새천년의 교수개발: 도전과 미래 방향(Med Teach, 2000)

새천년의 교수개발: 도전과 미래 방향(Med Teach, 2000)

Faculty development in the new millennium: key challenges and future directions
YVONNE STEINERT
Department of Family Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital and Faculty of
Medicine, McGill University, Canada

 

 

 

 

 

 

FD는 의학교육에서 매우 중요한 요소가 되었다. FD활동은 모든 교육연속체에서 교사의 효과성 향상을 위해 설계된다.

Faculty development has become an increasingly important component of medical education. Faculty development activities have been designed to improve teacher effectiveness at all levels of the educational continuum

 

이 논의에서 FD는 다음의 정의를 따른다. "기관이 교수들의 역할을 새롭게(renew)하거나 도와(assist)하기 위해서 활용하는 광범위한 활동". 즉, FD는 교수로서 일을 수행하는데 필수적으로 여겨지는 영역에 있어서 개인의 지식이나 스킬을 향상시키기 위해 설계된 모든 활동이며, 여기에는 교육, 연구, 행정이 모두 포함된다. 더 나아가 FD는 기관이나 교수들을 다양한 역할에 대비시키고 생산성과 생명력을 유지하기 위한 프로그램들도 포함한다.

For the purpose of this discussion, faculty development refers to that broad range of activities that institutions use to renew or assist faculty in their roles (Centra, 1978). That is, faculty development is considered to be any planned activity designed to improve an individual’ s knowledge and skills in areas considered essential to the performance of a faculty member, including teaching, research and administra- tion (Sheets & Schwenk, 1990). Moreover, faculty develop- ment includes those programs designed to prepare institutions and faculty members for their various roles and to sustain their productivity and vitality (Bland et al., 1990).

 

교수개발의 포커스

The focus of faculty development

 

지금까지, FDP의 대다수는 교수의 교육스킬 개발에 초점을 두어 왔으며, 개인의 성장이나 교수/조직적 요소(의사결정, 변화 프로세스)에는 관심을 덜 가져왔다. 비록 다른 FD 활동이 기술된 바 있지만, 교육 개선 또는 교육 효과성을 지나치게 강조한 측면이 있으며, 더 포괄적인 프로그램이 고려되어야 한다. 특히 FDP는 리더십이나 조직관리 스킬, 프로페셔널 학문 스킬, 조직개발 등이 교육개선 프로그램의 '메뉴'에 포함되어야 한다. 추가로, 특정 내용(정보 테크놀로지, 프로페셔널리즘, EBM) 과 '교육자들 교육시키기' 프로그램도 필요하다.

To date, the majority of faculty development programs have focused on the improvement of faculty members’ teaching skills (Hitchcock et al., 1993; Irby, 1996), with minimal attention being paid to the personal development of faculty members or organizational elements such as decision- making or the change process (Lipetz et al., 1986). Although other faculty development initiatives have been described, most notably in the area of research (e.g. Hekelman et al., 1995; Holloway et al., 1988), there has clearly been an over-emphasis on teaching improvement and instructional effectiveness, and more comprehensive programs should be considered. In particular, faculty development programs designed to enhance leadership and management skills, professional academic skills, and organizational develop- ment should be added to the `menu’ of teaching improve- ment programs. In addition, we should offer programs that focus on the teaching of speci®c content areas (e.g. informa- tion technology; professionalism; evidence-based medicine) and `educating the educators’ .

 

 

 

리더십과 관리 기술

Leadership and management skills

 

유례없는 헬스케어 분야의 변화가 교수의 역할과 보상체계를 바꿔놓고 있다. 내적, 외적 영향력에 의해 의사들은 점점 관리자적 역할과 리더십 역할을 맡아야 하게 되었으며, 그러나 아직 어떻게 우리가 교수들을 이 역할에 대비시킬지는 잘 모른다. 일부 프로그램이 이 목적으로 설계되었으나 리더십, 관리자, 행정스킬 개발 등에 대한 강조가 더 필요하다.

Extraordinar y changes in health care delivery have signi®cantly altered faculty roles and rewards (Bland & Simpson, 1997). In response to internal and external forces, physicians are being asked to take on increasing administra- tive and leadership roles, and yet, how do we formally prepare our faculty members for these challenges? Several programs designed to address this need have been described (e.g. McGaghie et al., 1981; Morahan et al., 1998; Steinert et al., 1997a); however, an increased emphasis on leadership, management, and administrative skill development is essential in these times of change.

 

이런 분야에 해당하는 프로그램에는 다음과 같은 것이 있을 수 있다.

Content areas for such programs might include: 

• 조직의 구조 understanding `formal’ and `informal’ organizational structures; 
• 현 정치, 경제, 조직 압력 분석 analyzing current economic, political, and organizational pressures and trends; 
• 리더십과 관리 스킬 leadership and management skills; 
• 갈등 관리와 협상 conflict management and negotiation; 
• 시간 관리 time management; 
• 수행능력 평가 performance appraisal; and 
• 재정 관리 financial management (Bogdewic et al., 1997; Burke et al., 1997; Irby, 1996). 

Bogdewic이 말한 것처럼 조직과 리더십 스킬은 전통적인 의미에서 교수가 맡는 교육/연구/진료적 역할에 부가적인 것이 아니라, 이제는 핵심적 중요성을 갖는 스킬이다.

As Bogdewic and colleagues (1997) have said, organizational and leadership skills can no longer be thought of as an adjunct to the traditional roles of teaching, research, and service. These skills are of central importance.

 

 

프로페셔널 학문 스킬

Professional academic skills

 

프로페셔널 학문 스킬은 학자로서 성공하기 위해 필요한 가치/지식/동료관계 등을 말한다. 이 스킬은 학계의 핵심 가치, 규범, 기대치에 대한 이해, 어떻게 생산성 높은 커리어를 관리하는지, 경험이 많고 박식한 동료와의 네트워크를 갖추는지 등을 필요로 한다.

Professional academic skills encompass the values, knowledge, and collegial relations needed to succeed as an academic (Morzinski et al., 1996). These skills include an understanding of the underlying values, norms and expecta- tions of academia, knowing how to manage a productive career, and establishing a network of experienced and knowledgeable professional colleagues (Bland et al., 1990; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998).

 

관련 토픽

Examples of topics to be addressed include: 

• academic promotion 달성 how to achieve academic promotion; 
• 멘토 찾고 함께 일하기 how to identify and work with a mentor; 
• 동료와 함께 일하기 how to work with colleagues; and 
• 전문가 네트워크 개발 how to develop professional networks (Bland et al., 1990; Hitch- cock et al., 1997).

 

조직 개발

Organizational development

 

여러 저자들이 조직시스템의 변화와 리더십 전략이 더 생산성높은 교육환경을 만들기 위해 필요하다고 주장한다. 그러나 비록 1980년대부터 조직개발이 FD의 한 부분이 되었지만, 이 분야에 특정한 FD노력은 미미하다. 이 영역에 포함되는 것들.

Several authors have suggested that changes in organizational systems and leadership strategies may be needed to promote more productive educational environments (Bland et al., 1990; Bogdewic et al., 1997). However, although organizational development became part of the language of faculty development in the 1980s (Ramsey & Hitchcock, 1980), few faculty development efforts have speci® cally targeted this content area. Initiatives in this domain should include 

• 참여적 조직 정책과 구조 efforts to create participative and empowering organizational policies and structures; 
• 우수한 교육의 평가와 보상 procedures to evaluate and reward teaching excellence; and 
• 교육과정 운영과 교실간 협력 programs to enhance curriculum administration and collaboration across departmental boundaries (Irby, 1996). 

Lipetz 등은 "FD의 클라이언트는 누구인가?"라는 흥미로운 질문을 던졌다. 명백히, 우리는 개인과 조직의 니즈를 연결시켜야 하며, 조직개발과 개인의 스킬개발의 짝을 이룰 수 있어야 한다.

Lipetz and colleagues (1986) have posed an interesting question: ªWho is the client in faculty development? º Clearly, we need to link individual and organizational needs (Bland & Simpson, 1997), and we should pair organizational development with individual skill development (Baxley et al., 1999).

 

특정 내용분야의 교육

The teaching of specific content areas

 

Cruess & Cruess 는 의학교육의 모든 레벨에서 변화하는 사회적 기대에 부응할 것을 강조했다. 커뮤니케이션 기술은 충분한 관심을 받지 못하고 있다. 비록 이 주제가 전통적으로 도제교육과 롤모델 분야에서 다뤄졌지만, 현재의 의료전달체계 맥락에서는 이러한 트레이닝 방법의 가능성은 낮으며, 더 공식화되고(formal) 조직적 방법이 필요하다.

Cruess & Cruess (1997a,b) have highlighted the need to teach professionalism at all levels of medical education in response to changing societal expectations. Communica- tion skills are also not receiving the attention they deserve. Although these subjects have traditionally been addressed through apprenticeship and role modeling, the current context for health care delivery negates the potential of these training methods, and we need to consider more `formal’ , systematic methodologies for addressing these content areas.

 

컴퓨터와 정보 테크놀로지. 

At the same time, computers and information technolo- gies are transforming many aspects of our personal and professional lives (Irby & Hekelman, 1997). As a result, the demand for training in this area will increase signi®cantly in the next decade. Crandall and colleagues (1997) outline a series of skills that might be included in such faculty develop- ment initiatives: 

• accessing and managing the medical literature; 
• planning and delivering lesson plans and presenta-tions; 
• using computers for research and writing; and
• integrating computers into clinical practice.

 

 

교육자들 교육시키기

Educating the educators

 

교수개발자들은 개개 교수들의 교육 효과성을 향상시키기 위한 프로그램의 전달 측면에서 성공을 거뒀다. 그러나 이제는 교육에 있어서 리더십을 발휘할 수 있는 개인들을 어떻게 더 발전시킬 수 있는지, 어떻게 그들이 '교육의 멘토'로서 역할을 할 수 있는지, 혁신적 FDP를 어떻게 설계하고 전달할 수 있는지 고민할 시간이다.

Faculty developers have succeeded in delivering programs designed to enhance individual teachers’ instructional effectiveness. It is now time, however, to further develop individuals who will be able to provide leadership to educational programs, act as `educational’ mentors, and design and deliver innovative faculty development programs.

Cusimano & David가 기술한 것과 같이, 다른 사람을 교육하는 방법에 대해서 훈련된 사람이 더 많아야 한다. 그리하여 의학교육이 지속적으로 변화의 동력에 반응할 수 있게 해야 한다. 또한 우리는 교육 측면의 학자를 더 양성해서, 이들이 교육에 접근할 때 교육과 교육과정의 프로세스와 성과에 대해 질문하도록 해야 하며, 의학교육 연구를 수행하게 해야 한다.

As Cusimano & David (1998) have stated, there is an enormous need for more health care professionals trained in methods of educating others so that medical education will continue to be responsive to driving forces of change. We must also work to encourage the development of educational scholars, individuals who approach education with questions about the process and outcome of teaching and curricula (Wilkerson & Irby, 1998) and who conduct research in medical education.

 

 

 

트레이닝 방법과 형식들

Training methods and formats

 

 

공식 멘토십

`Formal’ mentorships

 

멘토링은 교수들의 사회화/개발/성장을 촉진할 수 있는 흔한 전략이다. 

Mentoring is a common strategy to promote the socializa- tion, development, and maturation of academic medical faculty (Bland et al., 1990). It has also been recommended as a faculty development strategy by a number of educators (Bower et al., 1998; Longhurst, 1994; Morzinski et al., 1994, 1996).

 

Daloz 는 멘토십 모델을 세 가지 핵심 요소의 균형으로 보았다. (지지, 도전, 비전)

Daloz (1986) has described a mentorship model that balances three key elements: support, challenge, and a vision of the individual’ s future career. 

• 불확실성과 불안 줄여주기 Support refers to those activities that affirm the value of the individual or try to reduce uncertainty or anxiety (Bower et al., 1998). 
• 자신이 가진 가정을 점검하고 성찰의 가치 일깨움 Mentors challenge their colleagues by encouraging them to check out their assumptions and re¯ ect on their values and competen- cies; and 
• 롤모델링, 토론 they foster career vision through role modeling or guided discussion. 

이 세 가지 요소의 균형을 통해서 멘토는 변화와 성장에 필요한 핵심적 텐션을 만들 수 있다. 롤모델의 가치와 멘토의 가치는 Osler 시대부터 강조되어 왔으며, 이 방법이 주는 장점을 잊어서는 안된다.

By balancing these three components, mentors create a tension essential for change and growth. The value of role models and mentors has been highlighted since Osler’ s time, and we should not forget the bene®ts of this method of professional development despite new technologies and methodologies.

 

 

통합적, 장기 프로그램 

Integrated, longitudinal programs

 

일부 연구자들은 '통합적, 장기 프로그램'의 가치를 강조했다 

Several authors (e.g. Elliott et al., 1999; Gelula, 1997) have highlighted the value of `integrated, longitudinal programs’ such as the Teaching Scholars Program in North Carolina (Stritter et al., 1994) and at McGill University, and we should build on this new faculty development practice.

 

비록 이들프로그램 대부분이 교수의 교육자로서 역할에 초점을 두지만, 행정, 관리, 연구에 대한 프로그램도 쉽게 개발 가능하다.

Although the majority of these programs to date have focused on the educational role of faculty members, such programs could easily be designed to promote expertise in administration, management, and research.

 

분권화된 활동

Decentralized activities

 

많은 부분 가정의학 분야에서 처음 시작한 FDP는 종종 각 학과 단위로 혹은 중앙에서 조직되어 운영된다. 커뮤니티 프리셉터가 늘어나고 외래-기반 교육이 늘어나면서 우리는 점점 FDP를 대학 바깥으로 '수출'해야 하는 상황이 되었다. 우리는 또한 주니어와 시니어 교수의 서로 다른 니즈를 해소해주기 위해서 노력해야 하며, minority 교수를 위한 것도 필요하다. 또한 지원이 적은 환경(underserviced setting)에서 근무하는 사람들을 위한 것도 필요하다.

Faculty development programs, many of which started in Family Medicine, are often departmentally based or centrally organized (i.e. faculty-wide). Given the increasing use of community preceptors and ambulatory sites for teaching, we should now `export’ faculty development programs outside of the university setting (e.g. Anderson et al., 1991; Baxley et al., 1999; Bing-You et al., 1999; DeWitt et al., 1993). We must also work harder to address the differing needs of junior and senior faculty members (Burke et al., 1997; Lipetz 1999), minority faculty members et al., (Johnson et al., 1998; Rust et al., 1998), and individuals who work in underserviced settings (Freeman et al., 1998). Our focus to date may have been too limited.

 

 

자기주도 학습 프로그램

Self-directed learning initiatives

Ullian & Stritter 이 말한 바와 같이 교수들은 성찰, 학생평가, 동료평가 등을 통해 스스로의 니즈를 결정해야 하며, 스스로의 자기개발 활동을 설계해야 한다.

As Ullian & Stritter (1997) have said, faculty must be encouraged and taught to determine their own needs through self-reflection, student evaluation, and peer feedback, and they must learn to design their own development activities.

Harris and colleagues 는 교수 효과성의 향상에 있어서 성찰의  가치를 강조했다. 실제로 우리는 FD에서도 성찰을 개인적 성장의 방법으로 삼아야 한다.

Harris and colleagues (1995) have underscored the value of re¯ ection as a method of improving teaching effectiveness; indeed, we should take advantage of the increasing attention paid to re¯ ection as a method of personal growth (SchoÈn, 1987) in faculty develop- ment initiatives as well.

 

 

컴퓨터 기반 FD

Computer-based faculty development

 

컴퓨터 기반 FD의 장점

Computer-based faculty development would allow for individualized programs targeted to speci®c needs. Moreover, the technology is now in place so that interactive instructional programs can be created in all domains of faculty development (Westberg &Whitman, 1997).

 

 

 

프로그램 평가

Program evaluation

 

 

더 철저한 프로그램 평가

More rigorous program evaluations

 

    공통적으로 나타나는 문제는 대조군, 비교군의 부재, 자기보고 측정에 지나친 의존, 작은 샘플 크기 등

Common problems have included a lack of control or comparison groups, heavy reliance on self-report measures of change, and small sample sizes.

 

가능하다면, 더 철저한 연구를 해야 함.

Whenever possible, we should try to conduct more experimentally rigorous research studies and work to overcome commonly encountered design problems.

참여자에 의한 학습을 기록해야 하며, 가능하다면 참가자의 학생/동료/기관에 대한 효과도 기록해야 함.

Programs should document learning by par ticipants, and whenever possible, the program’ s effect on the participants’ students, colleagues, and institution (Skeff et al., 1997b).

동시에 만족도에 대한 재평가가 필요함. 비록 연구자들이 이 정보의 가치를 평가절하하긴 하지만 참가자의 만족도는 교수들이 배우고자 하는 동기부여가 되고, FD를 동료들에게 권장하는 데 중요한 변인이다. 또한 프로그램 기획자들에게 가치잇는 피드백이다. 

At the same time, we should re-assess the value of participant satisfaction data. Although researchers have denounced the value of this source of information, participant satisfaction remains an important variable if faculty members are to be motivated to learn and to recom- mend faculty development initiatives to their colleagues. Participant satisfaction also gives valuable feedback to program planners.

 

 

프로그램 평가의 다른 모델들

Other models of program evaluation

 

교육 관련 문헌들을 보면 프로그램 평가와 관련한 다양한 모델을 제시한다. 그 중 많은 것들은 FD에서 잘 고려되지 않고 있다. 이러한 모델을 평가 구조에 포함시키는 것은 가치가 있을 것. 

The educational literature is rich with models of program evaluation, many of which have not been systematically considered in faculty development. Incorporating aspects of these models (Popham, 1975;Wholey et al., 1994) into our evaluation schema would now be worthwhile. 

• 목표달성 모델 For example, the application of a goal attainment model (e.g.Tyler, 1942) would force us to clarify our program goals and ensure that we are assessing the attainment of our objectives; this model would also help us to consider unanticipated consequences, which occur frequently in this domain. 
• 판단 모델 A judgmental model (e.g. Scriven, 1974) would have value if faculty development programs were to become part of the accreditation process and receive feedback on program design and implementation from a group of peers and experts. 
• CIPP모델 The CIPP model (Stufflebeam, 1974) could be useful for examining the faculty development literature (Meurer & Morzinski, 1997) and for decision-making in times of budgetary restraint. CIPP is an acronym representing four levels of evaluation: 

• the program objectives and the basis for those objectives (Context); 
• the educational strategies and how they were chosen (Input); 
• the actual implementation and how it compares with planned activities (Process); and 
• how well the needs of the target population were met (Product). By

 

질적 방법론

Qualitative methods

 

 

양적방법론의 한계, 질적방법론의 가치

A number of authors have noted the limitations of quantita- tive methods in evaluating the effectiveness of faculty development programs and activities, and they havehighlighted the value of adding qualitative methodologies to more traditional assessments (Freeman et al., 1992; Hitch- cock et al., 1993; Skeff et al., 1997b).

 

더 광범위한 평가

Broader focus of evaluation

 

모든 경우에 'impact' 수준의 평가는 매우 값진 것이다. FD활동이 더 광범위한 시스템이나 개개인의 커리어패스에 영향을 주었는지에 하는 것. 학문적 전파(발표나 출판), 프로그램 개발(트레이닝 자료, 메뉴얼), 프로그램 수행 등에도 관심을 가져야 함.

Indeed, in all situations, it would be worthwhile to assess change at the impact level, trying to identify whether faculty development activities have had an impact on the system at large or on individuals’ career paths. We should also consider the question of academic dissemination (e.g. presentations and publications), product development (e.g. training materials and manuals), and implementation (Blumberg & Deveau, 1995).

 

 

장기 변화에 대한 평가. 즉각적 단기성과를 넘어선 평가. 6개월 혹은 그 이상 후에 평가한 연구는 매우 적음

Finally, it would be worthwhile to focus on the assess- ment of longer-term change. It is essential for us to move beyond immediate short-term outcome measures. Too few studies have assessed change at 6 months or longer (Nasmith et al., 1997).

 

 

파트너십

Partnerships

 

 

자원이 한정되고 재정적 제약이 있을 때 협력은 점점 더 중요하다. 실제로 파트너십은 여러 수준에서 가능하다.

Collaboration is becoming increasingly important in the current environment of limited resources and ®nancial constraints. Indeed, partnership is possible at a number of levels: 

• among academic institutions; 
• between academic institutions and professional societies and organizations; 
• between faculty development and continuing medical educa- tion (CME); and at an international level.

학문기관 간, 그리고 학문기간 내 협력의 필요성은 프로그램 기획/수행/평가의 모든 단계에서 강조되어왔다. Skeff 등은 다양한 전문가 조직에 의해서 주최되는 지역과 국가 단위 미팅에서 제공되는 여러 FD활동을 조화(coordinate)시킬 것을 권고했다. 

The need for collaboration amongÐand withinÐ academic institutions has been highlighted in the area of program planning, delivery and evaluation (Steinert et al., 1997b). Skeff and his colleagues (1997b) have also pointed out the need to coordinate faculty development activities that are offered at regional and national scienti®c meetings hosted by various professional organizations. The time to consolidate available activities, and avoid duplication, is upon us.

 

국제 파트너십도 중요하다. 북미와 유럽의 전문성을 감안할 때, 성공한 모델이 공유되어야 한다.

International partnerships also hold great promise. Medical schools in many countries wish to start academic medical programs but do not have speci®cally trained faculty available. Given the expertise in faculty development in North America and in Europe, successful models should be shared. 

• For example, Johnson & Zammit-Montebello (1990) describe an interesting program to train Maltese general practitioners in Malta with a visiting professor of Family Medicine. 
• Thompson & Spann (1997) provide an example of a faculty development program they developed for Latin American physicians, conducted in Spanish in an American University.

These models for enhancing academic skills could also be exported to other settings.

 

 

근본 원칙

Underlying principles

 

 

1. 기관의 맥락과 문화를 이해하고 이에 기반하여 FD하라

1. Understand and work within the institution’s context/culture

기관의 문화와 맞아야 하고 니즈에 반응해야 한다. 조직의 강점을 강조하고, 조직의 수장(리더)와 함께해야 한다. 추가로 현재의 맥락을 FD노력을 촉진하고 향상시킬 수 있게 활용해야. 예컨대, 큰 교육과정이나 교육의 개혁이 있는 시기에 FD활동이 중요하다. Rubeck과 Witzke가 언급한 바와 같이 "자연적으로 발생하는 기회"를 노려야 한다.

Faculty development programs need to match the institution’ s culture and be responsive to its needs (Rubeck & Witzke, 1998). They should also capitalize on the organization’s strengths and work with the leadership to ensure success. In addition, we should remember that the current context can be used to promoteÐ or enhanceÐ faculty development efforts. For example, faculty development activities during times of substantial educational or curricular reform can take on added importance. As Rubeck &Witzke (1998) have stated, we should always remember to look for ª natural opportunitiesº .

 

 

2. 니즈에 기반한 FD를 하라

2. Ensure that programs and activities are based on needs

 

교수의 니즈, 기관의 니즈, 학생의 니즈, 사회의 니즈, 환자의 니즈, 조직의 요구와 도전 등

Faculty development programs should anticipateÐand basethemselves onÐthe needs of faculty members as well as the institution in which they work. Student needs, patient needs, and societal needs, as well as organizational demands and challenges, should be considered in the design of all programs, for faculty development should aim to renew and assist faculty in their diverse roles and help to meet the needs of the organization in which they work.

 

3. 지지를 끌어내고 효과적으로 마케팅하라

3. Promote `buy in’ and market effectively

 

FD에 참여할지 말지에 대한 결정은 그렇게 단순하지 않다. 아래와 같은 요인이 있다.

The decision to participate in faculty development is not as simple as it might at ®rst appear. It involves 

• 특정 FDP에 관한 관심(reaction)
  the individual’ s reaction to a particular faculty development offering, 
• 특정 기술을 얻고자 하는 동기
  motiva- tion to develop or enhance a speci®c skill, 
• 시간이 가능한지
  being available at the time of the faculty development session, and 
• 필요하다는 사실을 인정하는 심리적 장벽
  overcoming the psychological barrier of admitting need (Rubeck & Witzke, 1998). 

이러한 한계를 극복하고 우리의 '상품'을 팔 때에 그러한 저항이 학습의 자원이 되게 해야 한다.

As faculty developers, it is our challenge to overcome these potential obstacles and to market our `product’ in such a way that resistance becomes a resource to learning.

 

4. 다양한 프로그램과 방법을 제공하라

4. Offer diverse programs and methods

 

 

다양한 교수(역할, 발달단계 등)들의 니즈를 민감하게 반영해야 함. 

The need for diverse approaches to faculty development has been highlighted by many authors (Rubeck & Witzke, 1998; Steinert et al., 1997b). As discussed earlier, we must design programs that are sensitive to the needs of different faculty members. We must also consider differing faculty roles and address the various developmental stages of faculty members.

 

5. 성인학습의 원리와 다른 관련 이론틀을 활용하라

5. Incorporate principles of adult learning and other relevant theoretical frameworks

 

 

많은 경우 이들 원칙은, FDP의 초점이나 형식과 무관하게, Knowles가 설명한 것처럼, FDP의 개발과 운영의 지침이 되어야 한다. 이는 우리가 다음을 기억해야 함을 말한다.

In many ways, these principles, best articulated by Knowles (1980), should continue to guide the development and implementation of all faculty development programs, irrespective of their focus or format. That is, we should remember 

• 의사들의 자기주도성과 경험 that physicians demonstrate a high degree of self-direction and that they possess many experiences that should be used as a learning resource; 
• '알아야 할 필요'를 경험한 다음에 학습할 준비가 됨 that adults will only become ready to learn after a `need to know’ is experienced; and 
• FDP는 과제-중심, 경험학습, 즉각적 적용을 강조해야 that faculty development programs should be task- centered, with an emphasis on experiential learning and immediacy of application (Carroll, 1993).

 

As Turnbull (1999) has so eloquently said, until recently those of us responsible for educating future physicians have emphasized the art of medical education and have tended to ignore the fundamental science of learning underlying our basic practice.The same can be said of faculty development activi- ties.

 

 

6. 실용성을 놓치지 마라

6. Remain relevant and practical

 

교수의 활동과 관련성이 있어야 하며 실용적이어야 한다. 경험학습이 핵심이다.

Although it is important that theory inform practice, faculty development activities and programs must remain relevant and practical. As stated above, experiential learning is key.

 

또한 개념과 스킬을 가르칠 때 단순하고 명확해야 한다. 비록 FD의 영역들은 복잡하지만, 교수들은 단순한 메시지, 개념, 방향을 원하며, 복잡성을 지양하고 실용성을 추구하는 것이 우리의 책임이다.

The teaching of concepts and skills in this area must also remain clear and simple. Although the domains for faculty development are complex (Rubeck &Witzke, 1998), faculty members want simple messages, concepts, and directions, and it is our responsibility to avoid complexity and promote practicality.

 

 

7.흔한 문제를 극복하기 위해 노력하라

7.Work to overcome common problems

 

조직 차원의 지원, 제한된 자원, 제한된 시간 등. 이를 극복하기 위한 창의적 프로그래밍, 능숙한 마케팅, 목표가 분명한 재정지원 확보, 양질의 프로그램 제공 등을 통한 극복

Common implementation problems include a institutional support, limited resources, and limited faculty time (Steinert et al., 1997b). Faculty developers must work to overcome these problems through creative program- ming, skilled marketing, targeted fundraising, and the delivery of high quality programs. lack of

 

 

8. 효과성을 평가하고 보여주라

8. Evaluate and demonstrate effectiveness

 

교수개발은 단순한 학문적 활동 이상이라는 것을 기억하라

The need to evaluate our programs and activities has been highlighted in a separate section. However, we must remember that the evaluation of faculty development is more than an academic exercise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Research Article

Faculty development in the new millennium: key challenges and future directions

PDF

Full access

DOI:

10.1080/01421590078814

Yvonne Steinert^a

pages 44-50

Publishing models and article dates explained

• Published online: 03 Jul 2009

Alert me

Abstract

Faculty development initiatives in the year 2000 will need to respond to changes in medical education and health care delivery, to build on the achievements and accomplishments of the past, and to continue to adapt to the evolving roles of faculty members. To remain at the forefront, faculty development programs will need to broaden their focus, consider diverse training methods and formats, conduct more rigorous program evaluations, and foster new partnerships and collaborations. Academic vitality is dependent upon faculty members' interest and expertise; faculty development has a critical role to play in promoting academic excellence and innovation.