교수개발: 꿈의 영역? (Med Educ, 2009)

교수개발: 꿈의 영역? (Med Educ, 2009)

Faculty development: a ‘Field of Dreams’?

Yvonne Steinert,1,2,3 Peter J McLeod,1,2,4 Miriam Boillat,1,2,3 Sarkis Meterissian,2,6 Michelle Elizov1,2,4 &

Mary Ellen Macdonald2,7,8

목적: FD 워크숍 참석자들은 종종 '가장 FD가 필요한 사람들이 가장 참석하지 않는다'라고 코멘트한다.

OBJECTIVES Participants in faculty develop- ment workshops often comment that ‘those who need faculty development the most attend the least’.

"만들면, 올 것이다" Kinsella 1980

‘If you build it, [they] will come.’ Kinsella, 19801

임상교육자들은 더 이상 내용전문가라는 사실 만으로 성공하지 못한다. 다른 연구자들도 임상교육자로 성공하기 위해서 필요한 스킬에 대해서 언급한 바 있다

Clinical teachers can no longer succeed with mere content expertise. Others4,5 have identified the skills required to succeed as teachers, including the ability to 

• 적절한 환경 만들기 create an appropriate environment, 
• 학습자 관찰하고 평가하기 observe and assess learners, 
• 피드백 제공하기 provide feedback, 
• 다양한 세팅에서 가르치기 teach in multiple settings, and 
• 효과적 롤 모델 되기 role model effectively.

FDP에 대한 다양한 연구에도 불구하고, 참석과 참여에 대한 연구는 부족하다. 교육-개선 목적 프로그램 참여의 장애에 대해서는 지금까지 단 하나의 연구가 있었는데 여기에는 다음과 같은 것들이 있따.

Despite many published descriptions of faculty development programmes and activities,5–7 the liter- ature on attendance and participation is scant. To our knowledge, there is only one descriptive paper8 that outlines potential barriers to participation in teaching improvement programmes. These barriers include: 

• 교사의 태도와 오해 the attitudes and misconceptions of teach- ers; 
• 기관의 불충분한 지원 insufficient support from the institution, and 
• 교육개선방법의 이점에 대해 확신을 주는 근거의 부족 a lack of convincing research on the benefits of teaching improvement methods. 

참여에 대한 가능성을 낮추는 요인으로는..

Non-participant attitudes that diminish the likelihood of participation comprise: 

• FDP의 필요성을 평가절하하는 경향 a tendency to underestimate the need for faculty development programmes; 
• 교육스킬의 효용성에 대한 신념 부족 lack of belief in the utility of teaching skills, and 
• 교육자 훈련이 excellence 교육과 무관하다는 신념 a belief that teacher training is unrelated to teaching excellence.8

방법

METHODS

설계

Design

포커스그룹의 장점

We selected focus groups13 as the primary method of data collection for this descriptive study. Focus groups, which encourage participants to 

• recount their beliefs and practices, 
• provide an opportunity for group interaction and 
• trigger memories of hitherto forgotten experiences,14 

allowed us to meet our study objectives.

참가자 모집

Subject recruitment

포커스그룹

Focus groups

의료인류학자 진행

A medical anthropologist, who was not involved in our programme, conducted the focus groups. The focus group questions were pilot tested with members of the Centre for Medical Education and tapped four main areas of inquiry: 

질문 영역

• perceptions of faculty development; 
• reasons for non-participation; 
• perceptions of effec- tive teaching methods and preferred learning formats, and 
• perceived barriers to participation. 

프로브 질문의 목적, facilitator의 역할

‘Probes’ accompanied each question to stimulate thinking, to encourage faculty members to give detailed responses, and to solicit examples of more general observations.13 The facilitator...

• took minimal field notes during the focus groups, but 
• wrote more extensive notes within 24 hours of the session in order to record her impressions, 
• capture main themes and 
• facilitate preliminary data analysis. 

한 그룹에서 어떤 주제가 등장하면 이후 그룹에서 다시 확인함

The focus group questions evolved slightly as the process unfolded; when salient issues emerged in one group, they were reiterated in subsequent groups to test their relevancy.

데이터 분석

Data analysis

• We audiotaped and transcribed all focus groups using standard rules of transcription.14 
• We removed iden- tifiers and names from the final transcripts. 
• All transcripts were reviewed by one of the investigators for accuracy. 
• Content analysis guided the data analysis. 
• Three of the investigators independently read all transcripts, using multiple close readings; 
• recurrent themes were identified and agreed upon, and 
• similar themes noted across transcripts were assembled and analysed together, for both specialties. 
• Additional codes for newly emerging topics were created as needed. 
• The final step in the analysis included the development of major categories and 
• the identification of exemplar quotations illustrating each theme.

결과

RESULTS

세 가지 주요 카테고리

We grouped our findings into three main categories: 

1 What are faculty members’ perceptions of faculty development? 

2 Why do some faculty members not participate? 

3 How can we get faculty members to attend more often?

FD에 대한 교수들의 인식은?

What are faculty members’ perceptions of faculty development?

다수의 참여자들이 FD의 필요성을 인식했으며, '어떻게 가르쳐야 하는가에 대한 지도'를 전혀 받지 못했는지에 대해 지적했다. 한 참가자는 FD를 '교수를 위한 문법학교'라고 했다.

A number of participants perceived the need for faculty development and commented on howthey had never been given ‘instructions on howto teach’. One participant likened faculty development to ‘grammar school’ for teachers:

'아이가 학교에 가는 것과 비슷합니다. 아이들은 말하는 법을 이미 알지만, 그들은 자신들의 예술을 더 정제할 수 있게 해주는 문법을 배우고, 더 효과적으로 할 수 있게 됩니다'

‘It’s sort of like kids going to school; they all know how to speak, except that they are learning the grammar which allows them to refine their art and perhaps be more effective at doing it.’

한 참가자는 CME와 임상기술을 업데이트 하는 것 등과 '혼란'이 있어 보일 수 있는 점을 지적했다. 또 다른 사람은 FD를 '교육기술에 대한 CME'라고 했다.

One participant described what might be seen as a possible ‘confu- sion’ with continuing medical education (CME) and the updating of clinical skills. Another viewed faculty development as ‘CME for teaching skills’.

FD의 역할이 진로개발을 촉진해주는 것이라는 점은 여러 참여자가 언급했으며, 이 질문에 들어있다.

The role of faculty development in promoting career development was also noted by many of the partici- pants, as reflected in this rhetorical question:

'대학 커뮤니티에서 FD란 단지 더 잘 가르치는 것, 혹은 더 생산성높은 구성원이 되는 것만 의미할까?'

‘Does faculty development just mean teaching or being a productive member of the [university] community?’

왜 일부 교수들은 참여하지 않는가?

Why do some faculty members not participate?

• clinical reality, which includes volume of work and a lack of (protected) time; 

• a perceived lack of direction from, and connec- tion to, the Faculty of Medicine; 

• a perceived lack of recognition and financial reward for teaching, and 

• the geographically central location of faculty development activities and other logistical issues.

임상 현실, 과도한 근무량과 시간 부족

Clinical reality, volume of work and lack of (protected) time

의과대학과에서의 방향제시 혹은 의과대학과의 연결성에 대한 인식 부족

Perceived lack of direction from, and connection to, the Faculty of Medicine

다수의 참가자들은 대학에서 방향을 제시해주거나 커리어 가이드를 해줌으로써 개인적 차원의 목표나 전문직 차원의 목표를 도달할 수 있게 도와주기를 바랐다. 이러한 정서는 대학 교수로서 처음 시작할 때 프로그램(패키지)에 대한 오리엔테이션을 제공받고 싶은 바람을 포함하고 있었으며, 처음에 어떤 식으로 해야하는지에 대한 조언을 누군가가 주기를 바라는 것도 있었다.

A number of participants highlighted a desire for direction or career guidance from the university to help themto achieve personal and professional goals. This sentiment included a strong wish for an orien- tation programme or package on first starting at the university, as well as the desire to have someone tell them what to do at the outset:

참가자들은 개인적/커리어 개발에 관련하여 멘토십에 대한 강한 희망을 나타냈으며, 어떤 정보원에 접근가능한지(승진이나 테뉴어 관련 정보, 연구비 제안서 작성) 등도 있었다. 추가로 대학 차원의 중요한 지원으로서 구조적, 교육 도구의 제공이나 파킹 바우처, 온라인 교육 등이 있었다.

Participants also expressed a strong preference for mentorship to help promote personal and career development, as well as knowledge about what resources they could access (e.g. information on promotion and tenure, grant writing possibilities and support). In addition, they voiced a desire for instrumental support from the university, ranging from the provision of structural and educational tools, to parking vouchers and online resources.

교육에 대한 인정 혹은 재정적 보상 부족

Perceived lack of recognition and financial reward for teaching

FDP가 개설되는 장소, 다른 로지스틱 이슈

Location of faculty development activities and other logistical issues

다수의 포커스그룹 참여자들은 4시간 워크숍은 너무 길고, 강력하게 '짧은 교육'을 선호했다. 실제로, 여러 참여자들은 그랜드라운드에서 교육 주제를 다룰 것을 요청하거나, FD를 모듈 형식으로 혹은 '위성(파견) 워크숍'형식으로 해주기를 바랐다.

A number of focus group participants commented that a 4-hour workshop was too long, and voiced a strong preference for ‘short snappers’. In fact, several participants requested educational topics at grand rounds, faculty development in a modular format, or ‘satellite workshops’:

어떻게 더 자주 참여하게 만들 수 있을까?

How can we get faculty members to attend more often?

지역에서 (그리고 더 짧은) 프로그램 제공

Offer local (and shorter) activities

교육을 인정하고 보상해주기

Recognise and reward teaching

FD를 요구(기대)사항으로 만들기

Make faculty development an expectation

여러 참여자들이 FD가 모든 임상교육자에게 의무화 될 것을 제안했다. 의무화에 반대하는 일부도 있었으나, 이들도 FD가 '기대사항(expectation)'이 되어야 한다고 제안했다.

Several participants suggested that participation in faculty development be mandatory for all clinical teachers. Others balked at this idea, but did suggest that faculty development be made an ‘expectation’:

상호연결성의 인식 확립하기

Build a sense of connection

DISCUSSION

가장 놀라운 결론은 참여자들이 FD를 교수로서 한 개인의 일반적 성장에 대한 것으로 인식하고 있었으며, 단순히 스킬 습득으로 인식하지 않는다는 점이었다. 사실 교수개발은 교수를 포괄적 관점에서 개발하는 것이며, 여기에는 personal and career 개발이 포함된다. 단순히 교육/연구/행정에 관한 특정한 역량 향상이 아니다.

One of the most surprising results of this inquiry was the finding that partic- ipants perceive faculty development as referring to a person’s general development as a faculty mem- ber, not just his or her skills acquisition. In fact, faculty development was perceived as the develop- ment of faculty in the broadest sense, which included personal and career development, and not merely the enhancement of specific competencies related to teaching, research or administration.

또 다른 기대하지 못한 결과는 많은 참여자들이 FD에 대해 물었을 때 '대학에 대한 실망'을 표했다는 점이다. 다수가 '단절'을 느꼈고, 이는 종종 심리적 문제였다.

Another unexpected finding was that many of the 16 focus group participants, when asked to describe their views on faculty development, described a sense of disappointment with the university at large. Many felt ‘disconnected’, often in a psychological sense.

많은 경우에 우리의 결과는 Baldwin이 generalist academic doctors의 요구도 조사 결과와 비슷하다. 이 연구자들도 심대한 변화를 이루기 위해 필요한 세 가지 포괄적 니즈를 발견했다.

In many ways, our findings resonate with the obser- vations of Baldwin et al.9 in their needs assessment of generalist academic doctors. These researchers found that participants identified three global needs requiring significant change: 

• a better understanding of and rewards for their academic activities; 
• better networking with one another, and 
• more control over their time and responsibilities.

다양한 방식으로 본 연구는 FDP가 학자로서의 스킬을 다룰 것을 강조했으며, 이는 FD에서 간과되는 영역이다.

In diverse ways, our study’s findings underscore the need for faculty development programmes to address professional academic skills, often neglected in faculty develop- ment,16 as well as institutional goals and priorities.7

Morzinski 등은 professional academic growth를 이루기 위해서 FD에서 멘토링의 중요성을 강조했는데, 여기에는 가치/지식/동료관계 등이 포함된다. 우리의 결과는 FD가 진로개발에 보다 초점을 맞출 것을 권고한다. 초기 연구에서 Steinert는 FD가 조직개발에 초점을 맞출 것을 강조했다. 또한 학문적 활동으로서 교육의 촉진, 교육적 문화 배양, 교육 리더십/혁신/수월성에 대한 보상 등도 강조했다.

Morzinski et al.17 highlighted the importance of mentoring as a faculty development strategy to address professional academic growth, which includes the values, knowledge and collegial relations needed to succeed as an academic. The findings of our inquiry further reinforce the need for faculty development to focus on career development. In an earlier paper, Steinert16 highlighted the need for faculty development to focus on organisational development: to play a role in promoting teaching as a scholarly activity and to create an educational climate that encourages and rewards educational leadership, innovation and excellence.

Skeff 등의 연구 및 Liben의 연구에 더하여 본 연구는 교수들이 중앙-기반(centrally based) FDP에 참여하지 않는 이유가 '시간이 없어서'라고 하였다.

The results of our study also build upon those of Skeff et al.8 and complement the findings of a more recent survey by Liben et al.,19 who observed that faculty members do not participate in centrally based activities because they ‘cannot afford the time’.

초반에 말한 것처럼 Skeff 등은 FDP 참여에 다양한 장애를 언급했는데, 흥미롭게도 우리 연구의 참여자는 기관 차원의 지원 부족만을 주요 장애로 언급했다. Skeff가 언급한 '태도'의 문제(FDP의 필요성이 낮다든가 교육스킬의 효용성이 없다든가)를 언급한 사람은 매우 소수였다.

As we noted at the outset, Skeff et al.8 described a number of barriers to participation in faculty devel- opment activities. Interestingly, the participants in our study only highlighted insufficient institutional support as a major deterrent. Very few of our teachers identified the attitudes noted by Skeff et al.,8 includ- ing a tendency to underestimate the need for faculty development programmes or a lack of belief in the utility of teaching skills.

---

Med Educ. 2009 Jan;43(1):42-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03246.x.

Faculty development: a 'field of dreams'?

Steinert Y1, McLeod PJ, Boillat M, Meterissian S, Elizov M, Macdonald ME.

Author information

• 1Faculty Development Office, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. facdev.med@mcgill.ca

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Participants in faculty development workshops often comment that 'those who need faculty development the most attend the least'. The goals of this study were to explore the reasons why some clinical teachers do not participate in centralised faculty development activities and to learn how we can make faculty development programmes more relevant to teachers' needs.

METHODS:

In 2006, we conducted focus groups with 16 clinical teachers, who had not participated in faculty development activities, to ascertain their perceptions of faculty development, reasons for non-participation and perceived barriers to involvement. Content analysis and team consensus guided the data interpretation.

RESULTS:

Focus group participants were aware of faculty development offerings and valued the goals of these activities. Important reasons for non-participation emerged: clinical reality, which included volume of work and lack of (protected) time; logistical issues, such as timing and the central location of organised activities; a perceived lack of financial reward and recognition for teaching, and a perceived lack of direction from, and connection to, the university.

CONCLUSIONS:

Clinical reality and logistical issues appeared to be greater deterrents to participation than faculty development goals, content or strategies. Moreover, when asked to discuss faculty development, teachers referred to their development as faculty members in the broadest sense, which included personal and career development. They also expressed the desire for clear guidance from the university, financial rewards and recognition for teaching, and a sense of 'belonging'. Faculty development programmes should try to address these organisational issues as well as teachers' personal and professional needs.

PMID:

 

19140996

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]