의과대학 교수들이 꿈을 이루게 하기: 혁신적, 협력적 멘토링 프로그램(Acad Med, 2002)

의과대학 교수들이 꿈을 이루게 하기: 혁신적, 협력적 멘토링 프로그램(Acad Med, 2002)

Helping Medical School Faculty Realize Their Dreams: An Innovative, Collaborative Mentoring Program

Linda H. Pololi, MBBS, Sharon M. Knight, PhD, RN, Kay Dennis, EdD, RN, and Richard M. Frankel, PhD

오늘날, 학술 의학에서 성공하고자하는 주니어 교수진은 건강 관리 전달에서 비용 절감의 시대에 어려움을 겪고 있습니다. 교수진은 비록 의대와 교육 병원이 자비 롭고 유능한 의사를 훈련시키는 데 전적으로 책임을지고 있음에도 불구하고, 학술 의학에 대한 직업에 대한 열정을 덜 표현합니다.

Today, junior faculty wishing to succeed in academic medicine face daunting challenges in this era of cost containment in health care delivery. Faculty express less enthusiasm for careers in academic medicine, 1 even though medical schools and teaching hospitals continue to be solely responsible for training compassionate and competent physicians.

멘토링 및 그 이점에 대한 대부분의 설명은 이원적, 멘토-멘티 모델에 초점을 둡니다. 이 전통적인 모델의 단점은 멘토의 개인적인 관점과 정보원의 한계, 멘토와 멘티의 기대에 부합하지 못함, 성격 충돌, 전이 문제, 성적 역학, 정서적 또는 전문적 의존성, 일관성 부족, 수동성 역할 모델링과 관련이 있으며, 시간이 있는 시니어 멘토 부족 등이다. 당연한 일이지만, 우리 기관의 의학 교수진을위한 이 이원적 멘토링 관계의 결과에 상당한 다양성 있음을 알았습니다.

Most descriptions of mentoring and its benefits focus on a dyadic, mentor–prote´ge´(e) model. The drawbacks of this traditional model include 

the limitations of a mentor’s individual perspective and source of information, 

• a lack of congruence in the expectations of mentor and prote´ge´(e), 

• personality clashes, 

• transference issues, 

• sexual dynamics, 

• emotional or professional dependency, 

• lack of consistency, 

• passivity related to role modeling, and 

lack of senior mentors with time available. Not surprisingly, we have observed considerable variability in the results of dyadic mentoring relationships for medical faculty in our institution.

이 Collaborative Mentoring Program (CMP)은 성인 학습 이론과 Carl Rogers의 발견에 기반을두고 있습니다.

This Collaborative Mentoring Program (CMP) was grounded in adult learning theory and the findings of Carl Rogers13–16

CMP의 이론적 토대

Theoretical Foundations of the Collaborative Mentoring Program

Carl Rogers has written extensively on the qualities and attitudes important for the facilitation of learning and optimal development of individuals. He describes the effective teacher as one who shows acceptance, cares about and respects the learner, is emotionally congruent and genuine, and actively listens to the learner with empathic understanding.13 These are also important attributes in medical faculty and physicians in clinical practice, and qualities that foster a safe environment for learning. The provision of a safe, supportive learning environment facilitates the positive formation of relationships and trust between teacher and learner and, we would add, physicians and patients. In this context, the learner or faculty participant can risk being more interactive, engaged, and open or exposed in the learning process, and will be more willing to apply learning to a new situation. The program we designed was founded on Rogerian methods.

Additionally, the CMP was firmly based on the principles of adult education. Adult education theory suggests that learners need to perceive the relevance of educational material to learn most effectively.14,15 Helping prote´ge´(e)s frame their own learning objectives, encouraging interactive sharing of ideas, providing constructive feedback and the opportunity to practice new skills—all integral parts of the mentoring program— were directly based on adult learning principles. Finally, learners need to have the opportunity to step back and reflect on their learning. Friere16 describes the cycle of action and reflection as ‘‘praxis,’’ where time is used to reflect upon and understand the learning experience at intellectual, personal, and emotional levels. Deeper learning occurs when the learner is emotionally engaged during or by the learning. The application of Rogerian and adult learning principles, coupled with a self-reflective approach advocated by Friere, were key in facilitating the goals and ultimate success of the program.

프로그램

THE PROGRAM

We have conducted the CMP twice over two academic years, 1999–2001.*

The 80-hour program spanned eight months and consisted of an initial three-day session followed by a full-day program once a month for six months. The goals of the program are presented in List 1. 

• 제공 자료: Participants were provided with a manual that included extensive readings, bibliographies, and a career planning notebook.17 

• 각 9시간 진행: Each nine-hour session combined skill development, structured career planning, and scholarly writing. 

• 교수-학습법: Learning and teaching strategies were learner-centered experiential learning, role-play, videotaping, group discussion, extensive feedback from peers and facilitators, storytelling, narrative writing, and self-reflection.

스킬 개발

Development of Skills

We devoted sessions to each of the following skill areas, which we believe are important for optimal performance in academic medicine: 

• team building, 

• value clarification, 

• career planning, 

• collaboration, 

• negotiation, 

• conflict resolution, 

• oral and written presentations, and 

• gender and power issues. 

The cohort stayed together throughout the day; the program director facilitated the cohort’s activities in collaboration with, for most sessions, a visiting facilitator with particular content expertise.

일정 진행

The daylong sessions followed a similar format, which we illustrate here by a description of a session on power: 

• 잠시 체크인하고 간단한 시간을 보냈을 때 진행자는 각 참가자에게 힘이 문제가되는 직장 경험에 대한 설명을 적어달라고 요청했습니다.

• 이야기는 진행자가 큰 소리로 읽었습니다. 이 과정에는 강압력의 다양한 스타일과 힘을 사용하는보다 효과적인 방법을 다루는 20 분 강의가 이어졌다.

• 휴식을 취한 후에, 그룹은 다시 모이고 컨센서스로 파워 시나리오 중 두 가지를 선택하여 역할 놀이와 토론을했습니다.

• 워크숍에서 진행자는 개인이 롤 플레잉 상황에서 격려, 협상 및 존경의 힘을 보여줌으로써 그룹이 통찰력과 피드백을 제공함으로써 대응할 수 있도록 도와주었습니다.

• 여러 참가자가 각 역할극에 참여하고 서로에게 도움을 주었습니다.

• 점심 식사를 마친 후, 그룹은 세션에서 제공된 새로운 관점에서 자신의 시나리오를 어떻게 보았는지에 대해 쉽게 논의했습니다.

• 마지막 활동으로 참가자들은 중요하고 의미있는 것으로 여겨지는 세션의 일부 측면에 대해 서면으로 성찰하였다.

• 학업 계획 개발 및 글쓰기 기술을 다루는 두 개의 추가 활동이 포함되었습니다.

• After a brief checking-in period and orientation to the day, the facilitators asked each participant to write a description of an experience in the workplace where power was an issue, one that they would like to work on. 

• The narratives were read aloud by the facilitators. This process was followed by a 20-minute lecture that addressed the various styles of coercive power and more effective methods of using power. 

• After a break, the group reconvened and by consensus selected two of their own power scenarios to role-play and discuss. 

• During the workshop, the facilitators assisted individuals in demonstrating the power skills of encouragement, negotiation, and honoring during role-play situations, to which the group responded by offering insights and feedback. 

• A number of participants participated in each role-play and offered help to each other. 

• After lunch, the group engaged in a facilitated discussion of how they viewed their own scenarios from the potentially new vantage point afforded by the session. 

• As a final activity, participants were invited to reflect in writing on some aspect of the session they found important or meaningful. 

• Two additional segments that addressed the development of an academic plan and writing skills were included in each day’s activities.

다른 활동

Other Activities

For one hour each day, participants were guided through the steps of formulating a written personal academic development plan.17 The components of the completed plan included 

• clarifying and prioritizing values, 

• identifying strengths, 

• setting long- and short-term career goals, 

• identifying tasks and learning objectives to achieve goals, 

• writing learning contracts for skill development, and 

• discussing or negotiating the plan with their supervisors.

Scholarly writing was also a focus of the program. 

• 하루에 75 분의 시간을 저자 편집 담당자와 관련된 공동 작업에 사용했습니다.

• 각 개인은 저널 기사, 초록, 사설 또는 책 장과 같이 프로그램의 8 개월 동안 완료 될 수있는 적어도 하나의 자체 선정 학술적 프로젝트에 자신의 노력을 집중 시켰습니다.

• 대부분의 작문은 프로그램 세션 밖에서 진행되었지만 각 세션에서 15 ~ 20 분의 글쓰기 기간에 참여하고 서로에게 피드백을 제공하며 개인 작문 프로젝트 또는 글쓰기 과정 전반에 대한 통찰력과 경험을 공유했습니다 .

• 작문 전문가가 이 프로그램의 일부를 facilitate 했습니다

• Seventy-five minutes per day were devoted to collaboration on writing in the context of author–editor dyads. 

• Each individual focused her or his effort on at least one self-selected scholarly writing project, such as a journal article, abstract, editorial, or book chapter, that could be completed during the eight months of the program. 

• Although most of their writing was conducted outside the program sessions, during each session they engaged in 15- to 20-minute periods of writing, provided feedback to one another, and shared perspectives and experiences that informed individual writing projects or the writing process in general. 

• A writing expert facilitated this segment of the program.

평가

Evaluation

The authors evaluated the program using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. We tracked individual participants’ written learning objectives for each day, and at the end of each session, requested a written narrative about a meaningful learning experience. These were written on NCR (no-carbon-required) paper so that participants could keep a copy and thus compile written accounts of their thinking and learning throughout the program. Participants used self-selected code names on all evaluation instruments in order to ensure their confidentiality and anonymity. 

At the conclusion of the entire CMP, they engaged in audiotaped dyadic interviews that addressed open-ended questions (List 2) about their program-related learning and experience. They also received a copy of a written document that presented a qualitative analysis of their written and voiced comments, with an invitation to review and provide feedback and comments regarding the completeness and accuracy of the findings. The participants concurred with our findings.

WHAT WE LEARNED

양적 자료

Quantitative Data

전체 참석률 89%

Program attendance and productivity in the area of academic writing were exceptional. The overall program attendance rate was 89%, with participants consistently demonstrating active involvement in the program. The reasons participants gave for non-attendance were clinical scheduling conflicts, illness, or attendance at national professional meetings. 

16명이 학술적 출판물

Sixteen scholarly manuscripts were submitted or accepted for publication by the cohort who participated in the initial program, and 11 were submitted by the cohort of the following year. Educational value and participant involvement were positively rated for all sessions. 

글쓰기 프로젝트는 2.11점. 프로그램의 이 요소에 대해서는 1.86점

Participants gave the writing project a mean rating of 2.11 (SD = 0.92) on a fivepoint scale where 1 = excellent and 5 = poor. All participants completed written plans for their academic careers and discussed their academic development plans with their supervisors. Participants gave this component of the program a mean rating of 1.86 (SD = 0.83) on a five-point scale where 1 = excellent and 5 = poor.

질적 자료

Qualitative Data

왜 프로그램을 선택했는가

Why faculty selected the program.

CMP에 참여하기로 선택한 사람들 사이에서 참여에 대한 하나의 뚜렷한 이유는 없습니다. 여러 가지 이유에는 진로지도 나 멘토링에 대한 열망, 의대에서 교수개발에 대한 긍정적인 경험, 프로그램의 명성이 포함되었습니다.

No single rationale for participation predominated among those who elected to take part in the CMP. Their various reasons included a desire for career guidance or mentoring, positive experiences with faculty development in the medical school, or the reputation of this program in particular.

어떤 이들은 동료 간 의사 소통이 시니어 교수진 멘토링보다 더 편안하고 의미가 있다고 믿었습니다. 한 사람은 "(쉽게 미뤄지거나 취소되는) 일대일 멘토링과는 달리 피어 기반 프로그램은 잠재적으로보다 신뢰할 수있는 멘토링 프로세스를 제공 할 수 있음을 관찰했습니다. 어떤 사람들은 당면한 문제와 장애물 등이 유사하기 때문에 동료들과 상호 작용하기를 원했다. "그들은 다양한 동료 그룹이 멘토링 요구가 다른 사람의 기술이나 성격과 일치 할 가능성을 최대화했다고 생각했습니다.

Some believed that communication between peers would be more comfortable and meaningful than that associated with senior faculty mentoring. One person observed that, unlike ‘‘one-on-one mentoring [which] easily seems to be put aside or cancelled,’’ the peer-based program could potentially offer a more reliable mentoring process. Some wanted to interact with peers because of commonality in that they ‘‘face(d) the same hurdles and problems and issues.’’ They perceived that a diverse peer group maximized the likelihood that their mentoring needs would match someone else’s skills or personality.

성 (gender)이 참여 결정에 역할을했는지 묻는 질문에 3 명의 참가자가 그렇다고 했다

when asked whether gender had played a role in their choices to participate, three participants reported that it had.

요약하면 참여자들은 멘토링이나 지도에 대한 욕구, 동료-기반 경험의 가치, 성 문제, 교수진 개발 프로그램에 대한 긍정적 인 경험, 프로그램의 긍정적 인 평판 등 다양한 요소에 대한 CMP에 참여하기로 결정했습니다. .

In summary, participants based their decisions to participate in the CMP on diverse factors: a desire for mentoring or guidance in general, valuing a peer-based experience, gender issues, prior positive experiences with faculty development programs, and the positive reputation of the program.

참가자의 전반적 관점

Overview of participants’ perspectives.

참여자들은 CMP가 개인적 성장과 전문성 개발의 유익하고 가치있는 수단이라고 보았다. 모든 참가자들은 대다수의 개인이 프로그램을 매우 소중하게 생각한다고 인정했습니다. 이 프로그램에 대해 가장 자주 언급 된 recommendation 중 하나는 프로그램을 지속하거나 또는 더 길게 만들어서 코호트가 재 소집 할 수있는 기회를 제공하는 것이 었습니다.

the participants viewed the CMP as a beneficial and valuable means of personal growth and professional development. all participants acknowledged that the majority of individuals highly valued the program. Among the most frequently mentioned recommendations they voiced about the program was to continue or lengthen it, or provide an opportunity for the cohorts to reconvene.

참가자들이 프로그램을 긍정적으로 평가한 이유는 학습 환경과 프로그램 내용과 관련되었다.

Participants linked their favorable assessments of the program to both the learning environment and the content of the program.

학습 환경

Learning environment.

참가자들은 프로그램 효과와 관련된 세 가지 주요 상황 요인을 확인했습니다.

• 대인 관계를 조장하는 안전하고 협조적인 학습 환경 제공,

• 프로그램 참여 및 성찰을 위해 정기적으로 예정된 시간 dedication 가능

• 업무 환경과는 별도로 분리 된 프로그램 환경

Participants identified three primary contextual factors they associated with program effectiveness: 

• the provision of a safe, supportive learning environment that fostered interpersonal communication, 

• the dedication of regularly scheduled time for program participation and reflection, and 

• a program setting that was separate and apart from the work environment.

참가자들의 상호 작용을 조장 한 안전한 환경의 결과는 

• 관계의 발생, 

• 경험의 공유, 

• 상호 문제 해결, 

• 동료 협력 

• 우정

...이었습니다. 참가자 중 대부분은 비슷한 수준의 경력을 쌓은 동료와 비슷한 경험, 좌절감, 우려를 공유하는 동료와 상호 작용할 기회를 중요하게 생각했습니다.

A consequence of the safe environment that fostered participants’ interaction was 

• the emergence of relationships, 

• shared experiences, 

• mutual problem solving, 

• peer collaborations, and 

• camaraderie. 

Most of the participants valued the opportunity to interact with peers who were at a similar level in their careers and who shared similar experiences, frustrations, and concerns.

동료 / 동료 멘토링 프로그램이 "경험이 많은 선배와 멘토링하는 것보다 덜 효과적"이라고 생각한 한 사람을 제외하고, 다른 멘토링 프로그램에 대한 사전 경험이있는 사람들은 동료 멘토링이 적어도 시니어 교수와의 멘토링 이상의 가치가 있다고 생각했다.

With the exception of one person who found the collaborative/peer mentoring program ‘‘less effective than mentoring with a more senior/experienced teacher,’’ those who had had prior experiences with other mentoring programs found peer mentoring at least as valuable as or more valuable than a senior faculty mentoring situation.

이 프로그램이 제공하는 학습 환경의 종류는 개인의 성장에 기여할뿐만 아니라 참가자의 관계의 폭과 깊이를 증가 시켰을뿐 아니라 참가자가 프로그램 내용과 관련된 지식과 기술을 계속 습득하게 만들었습니다.

The kind of learning environment provided by this program not only contributed to personal growth and increased the breadth and depth of the participants’ relationships, but also enhanced the participants’ consequent acquisition of knowledge and skills associated with the program content.

의미있는 학습 성과에 중요한 것은 

• 토론에 참여하기 위해 임상 적 책임으로부터 벗어나 고품질의 방해받지 않는 시간 투자,

• 기술 습득 및 실습,

• 협업 

• 개인과 커리에어 초점을 둔 자기성찰

Critical to the meaningful learning outcomes participants associated with the program was 

• the dedication of high-quality, uninterrupted time away from clinical responsibilities to engage in discussion, 

• acquisition and practice of skills, 

• collaboration, and 

• personal and career-focused self-reflection.

따라서 참가자들은 대인 관계 커뮤니케이션 및 관계 구축을 촉진하는 데 도움이되는, 안전하고 지원 가능하며 비판적이며 개방적인 학습 환경을 제공하는, 근무지 외부의 환경에서, 헌신적이고 중단되지 않고 양질의 시간을 보냈다는 점에서 프로그램 컨텍스트를 설명했습니다. 학습 환경은 참가자가 궁극적으로 프로그램 내용에서 파생 된 의미있는 학습 결과에 필수적이었습니다.

Participants thus described the program context as dedicated, uninterrupted, quality time spent in a setting outside the work milieu that provided a safe, supportive, nonjudgmental, open learning environment conducive to fostering interpersonal communication and relationship building. The learning environment was requisite to the meaningful learning outcomes participants ultimately derived from the program content.

프로그램 성과

Program outcomes.

참가자들은 CMP에 참여하는 5 가지 주요 상호 연관된 유의미한 결과를 관련시켰다. 결과는

Participants associated five main interrelated meaningful outcomes with their participation in the CMP. The outcomes were

- 개개인이 중시하는 가치의 확인

- 핵심 가치에 기초한 단기 및 장기 경력 계획의 구조화 된 프로세스

- 긴밀하고 협조적인 관계의 발전

- 성, 힘, 협상, 갈등 관리, 학술적 글쓰기 및 구두 발표와 같은 영역에서의 기술 개발

- 대학의학 및 현재 기관에 남아 있기로 결정하게 한 직업 만족도 향상

- identification of individual governing values;

- a structured process of shortand long-term career planning based on these core values;

- the development of close, collaborative relationships;

- skill development in such areas as gender, power, negotiation, and conflict management, scholarly writing, and oral presentation; and

- improved job satisfaction linked to the participants’ decisions to remain in academic medicine and the resolve to remain at their current institution.

가치의 명확화

Clarification of values.

프로그램 참가자는 일반적으로 개인의 핵심 가치를 파악하고 이러한 가치를 직업 계획에 연결하는 기회가 프로그램과 관련된 가장 의미있는 학습 성과 중 하나를 육성했다고 인식했습니다. 각자의 코호트에 존재하는 다양성에도 불구하고 서로의 핵심 가치와 목표에서 유사점을 발견했다. 그러나 많은 사람들에게 생각하지도 못한 핵심 가치와 직업 계획 간의 연관성이 드러나기도 했다.

Program participants generally perceived that the opportunity to identify personal core values and to connect those values to career planning fostered one of the most meaningful learning outcomes associated with the program. Program participants were struck with the similarities they found in each other’s core values and goals despite the diversity present in their cohort. An unexpected revelation to many, however, was the connection between core values and career planning.

다른 참가자의 경험에 비추어 볼 때, 글을 쓰고, 성찰하고, 자신의 가치를 명확히한 결과, 참가자가 소중히 여기는 것과 경력 계획을 향상시키는 결과를 낳았습니다.

As another participant’s experience suggests, the consequence of writing down, reflecting on, and clarifying their values culminated in improved congruence between what the participants valued and their career planning:

참가자들은 또한 자신의 핵심 가치가 어떻게 업무와 개인 생활 모두에 반영되는지를 인식하고, 삶의 두 측면을 모두 성공적으로 이끌 계획을 세웠습니다.

Participants also began to recognize how or whether their core values were reflected in both their work and their personal lives and made plans to successfully address both aspects of their lives.

커리어 계획

Career planning.

참가자들은 타임 라인을 개발하고 1 년, 3 년 및 10 년 경력 목표를 작성하는 등 경력 계획 및 우선 순위 설정을위한 구체적인 단계를 적용하는 과정을 특히 가치있는 과정으로 파악했습니다.

The participants viewed the process of applying concrete steps for career planning and priority setting, including developing a time line and writing one-, three-, and ten-year career goals, as a particularly valuable process.

일부 개인은 이전에 자신의 단기 또는 장기 경력 목표에 대한 생각을하지 못했습니다. 많은 이들은 서면으로 경력 계획을 세우지 않았습니다. 커리어 계획 프로세스는 업무, 경력 및 개인 생활을 재구성하고, 직업 만족도, 생산성, 핵심 가치와의 일관성을 개선하기 위해 필요한 변화를 협상하기위한 노력을 촉진 시켰습니다.

Some individuals had not previously given thought to their shortor long-term career goals; many had never structured their career plans in writing. The career planning process invited a re-envisioning of their work, careers, and personal lives, and precipitated efforts to negotiate needed changes to improve job satisfaction, productivity, and consistency with core values.

관계 발달

Development of relationships.

참가자들은 다양한 분야의 다양한 동료 동료를 만나고 상호 작용할 수있는 기회를 소중히 여겼습니다. 그들은 서로 다른 시각을 발견하고, 비슷한 상황에서 다른 사람들과 함께 배우고 공유하며, 문제를 해결하고, 궁극적으로 작업 환경 내에서 덜 고립되고 편안해졌습니다.

Participants valued the opportunity to meet and interact with diverse peer colleagues from a variety of disciplines. They discovered disparate perspectives, learned from and shared with others in similar circumstances, solved problems, and, in the end, felt less isolated and more comfortable within their work environments.

프로그램의 결론으로 ​​많은 사람들이 협력적이고 지원적인 사회적 또는 전문적 네트워크를 형성했습니다.

By the conclusion of the program, many had formed collaborative and supportive social or professional networks.

참가자들은 동료 간의 존경과 협동이 다음에 영향을 미쳤다고 했다.

Participants viewed the collegial respect and collaboration that emerged from their interactions with one another as having impacts on 

• 전문직으로서의 삶 their professional lives by improving their professional effectiveness, 

• 근무지 관계 working relationships, and 

• 직장 분위기 work climate in general.

스킬 발달

Development of skills.

참가자들은 학술적 글쓰기, 구두 발표, 성 및 힘 문제, 협상 및 갈등 관리뿐만 아니라 가치 설명 및 경력 계획에 대한 지식 및 기술 습득을 중요하게 생각했습니다. "그러한 지식과 기술은 우리가 학문적으로뿐만 아니라 다양한 삶의 영역에서 성공하는 데 도움이 될 것입니다. " 프로그램에 의해 다루어지는 특별한 기술은 독특한 것으로 여겨졌습니다. 이들은 참가자들이 이전에 노출되지 않았고 다른 곳에서 얻을 수없는 기술이었습니다.

The participants valued the acquisition of knowledge and skills in value clarification and career planning as well as in scholarly writing, oral presentation, gender and power issues, negotiation, and conflict management; such knowledge and skills ‘‘would help us succeed not only academically but [also] in diverse areas of life.’’The particular skills addressed by the program were seen as unique; these were skills to which the participants had not been previously exposed and would be unlikely to gain else-where. 

교수 유지

Retention of faculty.

이 프로그램은 우리 학교에서 교수진이 학술 의학을 유지하는 데 영향을 미쳤습니다. 그 이유 중 하나는 많은 참가자가 학업에 대한 만족도를 높이고 학술 의학의 성격과 기대에 대한 이해를 향상 시켰기 때문입니다.

The program affected faculty members’ retention in academic medicine at our school, in part because it helped many participants find greater satisfaction in their work and improved their understanding about the nature and expectations of academic medicine.

유지에 긍정적인 영향을 받았다고 응답한 사람들은 그 요인으로 여러가지를 꼽았다. 

• 한 개인은 자신감을 키우고 자기 옹호 (self-advocacy) 기술을 습득하여 교육 기관에서보다 편하게 지낼 수있게되었으며 따라서 교수진의 일원으로 남을 가능성이 커졌습니다. 

• 다른 참가자에게 프로그램의 제공은 교수개발과 교수의 성공에 대한 기관적 의지가 의과 대학과 계속 제휴하려는 욕구를 강화 시켰습니다.

Those who experienced a positive impact on retention attributed it to a variety of factors. 

• One individual gained the confidence and self-advocacy skills that made him or her more comfortable at the institution and thus more likely to choose to remain as a member of the faculty there. 

• To another participant, the offering of the program suggested institutional commitment to faculty development and a concern about faculty success that reinforced the desire to continue being affiliated with the medical school.

고찰

DISCUSSION

CMP 프로그램은 교수 개발 과정에 대해 자기 주도적이고 자기 권한을 부여하며 협업 적이며 경험적 접근 방식을 사용했습니다. 재임 및 승진 지침, 대학 정책 및 절차, 강의 사용을 강조 할 수있는 전통적인 초점과는 달랐습니다. 프로그램의 설계 및 구현을 알리는 이론적 개념과 일관되게 

• 초기, 집중적 인 3 일 세션은 가치 설명, 목표 설정, 자체 권한 부여 및 팀 구성에 중점을 둡니다. 

• 이 세션은 관점과 경험의 공유를 촉진하고 참가자들 간의 신뢰를 촉진하는 안전하고, 비-판단적 환경의 맥락에서 제공되었습니다. 

• 궁극적으로 참가자들의 유대감에 기여했으며 이후의 각 세션을 특징 짓는 상호 작용적이고 협동적인 학습 과정의 무대를 마련했습니다.

The CMP program used a self-directed, self-empowering, collaborative, experiential approach to the process of faculty development. It differed from a more traditional focus that might emphasize tenure and promotion guidelines, university policies and procedures, and the use of lectures. Consistent with the theoretical concepts that informed the design and implementation of the program, 

• the initial, intensive three-day session focused on value clarification, goal setting, self-empowerment, and team building. 

• The session was offered in the context of a safe, non-judgmental environment that promoted the sharing of perspectives and experiences and fostered trust among participants. 

• It ultimately contributed to the participants’ bonding and set the stage for the interactive, collaborative learning process that characterized each of the subsequent sessions.

로저스가 주장한 바와 같이, 참가자들은 성찰, 상호 작용, 관계 구축을 촉진하고, 지식과 기술 습득을 돕고, 개인 성장을 촉진하는 안전하고,지지 적이며, 자기 주도적이며, 평등 한 학습 환경을인지했다. 그러한 프로그램은 특히 여성의 경력 개발에 도움이 될 수있다.

Consistent with Rogers’ contentions, the participants perceived that a safe, supportive, self-directive, egalitarian learning environment that fostered reflection, interaction, and relationship building, facilitated their acquisition of knowledge and skills, and fostered personal growth. Such a program may be particularly conducive to the career development of women.18

참가자들은 동료에 대해 소중히 여긴 특성이 멘토에게 기대되는 특성에 부합하더라도, 반복적으로 동료를 '멘토'가 아닌 '협력자'또는 '동료'(비 계급적 관계를 암시 함)로 식별했습니다: 통찰력, 경험, 아이디어, 지침, 문제 해결, 지원. Peer collaborator에 대한 그들의 언급은 peer-mentoring 프로세스의 비 계급적 성격을 반영하며, 여기에는 기존의 시니어-주니어 멘토링에서 나타나는 권력, 지배력, 의존성, 이전transference 등이 해결된 것과 관련된다. CMP는 또한 가용한 멘토가 부족하고, 일관되지 못하고, 한 사람의 관점에만 영향을 받는 한계 등 교수멘토링 상황에서 발생했던 다른 어려움을 피했습니다.

Participants repeatedly identified their peers as ‘‘collaborators’’ or ‘‘colleagues’’ (implying a non-hierachical relationship) rather than as ‘‘mentors,’’ even though the attributes they valued in their peers were consistent with the expectations of having a ‘‘mentor’’2: shared insights, experiences, ideas, guidance, problem solving, and support. Their reference to peer collaborators reflects the non-hierarchical nature of a peer-mentoring process, a characteristic that addresses problematic issues in senior–junior mentoring relationships such as power, dominance, dependency, and transference. The CMP also circumvented other difficulties in dyadic faculty mentoring situations, including lack of mentors’ availability, inconsistency, and the limitations inherent in receiving just one person’s perspective.

---

Acad Med. 2002 May;77(5):377-84.

Helping medical school faculty realize their dreams: an innovative, collaborative mentoringprogram.

Pololi LH1, Knight SM, Dennis K, Frankel RM.

Author information

1

Office of Faculty Development and National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine, the Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. Linda.pololi@umassmed.edu

Abstract

Junior faculty wishing to achieve successful careers in academic medicine face many challenges. To facilitate faculty in their career development, the authors implemented and evaluated an innovative collaborative, or peer-group, mentoring program at their medical school. Based on Rogerian and adult learning principles, the program incorporated development of skills in key areas for career development, a structured values-based approach to career planning, and instruction in scholarly writing. The 80-hour program has so far been conducted twice over two academic years (1999-2001) with 18 faculty (50% women). Quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the evaluation. Program attendance was 89%. All participants completed a written academic development plan, an exercise they rated as valuable. They also completed an average of one to three manuscripts for publication. Evaluation data highlighted the critical nature of a supportive learning environment and the reasons participants chose to attend the program consistently. Key meaningful outcomes for most participants were: (1) identification of their core values; (2) a structured process of short- and long-term career planning based on these core values; (3) the development of close, collaborative relationships; (4) development of skills in such areas as gender and power issues, negotiation and conflict management, scholarly writing, and oral presentation, and (5) improved satisfaction linked to participants' decisions to remain in academic medicine. Participants developed a sense of personal transformation and empowerment. The authors conclude that collaborativementoring offers a new approach to faculty development that addresses limitations of traditional approaches in a satisfying and cost-effective way.

PMID:

 

12010691

[Indexed for MEDLINE]