신임 교수개발자의 정체성 형성과 동기부여: resource-contrained환경연구 (Med Teach, 2016)

신임 교수개발자의 정체성 형성과 동기부여: resource-contrained환경연구 (Med Teach, 2016)

Identity formation and motivation of new faculty developers: A replication study in a resource constrained university

PATRICIA S. O’SULLIVAN1, CHARLES MKONY2, JESSICA BEARD1 & DAVID M. IRBY1

1University of California San Francisco, USA, 2Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Tanzania

도입

Introduction

UCSF의 연구에서 교수개발자들은, 심지어 occasional faculty developers조차, 그들의 전문직정체성이 시간에 따라 변화하며, 교수개발자의 역할을 맡음에 따라서 커리어가 advanced하였다고 응답했다.

In research at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), we found that faculty developers, even occasional faculty developers, articulate how their professional identities change over time and their careers are advanced as they take on the role of being a faculty developer (O’Sullivan & Irby 2014).

이들 occasional faculty developers는 다양한 만족으로부터 동기부여된다.

These occa- sional developers are motivated to engage in this role from a strong sense of satisfaction resulting from

• their demonstration of mastery,

• meeting a sense of duty and purpose, and

• having a set of relationships with others (O’Sullivan & Irby 2015).

MUHAS의 신임 교수개발자들은 극심한 교수 부족을 겪던 시기의 한 프로젝트로부터 나왔다. 이러한 resource-constrained 대학에서 교수개발프로그램 참여는 외부에서 fund를 맏을 수 있는 사람이나 비-의료전문직 기관에서 나온 교수개발자들이 시행하는 local workshop에 참여할 수 있는 사람에게만 기회가 제한적으로 주어진다. 이로 인해서 지속가능한 impact가 없고, 참가자들이 교수개발자가 되리라는 기대가 없고, 교수개발자로서 정체성 형성이되지 않는다. 반대로, 우리의 목표는 역량강화develop capacity를 통해 local context내에서 일군의 교수들이 동료들에게 교수개발워크숍을 할 수 있게 해주고, 교수개발자로서의 정체성을 개발시켜주고자 했다.

The new faculty developers emerged from a project with Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS) that was experiencing a severe shortage of faculty (Mkony 2012). In such resource-constrained universities, participation in faculty development programs is often restricted to those who are able to garner the funds to attend an externally offered course or who can attend a locally offered workshop by faculty developers from non-health professions institutions. These approaches have limited sustainable impact and no expectation that participants will become faculty developers and develop an identity as a faculty developer. In contrast, our goal was to develop capacity within the local context through a cadre of faculty members who could offer faculty develop- ment workshops to their peers tailored to the local situation and who would gradually develop an identity as a faculty developer.

이 역량강화 과정capacity building process 은 교수들이 과거에 수행하지 않았던 역할을 하게 했다. 대학 입장에서도 새로운 역할이었다. 이를 도입함으로써 UCSF연구에서 발견한 것과 같은 lens로 무엇이 동기부여 시켜주는지 알아보고자 했다.

This capacity building process engaged these faculty members in new roles that they had not previously performed; roles that were novel for their univer- sity. This implementation provided the opportunity to examine how their identity evolved with this new role as a faculty developer and what motived them to participate using the same lens as we had in the UCSF research.

UCSF연구는 정체성형성에 관한 연구들과 Monrouxe 가 설명한 '다수 정체성 개념concept of multiple identities'을 기반으로 하였다. 우리는 면담한 30명의 모든 occasional faculty developers 가 교수개발을 해나감에 따라 educator로서의 정체성을 언급함을 확인하였다. 교수개발자로서의 정체성은 임상가/교사/연구자와 같은 다른 역할과의 관계 속에서 등장하였다.

In the UCSF research, we drew on identity formation research (Roccas & Brewer 2002; Monrouxe 2010; Goldie 2012; Monrouxe & Poole 2013) and specifically the concept of multiple identities as articulated by Monrouxe (2010). We found that all 30 of the occasional faculty developers we interviewed described an educator identity to which faculty development was added over time. Their faculty developer identity generally emerged in relation to their other roles as clinician, teacher and researcher in one of four ways:

• (1) a merged identity in which the individual integrates multiple roles/identities simultaneously (e.g. physician, researcher, teacher);

• (2) compartmentalized identity in which separate identities are maintained for different contexts (e.g. in the clinic a physician and in the classroom a teacher);

• (3) a hierarchical identity in which the primary identity (e.g. physician) predominates but is closely associated with a less dominant identity (e.g. teacher); and

• (4) a parallel identity in which the identities exist simultaneously but without a conscious overlap (O’Sullivan & Irby 2014).

 

이들의 교수개발자로서의 역할은 다른 사람들과 일하는 방식을 바꾸었고, 커리어의 발전방향을 바꾸었다. 교수개발은 기관문화에 영향을 주었고, 기관문화는 다시 교수개발에 영향을 주었다.

Their roles as faculty developers enhanced their status in their departments and influenced the way they worked with others and how it advanced their careers. Faculty development influenced the institutional culture and the institutional culture in turn supported faculty development.

우리는 Bandura, Maslow (1970), and Deci and Ryan 의 연구에 근거하여 교수개발자들의 동기부여를 탐구하였다. 우리는 다섯 개의 동기부여요인을 찾았고, 앞의 동기부여 이론들과 잘 맞았다. 교수들은 교수개발프로그램에 다음의 이유로 기여contribute하였다.

We also examined their motivation to become a faculty developer based on the work of Bandura (1986), Maslow (1970), and Deci and Ryan (2000). We found five motivators for occasional faculty developers, which aligned well with these theories of motivation (O’Sullivan & Irby 2015). These faculty members contributed to faculty development programs for the following reasons:

• 만족 satisfaction (fun and fulfillment),

• 숙달 mastery (learning and personal/professional development),

• 관계성 relatedness (enjoyment of working with and learning from others),

• 책임감 duty (obligation to give back as an academic citizen), and

• 목적의식 purpose (opportunity to improve local teaching and ultimately patient care).

 

이 결과는 occasional faculty developers를 구성하고 이것을 어떻게 정체성과 동기부여가 교수개발의 확장을 위해 사용될 수 있는가에 대한 통찰을 주었다.

These findings provide useful insights into how identity and motivation can be used to foster the expansion of faculty development through the creation of a cadre of occasional faculty developers, those whose primary responsibilities are other than faculty development.

그러나 UCSF는 자원이 풍요로는 환경이다.

However, UCSF has a well-established faculty development program in a resource-rich environment that values teaching and faculty development. We wondered if these identities and motivations would be the same for new faculty developers in a resource-constrained university such asMUHAS

연구질문 

• ‘‘How does the faculty developer identity emerge in these new faculty developers?’’ 

• ‘‘What motivated them to become faculty developers?’’ 

• ‘‘How do the new education skills and faculty development role influence them?’’

방법

Methods

설계

Design

 

교수개발 연구에 인터뷰가 유용함.

This study uses a content analysis of interview sensitized by the identity formation and motivation findings of our previous research. As the role of faculty developer was new to these faculty members, the researchers thought an interview would allow participants the best way to describe what this new role meant to them. Additionally, Monrouxe (2010b) noted that interviews are a useful method of studying identity develop- ment. Two of the authors were involved in the preparation of the new faculty developers (P.O’S. and C.M.). Their experience placed responses in context for the analysis. Two authors (P.O’S. and D.M.) had conducted the previous research in this area that provided the sensitizing constructs in this work (O’Sullivan & Irby 2014; O’Sullivan & Irby 2015). Their experience also influenced the analysis of the data.

 

연구세팅과 참여자

Setting and participants

 

This study took place at MUHAS, the premier public institution for health sciences in Tanzania. MUHAS has schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy and public health, as well as institutes of Allied Health Sciences, as well as Traditional Medicine. However, MUHAS has suffered severe shortages of teaching faculty for decades (Mkony 2012).

At the time of the study, MUHAS had 300 faculty members and over 2000 students,

There were 16 participants in this study, consisting of two cohorts of faculty members, representing all the school and institutes in MUHAS who were selected from among junior faculty with aptitude and interest in education. The participants were free to accept or decline the invitation to participate and everyone proposed accepted the opportunity.

개입

Intervention

자세한 training에 대하여...

To provide context, the training is described briefly here and is reported extensively elsewhere (Mloka et al. 2012).

(1) Teach a new 18-session graduate education course on pedagogy, curriculum development, and assessment required of all medical residents and other professional graduate students beginning in 2011–2012, and

(2) Conduct faculty development workshops for their peers.

 

인터뷰 가이드

Interview guide

Two of the researchers developed the interview guide which consisted of several broad questions and multiple probes. The interview guide was used previously with faculty members at UCSF and has been published (O’Sullivan & Irby 2014, 2015). This study focused on questions eliciting

• why they got involved in faculty development,

• how participation affected them and

• how their identity changed.

 

예시 질문

Example questions included:

• ‘‘How has being a faculty developer fit into your career trajectory?’’

• ‘‘What are your various professional roles?’’

• ‘‘How do you align your roles as a faculty developer with your other roles?’’

• ‘‘Why do you do faculty development?’’

• ‘‘What do you personally get out of this activity?’’

절차

Procedures

At the time of the interviews, the HPEGs had succeeded in offering at least seven workshops and had taught the 18-week postgraduate course twice. An individual (J.B.) uninvolved in the HPEG conducted the interviews in fall 2012 at MUHAS. All individuals consented and agreed to be audio-recorded.

분석

Analysis

Two researchers (P.O’S. and D.M.I.) read the transcripts applying codes from the two previous studies with faculty developers (O’Sullivan & Irby 2014, 2015). Each researcher read the transcripts individually. They met jointly to review all coding, adding, and deleting codes as needed. Although sensitized by their previous work, they were open to the possibility of additional codes. The 10 codes used to analyze the transcripts aligned with those from UCSF. The researchers applied the codes to address the questions posed by this study. Supporting quotes are indicated by the label ‘‘HPEG’’ followed by interviewee number. Another researcher (C.M.) reviewed audio recordings to confirm the appropriateness of the codes. Those interviewed in the study reviewed the results reported and concurred with the statements and interpretations.

Results

16명 중 15명을 인터뷰함.

Of the 16 HPEGs, 15 were interviewed. One person had assumed a leadership position outside the university and was unavailable for an interview.

• 성별 Six women and nine men participated.

• 전공 They came from the schools of medicine (n¼11), dentistry (n¼1), nursing (n¼1), pharmacy (n¼1) and public health (n¼1).

• 직위 The majority (n¼12) were lecturers (the first rank for faculty) and had been faculty members for approximately five years. The remaining participants were senior lecturers who had been at their rank about eight years.

• 교수개발경험 They all reported doing faculty development for 1.5–2 years.

정체성 형성

Identity development

모든 참가자들은 multiple role과 정체성에 대해서 언급했다 (의사/연구자/교사/멘토/관리자). 의사-연구자 또는 과학자-연구자의 정체성은 교육자로 확장되어갔다. 교육자 정체성의 진화는 새로운 것이었고 학습자와의 관계에 영향을 주었다.

All of the participants described the multiple roles and identities required at MUHAS: clinician, researcher, teacher,mentor, and administrator. Their identity of Clinician/Researcher or Scientist/Researcher was expanding to include educator. The evolution of the educator identity was new and influenced their interactions with their learners.

다양한 역할은 셋 중 하나로 묘사되었다.

Participants viewed these various roles as falling into one of three identities (Figure 1).

 

분절된 정체성

The ‘‘compartmentalized’’ was captured by, 

• ‘‘All [roles] apply under different circumstances’’(HPEG 5). 

• Another noted, ‘‘I teach, take care of patients, I am a PhD student, faculty developer. I see them as separate in manyways’’ (HPEG 15). 

 

그러나 교수개발이 하나의 정체성으로 포함되어있다는 것이 중요하다.

However, it is important to note that faculty development was included as one of these identities for most of these HPEGs with this compartmentalized identity.

위계적 정체성

Others saw their identity as ‘‘hierarchical’’;

• ‘‘I am first, a clinician. And then a researcher...I feel like part of the [HPEG] group, but maybe not independent enough to say stand alone and maybe do faculty development somewhere else’’ (HPEG 11).

혼합된 정체성 

For many HPEGs the identity was ‘‘merged’’ among various roles and at times incorporating the faculty developer role.

• One noted that his ‘‘Basic roles are teaching, research and patient care. My roles are not separate, but rather mixed together’’ (HPEG 7).

Local한 교수개발자의 가치를 인정해주기도 했다. 

There was recognition of the value of having local faculty developers:

 

 

동기부여

Motivation

 

1 의무

UCSF에서 동기를 부여해준 것으로 나타난 다섯 가지 주제는 MUHAS에서도 같았다. 일부 HPEGs는 그렇게 해달라고 요청을 받아서 하게 되었다. 교수개발은 하나의 "의무"로 보였다.

All five them es about what motivated participants to be a faculty developer that were found at UCSF also were found at MUHAS. Some HPEGs participated because they were asked to do so. Faculty development was viewed as a ‘‘duty’’: 

2 목적

Others had a sense of ‘‘purpose’’. 

• One saying, ‘‘Improving the faculty side...should go hand-in-hand with the new curriculum...you are at the fore front of improving quality of medical training’’ (HPEG 10) 

3 숙달

Others expressed a sense of ‘‘mastery’’,

• ‘‘It opened my eyes that actually, I need to improve my teaching’’ (HPEG 3) 

4 만족

Some identify a sense of ‘‘satisfaction’’ in doing faculty development, ‘‘I enjoy it’’ (HPEG 15) 

5 관계

They valued the ‘‘relationships’’ they formed within the HPEG community, and the resulting cohesion,

교수개발자가 되는 것의 성과

Outcome of being a faculty developer

자기자신에 대한 성과

Outcome on self

첫째, 워크숍과 동료의 교육을 보며 스스로의 교육방식에 변화가 있었다.

The HPEGs identified three ways in which being an HPEG had a direct effect on them. First, all of the HPEGs reported changes in their own teaching due to the workshops and observation of their peers teaching,

둘째, HPEG가 되는 것은 공동체의식을 만들어줬다. interact할 수 있는 많은 방법을 안다.

Second, being an HPEG created an important sense of community. Now, they found many ways in which they could interact:

MUHAS가 큰 기관은 아니지만, 여러 HPEG구성원들은 서로를 잘 모른다. 이제 그들은 스스로를 '가족'이라 여긴다.

Although MUHAS is not a large institution, many of the HPEG members did not know each other.

• ‘‘I mean, through faculty development...we have been a very close group together’’ (HPEG9).

Now they saw themselves as ‘‘family’’ (HPEG 15).

셋째, HPEG가 됨으로써, 다른 사람과 상호작용하는 방식이 바뀌었고, 새로운 기회를 얻게 되었다. 어떤 HPEGs는 대학에서의 공식적 역할이 없음일 지적했지만, 동료의 follow-up에서 추가적 조언을 얻었다고 했다. 그들은 자기 자신을 더 중요하게 여기게 되었다. 그들은 동료에게 resource가 되었다.

Third, being an HPEG changed the ways in which they interacted with others and afforded new opportunities. Although some HPEGs noted the lack of an official role within the university, they did describe having peers follow- up with them after workshops for further advice. They saw themselves as important:

• ‘‘My image has changed from just this is a pediatrician to more than being just a pediatrician. I can offer an educational innovation to my peers’’ (HPEG 1).

They are a resource to their colleagues,

다른 사람에 대한 성과

Outcome on others

 

HPEG 구성원들은 MUHAS의 교육이 달라지기 시작했다고 언급했다. HPEG는 다른 사람에게 더 나은 강의와 상호작용적 교육을 할 수 있게 영향을 주는 것, 전문직간 그룹을 포함시키는 것incorporating interprofessional groups를 언급하였다.

The HPEG members attested to changing the teaching at MUHAS.

• ‘‘I can change others, the way they teach’’ (HPEG 13).

The HPEGs spoke about influencing others to create better lectures and interactive classes with student participation and incor- porating interprofessional groups.

기관 수준의 성과

Outcome on the institution

어떻게 기관의 문화가 달라졌는지 언급했다.

The HPEG members spoke about how the institutional culture responded to their efforts.

• They created ‘‘cohesive groups...speaking the same language...transferring to the rest of MUHAS.....I think we’re getting there, but it’s a gradual process’’ (HPEG 11). 

고찰

Discussion

전체적으로 resource-rich environment 에서와 매우 유사한 것을 발견했다.

Overall, we found remarkable similarities in our study of faculty developers in a resource-rich environment and new faculty developers in an environment that had fewer resources to devote to faculty development.

그러나 차이도 있다.

However, there were some differences, which we will compare and contrast.

 

MUHAS에서 교수개발자의 정체성은 주로 교육자로서 '새로운' 정체성으로 발달하였다. 모든 HPEGs는 교육에 대한 적성과 관심이 있어도 공식적 교육을 거의 받지 못했다. UCSF에서는 모든 교수개발자들은 교육자로서 오랜 경험이 있고 명망이 있었다. 두 경우 모두, 시간이 지남에 따라서 교육자 역할로부터 교수개발자의 정체성이 드러나기 시작했고, 교육자와 교수개발자 모두로서의 경험을 갖기 시작했다.

In MUHAS, the faculty developer identity evolved primarily through their newly developing identity as an educator. All of the HPEGs had an aptitude and an interest in teaching but little formal preparation. At UCSF, all the developers had long standing experience and outstanding reputations as educators. In both instances, the faculty developer identity emerged from their educator role over time and with increasing experience as both an educator and faculty developer.

그러나 원래 연구에서의 Fig 1은 이 연구의 Fig 1과 조금 다르다.

However, when contrasting the Figure 1 in this study with Figure 1 in the original research (O’Sullivan & Irby 2014), there are several striking differences.

• 첫째, 상대적인 중요도 인식을 동그라미의 크기로 반영했다. UCSF에서는 다양한 정체성이 있었지만, 임상가/연구자 정체성이 교육자 정체성만큼 중요했다. MUHAS에서는 교육자 정체성은 덜 중요했다. 비록 모든 HPEG가 교육을 자신의 역할 중 하나로 보았지만, 교육자 정체성이 dominating하진 않았다.
  First, they perceived the relative importance of the identities as different as reflected in the size of the circles in the two studies. Although the multiple identities were developing at UCSF, the Clinician/PhD identity was of comparable importance to that of educator. At MUHAS, educator identity was less important. Although all HPEGs saw teaching as part of their role, the educator identity clearly was not as dominating.

• 둘째, UCSF에서 드러난 parallel identity(multiple role, not overlapping)는 위계적 정체성은 아니었다.
  Second, the parallel identity noted in the UCSF sample of an individual simultaneously doing these multiple roles, but not overlapping, was not hierarchical identity, described in MUHAS. Similarly, the although mentioned, was less manifest in the HPEGs.

• 셋째, MUHAS에서 통합된 정체성merged identity은 교육자 정체성을 통해서 진화evolve하였는데, 반면 UCSF에서는 교수는 세 가지 역할 모두를(의사/과학자, 교육자, 교수개발자) 스스로 자신을 바라보는 방식에 통합시켰다. 우리는 이 multiple identities가 new developer에서조차 merge하지만, 교수개발자 정체성을 포함시키려면 강력한 교육자 정체성이 필요하다는 것이라고 결론을 내렸다.
  Third, as noted in the previous paragraph, the ‘‘merged’’ identity evolved through the educator identity; whereas at UCSF, there were faculty members for whom all three roles (clinician/ scientist, educator, and faculty developer) were integrated into how they saw themselves. We conclude that these multiple identities are merged even in new developers, but that to include a faculty developer identity requires a strong educator identity.

교수개발자가 되려는 motivation도 이전 연구와 부합한다

The motivations to become a faculty developer echoed the findings of our previous work (O’Sullivan & Irby 2015).

FDP를 교육의 질을 높이고 교육변화를 위해서 사용하는 방식에 대한 권고.

From our findings, we believe that we can make recom- mendations for other institutions that may be turning to faculty development programs as a way to enhance the quality of teaching and make educational changes.

 

literature supports

This faculty devel- opment program has characteristics that the literature supports are effective for train the trainer models including

• various instructional strategies,

• supplying all instructional materials and

• providing organizational support (Pearce et al. 2012; Tobias et al. 2012).

 

지속가능성

Additionally, this program overcame one of the threats to train-the-trainer programs of sustainability by the institutionalization of the curriculum which helps to stabilize the trained faculty. We have identified the need for appropri- ate background and have demonstrated how it can be done by building an educator community with a relatively small team. The creation, delivery, and now requirement of the postgradu- ate course was important to both culture building of valuing education as part of professional preparation and capacity building because the postgraduates became teaching resources, which they had not been previously. The learners received better teaching as described by the HPEGs and this is both critical to the education in an area with health care professional shortages, but provides satisfaction that helps sustain the teachers in an area with faculty shortages.

 

문화

Finally, by making education part of the university culture, future transitions will be easier, which is essential when there are fewer resources.

O’Sullivan teach PS, in 1536–1540. Irby faculty DM. 2015. Why does a development workshops? faculty Acad memberMed 90:

Monrouxe L, Poole G. 2013. An onion? Conceptualising and researchingidentity. Med Educ 47:425–429. 

Monrouxe LV. 2010. Identity, identification and medical education: Whyshould we care? Med Educ 44:40–49.

O’Sullivan PS, Irby DM. 2014. Identity formation of occasional facultydevelopers in medical education: A qualitative study. Acad Med 89:1467–1473. 

 

---

Med Teach. 2016 Sep;38(9):879-85. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1132409. Epub 2016 Feb 8.

Identity formation and motivation of new faculty developers: A replication study in a resourceconstrained university.

O'Sullivan PS1, Mkony C2, Beard J1, Irby DM1.

Author information

• 1a University of California San Francisco , USA .
• 2b Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences , Tanzania.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Previous studies on the identity development and motivation of faculty developers have occurred with seasoned developers in a research-rich environment. We sought to determine if the findings of those studies could be replicated with novice faculty developers in a resource-constrained environment.

METHODS:

We interviewed 15 novice faculty developers from Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS) who, at the time, had led faculty development activities for no more than two years. We conducted a qualitative analysis sensitized by the previous findings.

RESULTS:

Results were very similar to the previous work. The developers described compartmentalized, hierarchical, and merged identities. The impact was on their teaching as well as on others at MUHAS and on the institution itself. The motivations related to mastery, purpose, duty, satisfaction, and relatedness.

CONCLUSION:

This replication led us to conclude that identity development as a faculty developer occurs even in novice developerswho do faculty development as only part of their work and despite constrained resources and a different culture. These developersfind the work richly rewarding and their motivations benefit the institution. This body of research highlights how faculty development provides benefits to the institution as well as engaging career opportunities.

PMID:

 

26855161

 

DOI:

 

10.3109/0142159X.2015.1132409

[PubMed - in process]