니티에서 이미 알려진 것에 근거하여 활동했다는 자료(기존 문헌, best practice, 분야/지역/국가/국제 수준에서의 자원, 그 분야의 리소스에 의존하는 정도(창립지원금, 교육과정에 대한 학장의 펀드), 이러한 결과가 visible하게 되고, 피어-리뷰 되는지, product의 형태(코스 패킷, 교육용 DVD, 학습자 평가 도구, 보고서)로 교육커뮤니티에 전파되고 기여하는 바가 있는지, established venue에서 배포되는지(지역 교육과정 위언회, 다른 교육자들에게 초청발표, 피어-리뷰 저널 등)
  evidence of engagement with the education community through documentation that the educator’s work is informed by what is known in the education community (e.g. existing literature, best practices, resources in the field, local, regional, national, and⁄ or international col- leagues), draws on resources from the field (e.g. foundation grants, dean’s fund for curriculum change) and⁄ or is made visible, peer-reviewed and contributes to the work of the education com- munity through dissemination of an educational product (e.g. course packet, instructional DVD, learner assessment instrument, paper), through established venues (e.g. local curriculum com- mittee, invited regional presentation to other educators, peer-reviewed paper in a journal, endurable educational product in AAMC MedEdPORTAL).

모든 교육활동 카테고리에 적용가능하나 구체적인 근거의 유형과 형태는 카테고리마다 다를 수 있다.

These documentation standards, encapsulated as Q2Engage, apply across all education activity cate- gories. However, the specific types and forms of evidence may vary by category.

기관 차원의 책무

Institution level responsibilities

Academic institution은 승진이나 테뉴어 결정에 교육자로서 수월성에 관한 기관-특이적 기대치와(질과 양), 교육자로서 'engagement'에 대한 기대치의 균형을 잘 잡아야 한다. 이러한 결정은 기관-특이적 미션 뿐 아니라 교육과 교육자를 지원하는 인프라에 기반하여 이뤄져야 한다.

All working groups recognised that each academic institution must determine the relative balance between institution- specific expectations for excellence as educators (quantity and quality) and the engagement expecta- tions for educators (scholarly approach and educa- tional scholarship) in promotion and⁄ or tenure decisions. These decisions should be based not only on institution-specific missions, but also on infra- structure support for education and educators. 

더 구체적으로는, 개인 수준에서 기관은 승진에 요구되는 것(promotion expectation)을 교수에게 부여되는 교육활동과 맞춰야 한다.

More specifically, at the individual level, institutions need to align promotion expectations with the education activities assigned to faculty members.

 

 

고찰

DISCUSSION

이 기준을 어떻게 활용하든간에, 교육활동은 더 이상 개인 차원의, 전통을 따르는, shared inquiry에 전혀 의존하지 않는uninformed, 어떤 것이 효과가 있는 가에 대한 이해가 없는 식으로 이뤄져서는 안된다. 적절한 교육 인프라와 잘 align된다면, 교수의 교육활동은 대중에게 공개되고 피어-리뷰 되어서 연구 커뮤니티의 동료들이 유사하게 따라해볼 수 있어야 한다paralleling.

Inde- pendent of their use, these standards emphasise that education activities can no longer be viewed as  largely private work, guided by tradition, but unin- formed by shared inquiry or understanding of what works .24 When aligned with the appropriate educa- tion infrastructure, a faculty member’s education activities can become public and open to peer review, paralleling the process used by our colleagues in the research community.

'연구를 지원하기 위해서 필요한 인프라'로부터 유추해본다면, 교육에 필요한 인프라가 무엇인지도 생각해볼 수 있을 것이다(멘토링, 펀딩, 시설, 간섭받지 않는 시간 등). 교육 인프라의 구성요소에 대한 문헌들이 등장하고 있다(의학교육학교실의 핵심 구성요소와 역할부터 의학교육 연구에 필요한 비용까지). Teaching commons가 있어야 한다. 이 인프라는 교육자를 비롯한 이해관계자들에게 물리적(가상적) 공간을 제공하여, 이곳에서 커뮤니티를 형성하고 중요한 대화를 나누며, 문헌에 기반한 정보를 얻고 교수학습 경험에 의해 guide되어야 한다.

Drawing inferences from the infrastructure typically available to support research,25 we can begin to identify the key infrastructure elements needed for education (e.g. mentoring, funding, facilities and uninterrupted time to devote to scholarly activities). Literature is also beginning to emerge that is specifically associated with the components of an education infrastructure ranging from key compo- nents and roles for departments of medical education26 to the costs associated with studies in medical education.27 Throughout the consensus conference, Patricia Hutchings, drawing on her work with Mary Huber,4,19 advocated for the creation of a  teaching commons . This type of infrastructure might provide a physical (or virtual) place for educators and other stakeholders to come together as a community to engage in crucial conversations, informed by the literature and guided by experience in teaching and learning.

인프라

Infrastructure

• What are the essential institutional and⁄ or organisational structures (e.g. learning commu- nities, academies and societies) and infrastructure elements needed to support excellence and scholarship in education (e.g. peer observations, consultation and evaluations of teaching, psycho- metric analysis of learner assessment tools, faculty development)? 

 

• How can we initiate, expand and facilitate effec- tive dialogue among key constituencies (e.g. medical school deans, academic societies, teach- ing hospitals) nationally and internationally to develop an infrastructure that values educators and educational scholarship?

교육 커뮤니티에 대한 관여의 폭

Breadth of engagement with the education community

• What level of engagement must a successful candidate for promotion document to demon- strate meaningful involvement in the community of educators (e.g. internal or external, local or national)?

• Should engagement expectations vary by faculty rank and⁄ or available institutional resources (e.g. support for participation in national meetings)?

포함되어야 할 카테고리와 경계

Category inclusions and boundaries

• How many inclusions are expected within an activity category for academic advancement? 

 

• What level of sustained activity must an educator demonstrate to  count  in academic promotion decisions?

개인의 성취와 집단의 성취 판단

Judging individual versus group accomplishments

• In the USA and around the world, university- based promotion committees have longstanding traditions and standards for judging individual accomplishments and there is emerging recogni- tion of the need for rewarding collaborative initiatives.28 However, as many educators’ activities result from group effort, how should educators present and document evidence of group accomplishments?

 

2 Rice RE.  Scholarship reconsidered : history and con- text. In: O’Meara K, Rice RE, eds. Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 2005;17–38.

6 Benor DE. Faculty development, teacher training and teacher accreditation in medical education: 20 years from now. Med Teach 2000;33 (5):503–12.

9 Whitcomb M. The medical school’s faculty is its most important asset. Acad Med 2003;78:117–8.

15 Irby DM, Cooke M, Lowenstein D, Richards B. The academy movement: a structural approach to reinvigo- rating the education mission. Acad Med 2004;79:729–36.

17 Fincher RM, Simpson D, Mennin SP, Rosenfeld GS, Rothman A, McGrew MC, Hansen PA, Mazamanian PE, Turnbull JM. Scholarship in teaching: an impera- tive for the 21st century. Acad Med 2000;75:887–94.

19 Huber MT, Hutchings P, Shulman LS. The scholarship of teaching and learning today. In: O’Meara K, Rice RE, eds. Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass 2005;34–8.

 

---

Med Educ. 2007 Oct;41(10):1002-9. Epub 2007 Sep 5.

Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educationalscholarship.

Simpson D1, Fincher RM, Hafler JP, Irby DM, Richards BF, Rosenfeld GC, Viggiano TR.

Author information

• 1Office of Educational Services, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA. dsimpson@mcw.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to establish documentation standards for medical education activities, beyond educational research, for academic promotion consistent with principles of excellence and scholarship.

METHODS:

In 2006 a Consensus Conference on Educational Scholarship was convened by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Education Affairs (GEA) to outline a set of documentation standards for use by educators and academic promotion committees. Conference participants' work was informed by more than 15 years of literature on scholarship, educator portfolios and academic promotion standards.

RESULTS:

The 110 conference participants, including medical school deans, academic promotion committee members, department chairs, faculty and AAMC leaders, re-affirmed the 5 education activity categories (teaching, curriculum, advising and/or mentoring, education leadership and/or administration, and learner assessment), the contents of each category, and cross-category documentation standards. Educational excellence requires documentation of the quantity and quality of education activities. Documenting a scholarly approach requires demonstrating evidence of drawing from and building on the work of others, and documenting scholarship requires contributing work through public display, peer review and dissemination; both involve engagement with the community of educators. Implementation of these standards - quantity, quality and engagement with the education community - should occur in parallel with the development of an infrastructure to support educators, including sustained faculty development for educators, access to educational resources and journals, peer review mechanisms and consultation and support specific to each activity category.

CONCLUSIONS:

Educators' contributions to their institutions must be visible to be valued. The establishment of documentation standards foreducation activities provides the foundation for academic recognition of educators.

PMID:

 

17822412

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]