교수개발 프로그램의 종류(The Journal of Higher Education, 1978)
Types of Faculty Development Programs
John A. Centra
교수개발의 이론과 실제를 이해하기 위하여 다양한 모델이 활용되어왔다. Bergquist and Phillips 는 이 분야의 개념적 아이디어를 처음 제공한 사람 중 한 명이다. 이들에 따르면 세 개의 교수개발 관련 요소가 있다.
As a way of better understanding the theory and practice of faculty development, various models have been offered. Bergquist and Phillips [1] were among the first to offer some conceptual ideas about the field. Their model described three related components of faculty development:
-
instructional development,
-
personal development, and
-
organizational development.
-
교육향상: Under the first category they included such practices as curriculum development, teaching diag- nosis, and training.
-
개인적 발달: Personal development, they said, generally involved activities to promote faculty growth, such as interpersonal skills training and career counseling, while
-
조직개발: organizational development sought to im- prove the institutional environment for teaching and decision making and included activities for both faculty and administrators. Team building and managerial development would be part of organizational development.
Gaff and Bergquist-Phillips 의 모델은 경험에 의거empirical했다기보다는 스스로 발견한heuristic 것이다. 따라서 이 개념이 실제 기관들이 하고 있는 것을 정확히 반영하느냐에 대한 의문, 더 적절한 방법이 없느냐는 의문이 있을 수 있다.
The Gaff and Bergquist-Phillips models are, for the most part, heuristic rather than empirical. One might therefore ask whether the concepts they have proposed are accurate reflections of what institutions are doing, or whether there are more appropriate ways to categorize the development activities of colleges and universities?
문헌 고찰의 결과 설문을 통해서 다음의 카테고리를 구분했다.
A review of the literature and discussions with people involved in faculty or instructional development resulted in a preliminary question- naire that was field tested. The final questionnaire included forty-five development practices grouped in the following categories:
-
(1) work- shops, seminars, or similar presentations;
-
(2) analysis or assessment pro- cedures;
-
(3) activities that involved media, technology, or course de- velopment;
-
(4) institution-wide policies or practices, such as sabbatical leaves or annual teaching awards; and
-
(5) a miscellaneous set of five practices.
(3)기관 차원의 정책을 제외하고, 나머지에 대해서 응답자들은 각 기관에서 교수들이 저것을 얼마나 활용하고 얼마나 효과적이라고 생각하는지를 응답했다.
For all but the institution-wide policies or practices, respondents esti- mated the percentages of faculty at their institutions that used the prac- tices and how effective they thought each to be. An activity might, of course, be effective even though it was used by only a small portion of the faculty.
다른 섹션에서는 펀딩과 organization of development activities, 참여하는 교수의 유형 등을 물었다.
Another section of the questionnaire elicited information about the funding and organization of development activities, the kinds of faculty members most involved in programs, and general characteristics of each institution, such as type and size.
결론과 고찰
Results and Discussion
활용에 따른 그룹화
Grouping Practices According to Approximate Use
Four factors or groups of development practices seemed to define pat- terns of estimated use of the practices among the institutions.
-
1. 높은 교수 참여도 High faculty involvement. The development practices in this first group tend to involve a high proportion of the faculty at the colleges that use them.
-
2. 교육 지원 Instructional assistance practices. Instructional development is an important aspect of this second group of practices,
-
3. 전통적 방식 Traditional practices.
-
4. 평가 강조 Emphasis on assessment.
효과성에 기반한 그룹화
Grouping Practices According to Rated Effectiveness
활용하는 교수의 비율이 높지 않아도 효과성을 높을 수 있다. 다음과 같은 흥미로운 차이가 있었다.
Types of development programs might be based not only on the extent to which practices are used among institutions, but also on how effective the respondents judged the practices to be. Because developmental prac- tices can be effective even when they are not being used by a large segment of the faculty, the structure of development programs based on rated effectiveness may be quite different. Indeed, there are some interest- ing variations.
-
1. Instructional assistance practices.
-
2. Workshops, seminars, and similar presentations.
-
3. Grants and travel funds.
-
4. Emphasis on assessment.
-
5. Traditional practices.
-
6. Publicity.
순위는 아래와 같음.
For each of the six groups of practices identified through the factor analysis of the respondents' ratings, a rough index of effectiveness was computed. The index was calculated by averaging the percentages of respondents who rated practices in the group as effective.
-
For example, for the grants and travel funds factor there were six practices with fairly high loadings; an average of 64 percent of the respondents reported these six to be effective or very effective, thereby ranking the factor first in effectiveness.
-
Ranked second was the group of instructional assistance practices (56 percent), followed by emphasis on assessment and tra- ditional practices, both with 53 percent.
-
Ranked fifth were workshops, seminars, and similar presentations, with an average of 46 percent of the respondents rating practices in this category as effective.
-
As previously discussed, the publicity group received the lowest rating.
조직과 펀딩
The Organization and Funding of Programs
교수개발 활동을 조율하고 계획하는 어떤 조직이나 시스템이 있어야 한다.
One recommendation that has been made regarding faculty develop- ment is that there should be some kind of unit or system on each campus to help coordinate and plan activities [3, 5]. Just under half (44 percent) of the 756 institutions in the sample reported having units or persons that coordinated the development activities on their campuses (Table 2).
대부분을 새로 생긴 조직이었다(2.3년)
Most of these units were fairly new, having existed a median of 2.3 years (Table 2).
재정적으로 제약을 받는 경우가 많았다. 약 70%의 예산은 institutional genearal fund였고, 연방정부 지원은 20%, 7%는 주 재정, 3%는 기타
Given present fiscal constraints, the cost of development practices is a concern at many institutions, small and large. According to estimates provided by the 700 institutions in the sample that had the data available, an average of 70 percent of the total budget for development activities came from their institutional general funds. Grants from foundations or the federal government averaged 20 percent, and an additional 7 percent came from state funds. The remaining 3 percent came from such other"
결론
Concluding Remarks
요인분석을 통해서 여러 기관들이 사용하는 교수개발 행위practice의 네 그룹을 도출함
A factor analysis identified four groups of practices based on the extent to which they were used among the institutions.
이 네 가지는 기존의 heuristic 모델과 조금 다름
These four descriptions provide a somewhat different view of de- velopment programs than do the heuristic models discussed by Bergquist and Phillips [1] and by Gaff [4], though the instructional
어떤 대학은 최소한의 예산으로 소수의 조직화되지 않은uncoordinated 프로그램을 하고 있었으나, 몇몇 대형 기관은 아예 없다고 하기도 했음.
Judging by the further information provided by the institutions in the sample, programs in faculty development varied in other ways as well. Some colleges had a few uncoordinated practices with minimal budgets. It should be added, however, that several larger institutions reported that they did not have programs in faculty development.
어떤 교수개발 프로그램은 대학의 변두리on the fringes of에서 작동하기도 한다(최소한의 교수들의 참여).
Some development programs appeared to operate on the fringes of the schools they served: coordinators reported generally minimal faculty par- ticipation and, in some instances, that a significant part of their support came from foundations or the government.
Types of faculty development programs.
Author information
- 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, USA. jau@worf.evms.edu
Abstract
Types of Faculty Development Programs
'Articles (Medical Education) > 교수개발(Faculty Development)' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 바이오인포메틱스: 의사가 알아야 할 것, 의사가 배우는 방법의 변화(Acad Med, 2011) (0) | 2016.04.22 |
|---|---|
| 변화의 도구로서의 교수개발: 전문직업성 교육에 관한 사례연구(Acad Med, 2007) (0) | 2016.04.21 |
| 프로페셔널리즘 교육과 평가를 위한 교수개발: 프로그램 설계에서 교육과정 변화까지 (Med Educ, 2005) (0) | 2016.04.21 |
| 의학교육연속체에 걸친 교육역량의 프레임워크(Med Teach, 2009) (0) | 2016.04.20 |
| Medical teacher의 성장(Med Educ, 2005) (0) | 2016.04.20 |