교수개발의 과거, 현재, 미래(Faculty development: Yesterday, today and tomorrow) (4)

AMEE GUIDE NO 36

Faculty development: Yesterday, today and tomorrow

MICHELLE MCLEAN1, FRANCOIS CILLIERS2 & JACQUELINE M. VAN WYK3

1University of the United Arab Emirates, 2University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 3University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Abstract

의학교육은 그 자체가 하나의 학문으로서 진호하였다. Medical faculty에게 요구되는 사회적 책무와 함께 가르치는 일에 대해서도 professionalization의 압박이 커지고 있다. 프로페셔널하고 역량있는 선생, 교육자, 연구자, 리더를 키우기 위해서는 교수개발(faculty development, FD)가 필요하다. 그러나 FD는 쉬운 일이 아디나. 조직 차원에서의 지지가 필요하고, 적절한 자원의 배분과 우수한 교육자를 인정해주는 것이 필요하다.

Medical education has evolved to become a discipline in its own right. With demands on medical faculties to be socially responsible and accountable, there is now increasing pressure for the professionalisation of teaching practice. Developing a cadre of professional and competent teachers, educators, researchers and leaders for their new roles and responsibilities in medical education requires faculty development. Faculty development is, however, not an easy task. It requires supportive institutional leadership, appropriate resource allocation and recognition for teaching excellence.

이 가이드는 의학분야 뿐만 아니라 관련된 보건분야를 막라하여 교육에 대한 교수의 새로운 역할을 위한 FD를 담당하고 있는 사람들을 위해 만들어졌다. FD 개발의 역사적 관점을 보여주고 FD 프로그램을 만들기 위해서 도움이 될 만한 프레임워크를 제공하고자 했다. 이 프레임워크는 FD 담당자들이 계획을 세우고, 도입하고, 평가하는데 도움을 줄 것이다.

This guide is designed to assist those charged with preparing faculty for their many new roles in teaching and education in both medical and allied health science education. It provides a historical perspective of faculty development and draws on the medical, health science and higher education literature to provide a number of frameworks that may be useful for designing tailored faculty development programmes. These frameworks can be used by faculty developers to systematically plan, implement and evaluate their staff development programmes.

마지막으로 이 가이드는 미래 FD를 이끌어나갈 주요 트렌드와 원동력을 짚어보았다.

This guide concludes with some of the major trends and driving forces in medical education that we believe will shape future faculty development.

---

FD의 계획과 도입

Planning and implementing faculty development

장기적 또는 의미있는 성과의 보고가 적다는 것이 '아기를 물가에 내놓아도 된다'라는 뜻은 아니다.

The general lack of reported long-term or meaningful outcomes of faculty development programmes does not mean, however, that we should ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’

비유를 들자면 FD를 여행가는 것에 비교할 수 있다. 사람들은 모두 다른 이유로 여행을 떠난다. 잘 알려지지 않은 목적지 또는 적절하지 않은 목적지로 여행을 떠나는 사람은 거의 없을 것이다. 중간에 목적지가 바뀐다면 일부는 떨어져나갈것이다. 모든 여행자를 이끌기 위해서는 그들이 누구고, 어디로 가고 싶고, 왜 그 여행을 떠났는지를 알아야 한다.

Perhaps a useful analogy at this stage would be a comparison between a faculty development programme and a journey. Passengers embark on a journey for many different reasons (Fullan 1993). If the destination is not advertised or is not suitable, few passengers will start the journey. If the destination changes en route, some will disembark along the way. To cater for all travellers, it is important to know who they are, where they want to go and why they are taking this particular excursion.

FD의 여섯 단계

A six-step approach to faculty development (adapted from Kern et al. 1998)

Kern의 여섯 단계를 세 단계로 구분하고자 한다.

For simplicity, we have divided Kern et al’s (1998) six steps into three phases:

A. planning (Steps 1–3);

B. implementation (Steps 4–5) and, finally;

C. evaluation and feedback (Step 6).

A. 계획 단계

A. Planning faculty development (Steps 1–3)

1. 문제를 명확히하고, 일반적 요구 조사

1. Problem identification and general needs assessment

Table 6의 질문을 해야 한다.

Critical questions at this stage might include (Table 6):

원동력이 주로 외부에 있다면, 그리고 개개인의 동기부여가 잘 되어있지 않다면 개별 교수들은 왜 참여해야하는지 의문을 가질 것이다.

If the driving forces are largely external and if there is little personal motivation to improve teaching, then individual faculty members will want to know why they should participate (Carroll 1993).

2. 대상자에 대한 요구조사

2. Needs assessment of target participants

FD프로그램의 일반적 요구조사가 되었다면, 개별 교수들, 학문영역, 조직 수준의 요구가 조사되어야 한다.

Having agreed on the general purpose of the faculty development programme, the needs of individual faculty members, disciplines and the institution should be identified

3. 적절한 목표와 성과 설정

3. Appropriate goals and specific measurable outcomes

Table 6에 있는 질문을 생각해보아야 한다.

Questions at this point may include:

task는 궁극적인 목적과 성과를 달성하도록 해야 하고, 인지적/정동적/운동적 부분을 다 포괄해야 한다.

The task at hand will dictate the overarching goal and specific outcomes, which may range from cognitive or affective to psychomotor.

현실적이고 측정가능한 성과는 다음을 포함해야 한다.

Realistic and measurable outcomes may then include

.인지/정동/운동 발달을 포함하는 역량

.학습 '프로세스'

.교육적/임상적 효과(이득)

. Individual competencies in terms of cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitudinal) and psychomotor (skills and performance) development.

. The learning ‘process’ (e.g. small group facilitation; reflective teaching).

. Educational (e.g. better student assessment) or clinical (e.g. improved communication with patients) benefits.

B. 도입

B. Implementation (Steps 4 & 5)

4. 교육 전략

4. Educational strategies

FD프로그램에 사용되는 교육 전략은 학습 성과와 일치해야 한다.

Educational strategies used in the faculty development programme should be aligned with the learning outcomes

FD가 학습향상에 대한 관점을 통한 교육의 변화를 추구한다면, 하나 혹은 그 이상의 이론적 모델에 기반해야 한다.

If faculty development is about changing practice with the view to improving student learning, then it should be underpinned by one or more theoretical models (Box 5).

고등교육에서의 많은 연구는 conceptual change model을 student learning model과 연결시켜왔기 때문에, Faculty developer는 주로 복합적인 접근법을 사용해왔다. 이러한 좋은 예는 아래와 같은 것이 있으며, 교수들이 좀 더 transformative conception을 적용할 수 있다면 학생의 deep learning을 촉진할 수 있음을 보여준다.

Much of the research in higher education has linked conceptual change models with student learning models and so faculty developers have tended to use a hybrid approach (Trigwell 1995; Kember 1997; Prosser & Trigwell 1997; Prebble et al. 2004; Richardson 2005). Good examples of this combination include the studies of Ho et al. (2001) and Gibbs & Coffey (2004). Gibbs and Coffey (2004) suggest that if teachers can adopt more transformative conceptions of learning, their more student-centred teaching practice should foster deep learning.

따라서 학습자중심의 접근법에 있어서 참여자는 아래와 같이 해야 한다.

Thus, in a learner-centred approach to faculty development, participants should be encouraged to

. negotiate their learning objectives (Knowles 1975),

. have hands-on practical experience (Kolb 1984),

. collaborate as members of a team (Bandura 1986),

. engage in self-directed learning (Knowles 1975),

. recognize the assumptions that underlie their beliefs and behaviours (Brookfield 1995),

. receive and provide feedback (Knowles 1975),

. solve problems and transfer this experience to other situations (Regehr & Norman 1996),

. reflect in- and on-action, alone (Scho¨n 1987, 1991) and with colleagues (Bandura 1986),

. engage in self-assessment (Williams et al. 1999), and

. apply what they have learnt to their practice (Knowles 1988; Regehr & Norman 1996).

Trigwell은 몇 가지 전략을 제시했다.

Trigwell (1995) has suggested some practical strategies that might be useful to engage academics with their practice during faculty development sessions. These include

.교수들의 다양한 사고방식을 인식한다.

.학습을 향상시킬 수 있는 교육 개념을 토론한다.

.이러한 개념에 맞는 전략과 수행을 묘사한다.

.향상된 교육을 보여준 교수에 대해 학생들의 긍정적인 코멘트를 활용한다.

. developing an awareness of the variation (i.e. different conceptions) in teacher thinking (e.g. through appropriate articles in journal clubs),

. discussing conceptions of teaching which are thought to lead to improved learning (e.g. in small group discussions with colleagues who have been recognized for their teaching excellence),

. illustrating strategies and practices that are consistent with these conceptions (e.g. through reviewing and reflecting on video-taped sessions),

. using positive student comments relating to teachers who have improved their teaching practice, which could be discussed in groups or through a peer mentoring programme.

5. 최종 도입

5. Final implementation

이 단계에서 해야 할 질문은 "FD가 multidisciplinary해야하는가?" "보장된 시간이 있는가?" "목적과 성과과 도달될 것인가" 이다.

Questions that need to be answered at this stage include: Should faculty development be multidisciplinary? Is there protected time? Are the goals and outcomes being met?

academic group을 교육과 관련된 복잡한 지식/태도/술기를 향상시키기에 효과적인 세팅이라고 보고한 근거들이 있다.

The evidence supports the academic group as an effective setting for developing the complex knowledge, attitudes and skills involved in teaching (Prebble et al. 2004).

이러한 팀워크는 professional inquiry의 문화를 촉진하기 위해서 필요하나, 그룹 FD는 학과별로 해야하는가 아니면 학제간으로 해야하는가? 둘 다 찬/반이 있다.

This team work should also aim to foster a culture of professional inquiry, but, should group faculty development be departmental or multidisciplinary? Both have pros and cons.

Neumann의 고등교육 관점에 따르면 학과기반의 FD는 pedagogical practice를 향상시키는 것에 장점이 있다.

From Neumann’s (2001) higher education perspective, department- based professional development is more likely to offer better opportunities for enhancing pedagogical practice than a centralised, generic teaching skills accreditation programme approach

학제간 FD는 교수들의 통합교육과정에 대비하게 하고 각각의 학문들이 어떻게 수직, 수평으로 통합되었는지에 대한 이해를 도와준다.

Interdisciplinary faculty development offers several benefits. A multidisciplinary approach, for example, to prepare faculty for reform to an integrated curriculum would certainly promote an appreciation and understanding of how individual disciplines become horizontally and vertically integrated.

Lave는 situated learning theory를 이용해서 어떻게 교수들의 새로운 교수를 socialize하는지 설명한 바 있다.

Lave’s (1988) situated learning theory explaining how interaction with professionals socialises newcomers into the institutional culture can also be drawn upon.

그룹 활동을 계획할 때에는 관계/지위/책임/평판 등을 고려해야 한다. FD는 collegiality와 collaboration이 필요하기 때문에, 어떤 그룹이 더 잘 함께할 수 있는지 알아야 한다.

When planning group activities, we should, however, take cognisance of, for example, relationships, status, responsibility and reputation (i.e. Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs). Where faculty development requires collegiality and collaboration (e.g. developing skills to undertake curriculum reform), we need to recognize which faculty groups work best together.

다람쥐가 공룡이나 코알라랑 잘 하겠는가, 아니면 양이나 카멜레온과 잘 하겠는가?

Do the squirrels work best with the dinosaurs and koalas, or do they work better with the sheep and the chameleons? (Challis 2001).

C. 평가와 피드백

C. Evaluation and feedback (Step 6)

6. 프로그램 효과 평가와 피드백 제공

6. Evaluate programme effectiveness and provide feedback

비록 평가가 FD에서 중요한 부분이지만, 가장 무시되는 부분이기도 하다.

Although evaluation is an important aspect of faculty development, it is probably the most neglected (Prebble et al. 2004;

Steinert 2005; Steinert et al. 2006).  

계획 단계에서부터 중요한 질문들을 해야 한다.

Critical questions about measuring programme effectiveness need to be asked and answered during the planning stage, when the objectives are agreed upon (i.e. Stage 3 of Kern et al.’s (1998) approach) (Table 6).

장기적/의미있는 성과에 대해서 잘 기술하지 않으면, 기본적인 측정의 어려움 뿐만 아니라 부적절한 평가 도구를 사용하게 될 수도 있다.

As already alluded to, the poor documentation of long-term and meaningful outcomes may, apart from inherent difficulties of measuring higher level outcomes, relate to inappropriate evaluation tools, amongst a number of other factor.

낮은 레벨에 해당하는 참가자의 만족도는 몰라도 높은 레벨에서는 질적 척도가 필요하다.

While this may be appropriate for lower level outcomes (e.g. participant satisfaction) in Kirkpatrick’s (1994) model (Table 3), higher order outcomes require more qualitative measures (Skeff et al. 1997a; Knight et al. 2007).

다른 고등교육영역에서 사용된 validated inventories나 instruments를 활용하는 것도 한 가지 방법이다. 다음이 그 예이다.

It would be useful for faculty developers to use validated inventories and instruments from the higher education arena and Psychology for evaluating learner or faculty interventions. Prosser & Trigwell’s (1993) Approach to Teaching Inventory and instruments used by Gibbs & Coffey (2004) in their landmark study are two such examples.

의미있는/장기적 성과를 측정하기 위해 노력하고 있는 동안 Steinert는 Kirkpatrick 모델에서 만족도는 비록 낮은 단계에 있지만 중요하게 고려되어야 한다고 주장한다. 만약 참석자들이 그들이 투자한 시간과 노력이 의미있다고 생각하지 않으면, 더 이상 FD에 참여하려고 하지 않을 것이기 때문이다. 또한 우리는 교수들이 FD의 가치를 깨닫고 동료들에게 권하기를 원하기 때문이다. educational programme의 평가에 대해서 Goldie의 조언을 찾아보거나 clinical education intervention에 있어서 측정 원칙에 대해서는 Snell의 연구를 참고할 수 있다.

While we strive to measure ‘meaningful’ and ‘long-term’ outcomes of faculty development, Steinert (2005) has pointed out that despite participant satisfaction being assigned to the lowest level on Kirkpatrick’s (1994) model, it is nevertheless an important consideration in faculty development. If participants do not believe that their time and efforts were well spent, they may not sign up for further faculty development sessions, just as the travellers on the train journey. We would also certainly want faculty to recognize the value of courses and recommend them to colleagues. Readers should consult Goldie (2006) for a description of the range of tools for evaluating educational programmes and Snell et al. (2000) for a discussion of measurement principles relating to clinical educational interventions.

---

Med Teach. 2008;30(6):555-84. doi: 10.1080/01421590802109834.

Faculty development: yesterday, today and tomorrow.

McLean M1, Cilliers F, Van Wyk JM.

Author information

Abstract

Medical education has evolved to become a discipline in its own right. With demands on medical faculties to be socially responsible and accountable, there is now increasing pressure for the professionalisation of teaching practice. Developing a cadre of professional and competent teachers, educators, researchers and leaders for their new roles and responsibilities in medical education requires faculty development. Faculty development is, however, not an easy task. It requires supportive institutional leadership, appropriate resource allocation and recognition for teaching excellence. This guide is designed to assist those charged with preparing faculty for their many new roles in teaching and education in both medical and allied health science education. It provides a historical perspective of faculty development and draws on the medical, health science and higher education literature to provide a number of frameworks that may be useful for designing tailored faculty development programmes. These frameworks can be used byfaculty developers to systematically plan, implement and evaluate their staff development programmes. This guide concludes with some of the major trends and driving forces in medical education that we believe will shape future faculty development.

PMID:

 

18677659

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]