● 교수개발 연구의 리프레이밍(Acad Med, 2011)

교수개발 연구의 리프레이밍(Acad Med, 2011)

Reframing Research on Faculty Development 

Patricia S. O’Sullivan, EdD, and David M. Irby, PhD

 

 

 

 

의학교육에서 FD는 1950년대에 시작되었고, 이후 수십년간 AAMC의 Curriculum and Assessment 의 활동과 HRSA의 재정지원을 통해서 발전되어왔다. FD에 대한 연방 재정지원은 일차의료교육을 지원하였으며, 주로 일반내과와 가정의학 분야를 지원하였다.

Faculty development in medical education began in the 1950s and advanced in subsequent decades through the activities of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ Curriculum and Assessment unit (formerly the Division of Medical Education) and the funding of the Health Resources and Services Administration.2 Federal funding supported faculty development for teaching in primary care, particularly in general internal medicine and family medicine,

FDP는 여러 유형의 교사에 대하여 다양한 교육 니즈를 위해 진행된다.

Faculty development programs address a variety of instructional needs for four different types of teachers:

• 학생, 레지던트, 펠로우 (1) students, residents, and fellows who are required to teach but have little expertise and/or are launching their medical education careers,
• 교육에 약간만 참여하는 교수 (2) faculty members who teach at universities or community-based sites, but for whom teaching is a small component of their responsibilities,
• 교육이 주 역할인 교수 (3) faculty members who have a major teaching role, and
• 의학교육자와 교수개발자가 되고자 하는 교수 (4) faculty members who want to become medical education researchers and faculty developers. Programs vary depending on which groups are being targeted.

이러한 FDP에 참여하는 것은 교수들에게 교육에 대한 열정을 공유하는 유사한 마인드를 가진 새로운 지적, 사회적 커뮤니티에 들어오게 한다.

Participation in such faculty development programs should provide faculty members with entry into a new intellectual and social community of like- minded individuals who share a passion for teaching.

FDP의 다양한 기능을 고려하였을 때, 그리고 연구가 실천을 이끌 수 있다고 할 때, 어떻게 연구의 틀은 어떠해야 하는가?

Given these multiple functions of faculty development and the need for research that can guide practice, how should the research be framed?

교수개발 프레임워크와 관련 연구 접근법

Faculty Development Frameworks and Associated Research Approaches

이 그림에서 연구 모델은 선형적이다. 프로그램이 교수에게, 교수는 피훈련자에게, 피훈련자는 환자와 건강 성과에 영향을 준다.

In this figure, the research model is defined in a linear manner: The programinfluences the faculty member, who influences trainees, who in turn impact patient care and health outcomes.

 

의학교육에서 교수개발 프레임워크

Faculty development framework in medical education

Fig 1에 보여진 것처럼, 이 모델은 교육이 한 명의 교수가 학습자에게 하는 행동에 직접적인 영향을 미칠 것을 함의하고 있으며, 이것이 결국 환자 진료에 대한 변화로 이어질 것을 가정하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 선형적 인과관계와 점차 희석되는 일련의 사건의 효과를 기대하는 것은 비현실적일 수 있다.

As shown in Figure 1, this model implies a direct impact of the education of one faculty member on the behavior of learners, who then bring about change in patient care. It may be unrealistic to attribute linear cause and effect to such an attenuated chain of events.

교사 교육의 전문성개발 프레임워크

Professional development frameworks in teacher education

전통적인 의학교육의 교수개발 모델에서, Webster-Wright는 최근의 리뷰를 통해서 교수개발을 '전문성개발(professional development)'에서 '지속적인 전문성 학습(“continual professional learning.”)'의 개념으로 옮겨가야 한다고 강조했다.

In contrast to the traditional model of faculty development in medical education, Webster-Wright14 in a recent review emphasized a shift fromfaculty development, frequently called professional development, to “continual professional learning.”

이러한 관점은 근무지(workplace)에서 전문성개발에 대한 지원이 얼마나 중요한가를 강조한다. 근무지에서는 교육이 이루어지면서 다른 사람과의 연결(connection)이 생기고, 그러한 근무지 세팅에서 학습의 시간이 있기 때문이다. 따라서 FD연구는 어떻게 교사들이 학습하고, 일상적인 교육 행위적 맥락에서 어떻게 의미를 함께 만들어가는가(co-construct)에 초점을 둬야 한다.

This perspective highlights the importance of support for professional development in the workplace, connection with others in the settings in which teaching occurs, and time for learning within the work setting.15,16 Therefore, faculty development research, including medical education, should include a focus on how teachers learn and co-construct meaning in the context of everyday teaching practice.

고등교육에서 다른 사람들은 'communities of practice (COP)' 를 전문성학습을 강화하는 강력한 프레임워크라고 주장한다. Desimone의 모델을 활용하면, FD는 (교실과 진료실에서의) 교육행위에 들어가있어야(be embedded)있어야 하며, 연구를 통해 밝혀야 할 것은 다음과 같은 것들이다.

Others in higher education and professions education embrace the concept of “communities of practice” as a powerful framework for enhancing professional learning.17–20 Using Desimone’s21 model, faculty development should be embedded in teaching practice (classroomand/or clinical), and research should investigate

• 어떻게 교사가 새로운 교육과 관련된 내용과 스킬을 개인/집단으로서 학습하는가
  how teachers learn new pedagogical content and skills individually and together,
• 어떻게 교사가 스스로의 학습에 적극적으로 참여하는가
  how teachers can be actively engaged in their own learning, and
• 어떻게 교사의 지식과 신념이 기대되는 변화와 연결될 수 있는가
  how teacher knowledge (about successful education methods) and beliefs (about how students and residents learn and the forces that influence and motivate learning) can be connected with expected changes.

FDP는 충분한 효과를 낼 수 있을 만큼 충분한 기간 만큼 진행되어야 하며, 학생의 배움을 향상시키려면 가능하기만 하다면 실제 교실의 교육환경에서 교육에 관여하는 다른 사람들도 참여하게끔 해야 한다(즉, FDP에 참여하는 사람 뿐 아니라 참여하지 않는 교사와 직원까지). 이러한 접근법은 교육의 맥락에서 동떨어져있던 FDP를 교육 환경과 변화 프로세스의 핵심적 요소로서의 FDP로 바꾸어줄 것이다.

Faculty development programs should be of sufficient duration to make a significant impact, and, wherever possible, facilitators should seek to engage others involved in the local classroom teaching environment (not just participants in faculty development programs but also nonparticipating teachers and support staff) in order to improve student learning. This approach reflects a shift away from faculty development removed from the context of teaching and toward faculty development as an integral component of the instructional environment and change process.

추가적으로, 연구의 초점이 개인에서 벗어나 개선을 위한 좀 더 협력적인, 관계-중심적  모델로 옮겨갈 필요가 있다. 더 포괄적인 이러한 모델은 어떻게 FDP가 근무지에 심어질(embed) 수 있는가를 밝힐 수 있을 것이다.

Additionally, there is a shift from the individual as the focus of investigation to a collaborative, relationship-centered model as a mechanism for improvement. This broader model, which allows for a breadth of research possibilities exploring how faculty development can be embedded in the workplace, should be applied to medical education research in faculty development.

 

질향상(QI) 프레임워크

Quality improvement framework

QI movement는 의료의 질을 향상시키기 위한 목적으로 상당히 개발된 모델이다. 이러한 접근법은 근거에 기반하여 최고의 의료행위로 알려진 것과 지금 조직에서 실천하고 있는 것 사이의 격차를 발견해냄으로부터 시작된다. 이 모델은 네 단계(plan, do, study, act)를 거친다.

The quality improvement movement has a well-developed model for enhancing health care, as described by Ogrinc and Headrick.22 Their approach begins by identifying the quality gap between what are known to be best practices based on best evidence and what is actually done in the organization. The model consists of four steps: plan, do, study,

FD는 QI 프레임워크로부터  배울 점이 많다. 예컨대 교사의 학습과 실천 사이의 gap은 종종 그것을 입증해줄 수 있는 평가 없이 스스로 발견해야 하는 것으로 생각되며, FDP를 통해서 배운 것을 적용하는 것의 효과에 대한 systematic한 연구는 별로 강조되고 있지 않다. 최고의 근거들이 FDP를 진행할 때나 참가자에게 교육할 때 활용되기도 하고 그렇지 않기도 한다. 이렇게 개개인의 참가자에만 배타적으로 초점을 두는 것은 근무환경은 물론 같은 교육환경에서 근무하는 다른 사람들의 중요성과 힘을 받아들이는데 실패하는 것이다. 참가자들은 FDP프로그램을 마칠 때 명확하게 정의된 향상목표를 가지고 나가야 하며, 그것을 평가하기 위한 측정 절차를 가지고 나가야 한다. 마지막으로 어떻게 새롭게 배운 전략을 가장 잘 적용할 수 있는지를 알기 위한 목적으로 교실이나 임상현장의 구조를 연구하여야 하는데 수행되지 않고 있다.

The quality improvement framework has much to offer faculty development. For example, the learning/performance gap of teachers is often assumed to be self- identified without any effort to substantiate that assessment, and little emphasis is placed on systematically studying the impact of implementing what was learned in the faculty development program. Best evidence may or may not guide faculty development programs and may or may not be shared with participants. The exclusive focus on individual faculty participants fails to appreciate the power and importance of the work environment and other people who work in that same educational setting. Rarely do participants leave a faculty development program with clearly defined improvement goals and measurement procedures for assessing them. Finally, faculty development programs tend not to examine the structure of work in classroom or clinical settings to determine how best to implement newly learned strategies.

 

CME 프레임워크

Continuing medical education framework

코크란 리뷰에 따르면, CME의 참가자들은 전문직업적 행위에 있어서 small-to-moderate 정도의 향상을 보이며, 환자진로 outcome에 있어서는 smaller 향상과 연결된다. 상호작용적인 것과 강의적 자료를 모두 사용하는 세션의 성과가 가장 좋으며, 상호작용(interactive session)만 하는 것이 가장 효과가 적다. 다른 CME에 대한 리뷰와 달리 코크란 리뷰에서는 교육미팅만 하는 것과 대비하여 multifaceted intervention(outreach services, reminders, feedback, support services, and educational materials)의 유의미한 효과는 찾아내지 못했다.  저자들은 CME프로그램에 참여하지 않는 사람들을 대상으로 할 것을 권고했는데, 왜냐하면 이런 것에 참여하는 사람들은 이미 잘 하고 있을 가능성이 높기 때문이다.

According to the most recent Cochrane review,4 participation in continuing medical education meetings makes a small-to-moderate improvement in professional practice with associated smaller improvement in patient care outcomes. Sessions that included both interactive and didactic material had the best outcomes; interactive sessions alone were the least effective. In a surprising contrast to other reviews of continuing medical education, this Cochrane review did not find any statistically significant effect of multifaceted interventions— such as outreach services, reminders, feedback, support services, and educational materials—compared with educational meetings alone. The authors of the report recommended targeting activities to those who do not choose to participate in continuing medical education programs, because those attending may already be performing well.

FD와 CME는 공통점이 많으며 의사들은 종종 두 개 프로그램에 모두 참여한다.

Faculty development and continuing medical education share much in common, and physicians often participate in both types of programs.

근무지 학습 프레임워크

Workplace learning framework

지난 10년간 많은 연구가 임상현장의 학습과 연관되어있다. 이러한 연구에서는 근무지 기반 학습에 참여하는, 그리고 그 결과로 학습과 실천을 가져오는 세 가지 요인을 강조한다. (과제, 관계, 업무연습)

A surge of research in the past decade on learning in the workplace23,24 is directly relevant to clinical learning in medicine and other health professions. This body of research suggests that three factors (tasks, relationships, and work practices) affect participation in the workplace and, consequently, learning and practice.

• 학습자가 하도록 선택된 과제, 할당된 책임, 그러한 과제의 순서 등이 학습자가 직무에 얼마나 중심(또는 변두리)에 참여할 수 있게 되는가에 영향을 준다.
  The tasks that are selected for the learner, the responsibilities assigned, and the sequencing of those tasks all impact how centrally or peripherally a learner will be able to participate in the work.
• 커뮤니티 내에서의 관계가 보다 inviting한 환경, 적절한 지도(guidance), 개인의 관심(engagement) 등을 만들거나 향상시켜서 참여를 강화한다.
  Relationships within the practice community can enhance participation by creating an inviting environment, providing guidance, and encouraging personal engagement.
• 직무의 구조, 시간의 압박, 근무량, 직무 흐름 등
  The structure of the work, time pressures, workload, and work flow all influence participation.

FD 모델의 리프레이밍

Reframing the Model for Faculty Development in Medical Education

참가자

Participants

이 모델에서 참가자는 FDP에 관여되는 사람들을 모두 말하며 교실이든 진료실이든 FDP에 참여하는 사람과 같이 근무하는 교사, 의료전문직, 직원을 포함한다. 이 모델은 다른 개인들과의 사회적 커넥션의 중요성을 강조한다.

Participants in this model, while referring to those involved in the faculty development program, inevitably extend out to include other teachers, health professionals, and staff members who work with these participants in their classrooms or clinics. This model emphasizes the importance of the social connections among all of these individuals.

교사교육과 관련한 문헌에서의 권고를 보면, 다음을 장려함

Recommendations, particularly from the teacher education literature, encourage

• 스스로의 교육행위와 타인의 교육행위에 대한 성찰
  participant reflection on their own teaching and that of others,
• 프로그램에 참여한 다른 교육자들은 물론 실제 교육환경에서의 다른 사람과의 협력
  collaboration with other educators in the program and in their local setting,
• 새로운 활동에 대한 지지 및 참여 지원
  supportive and guided participation in the new activities, and
• 교육이 이뤄지는 커뮤니티 내에서의 지속적 학습과 개발
  ongoing learning and development embedded within the community of teaching practice.

프로그램

Program

프로그램이란 FD에서 제공하는 교육과정, 내용, 활동 등을 말한다. FDP는 최고의 근거(교육내용과 instructional design)와 요구 사정(performance gap, instructional problem)에 기반하여 유도(guide)되어야 한다.

“Program” refers to the curriculum, content, and activities of the faculty development offering. Drawing on the quality improvement literature, we recommend that faculty development programs should be guided by best evidence (to select curricular content and instructional designs) and by needs assessment (based on identified performance gaps or instructional problems/opportunities).

퍼실리테이터

Facilitators

Borko가 지적한 바와 같이 퍼실리테이터의 지식과 스킬은 프로그램의 성공에 필수적이나 전통적인 FD연구에서 빠져왔다. FDP프로그램을 이끄는 것 말고도 퍼실리테이터는 지속적인, 온라인 커뮤니티를 형성하고 (프로그램 내에서 형성되었더라도) 이것을 근무지 세팅까지 이어갈 수 있다. 어떤 사람들은 peer coaching을 통해 현장-멘토링을 하기도 한다.

Facilitators are another essential component of faculty development. As Borko26 points out, the facilitators’ pedagogical knowledge and skills are critical to the success of a program yet absent from traditional faculty development research. In addition to leading the faculty development program, facilitators can establish an ongoing, online community that is initiated in the program but can extend to the work setting. Others have established on-site mentoring through peer coaching.27

조직 맥락

Organizational context

마지막으로 조직 맥락이 FDP에 큰 영향을 주고, FDP에 이은 근무지에서의 성공 여부에도 큰 영향을 준다. Baker 등은 조직 프로세스와 맥락의 중요성을 설명하면서 다음을 언급했다.

Finally, the organizational context has a large influence on faculty development programs (held in the classroom, clinic, or at a national meeting) and on the participants’ subsequent success in the workplace (classroomor clinical setting). Baker and colleagues29 address the importance of organizational process and context, including

• 근무 환경의 물리적, 사회적 특성
  examining the nature of the physical and social work environment (e.g., number of exam rooms in a clinic, conference roomspace, and number of teammembers for inpatient teamconferences),
• 직무의 구조 그 자체
  the structure of the work itself, and
• 교사와 학습자의 상반된 압박
  the competing pressures on the teachers and learners.

 

조직문화는 조직이 제정한 가치, 교육에 대한 인센티브-디스인센티브, 리더십의 지지-비지지 등을 통해 교육변화를 지지하기도, 억제하기도 한다. 프로그램은 행정적 지원과 동료들의 동의를 종종 간과한다.

The organizational culture either supports or inhibits educational change through the enacted values of the organization, the incentives and disincentives for teaching, and the supportive or unsupportive nature of leadership. Programs rarely recognize and address administrative support and peer buy-in.

교육 연구 프레임워크과 논쟁

Educational Research Frameworks and Debates

지금까지 FD연구에서 성공을 측정하기 위해 사용된 척도는 다음과 같다.

To date, the methods used in faculty development research, both quantitative and qualitative, have included the following measures to indicate program success: 

• Participant satisfaction with the faculty development programs 
• Participant self-report of use of knowledge and skills 
• Analysis of participants’ curricula vitae 
• Interviews with participants and sometimes with their learners 
• Learner rating of participants’ teaching 
• Observations of participants’ simulated and actual teaching 
• Changes in participants’ learners’ performance on examinations 
• Changes in participants’ learners’ impact on patient care outcomes

이 연구들은 퍼실리테이터, 프로그램, 맥락, 다른 사람과의 관계에 대한 통찰이 결여되어 있다.

These studies lack much of the insight needed about facilitators, programs, contexts, and relationships to help others craft successful faculty development programs.

연구자들은 지난 20년간 교육 연구의 특성과 퀄리티에 대한 많은 논쟁을 해왔다. NRC의 보고서에 따르면 전통적인 실험적, 유사-실험적 설계를 활용한 연구의 성과와 무작위배정을 포함한 교육 연구에서 엄격한 연구법의 성과를 리뷰하였다. 많은 교육커뮤니티에서는 NRC보고서에 관하여 우려를 표시하였는데, 왜냐하면 여기서는 전통적인 연구 설계와 성과에 초점을 맞추었기 때문이며, 교육의 프로세스와 맥락이라는 중요한 차원을 설명하지 못했기 때문이다. 유사한 논쟁이 IOM의 보고서에서도 따랐으며, 이 보고서는 책무성, 최선의 근거, 엄격한 교육연구 방법의 사용 등이 중심이었다.

Researchers have engaged in a vigorous debate over the nature and quality of educational research during the last two decades. The report fromthe National Research Council (NRC)30 reviewed outcome studies that employed traditional experimental and quasi-experimental designs and rigorous methods in educational research including randomization.31 Many in the education community voice concerns about the NRC report because of its focuses on outcomes and traditional research designs, which fail to address the important dimensions of educational process and context.32,33 A similar debate accompanies Institute of Medicine reports,34,35 which center on accountability, best evidence, and use of rigorous educational research methods.36

Albert는 의학교육연구의 논쟁을 정리하며, 인식론, 방법론, 목적, 퀄리티에 대한 것이라고 요약했다. 그는 의학교육연구는 두 종류의 연구자 사이에서 고군분투하고 있는데, 하나는 지식의 진보와 이론의 성립을 중요시하는 집단과, 실제로 교육을 하는 사람들이 필요로 하는 니즈에 따르는 집단이 있다.

Albert37 summarizes these debates in medical education research as being about epistemology, methodology, purpose, and quality. He depicts medical education research as a struggle between two groups of researchers: those who seek to advance knowledge and build theories versus those who are responsive to practitioners’ needs for guidance.

최근, 의학교육연구자는 생의학연구의 표준에서 벗어나길 요구하면서 이 분야 연구에 적합한 높은 퀄리티의 방법을 사용할 것을 강조한다. Howe와 같은 교육연구자들은 교육연구에서 과학적 정설(scientific orthodoxy)의 점차 강조되는 것에 우려를 표한다. 이는 scientific orthodoxy가 의학에서의 근거-기반 의학과 유사한 성격을 지니면서 무엇이 가장 효과적인가를 결정하는데 가치/선호/지역의 규범/정치와 같은 것을 모두 배제하기 때문이다. Bredo는 환원주의(전체를 이해하기 위해서 개개의 부분으로 나누고 고립시키는 것)와 전체론(개별적인 것으로 나눌 수 없는 전체를 연구하는 것, 왜냐하면 분절된 부분들은 전체로서의 의미를 상실하기 때문)의 긴장관계를 언급했다.

Recently, medical education researchers have called for a shift away fromthe standards used in biomedical research,38–40 emphasizing a need to employ high- quality methods appropriate for the study.39 Educational researchers, such as Howe,41 express concern about the growing scientific orthodoxy in educational research that parallels medicine’s evidence-based movement, which excludes important aspects such as values, preferences, local norms, and politics in deciding what works best. Bredo42 describes the tension between reductionism, which examines and isolates individual parts to understand the whole, and holism, which studies the indivisible whole because to study isolated parts is to lose the meaning of the whole.

Bredo는 모든 연구방법들은, 엄격하게 적용되기만 한다면, 모두 사용될 수 있으며, 굳이 엄격하게 환원주의 또는 전체론에 제약될 필요가 없다고 말한다. Bredo는 또한 다양한 관점을 순환적(cyclical)으로 사용하면서 단 하나의 접근법이 지배하거나 연구 노력을 제한하지 않게끔 해야 한다고 했다.

Bredo concludes that all research methods, when rigorously applied, should be employed, rather than being constrained by strict adherence to reductionistic or holistic paradigms. Importantly, Bredo suggests employing different perspectives in a cyclical manner to guide and constrain the exploration so that no single approach dominates and limits the research endeavor.

일반 교육연구 커뮤니티에서 실험주의자와 맥락주의자(experimentalist, contextualist) 사이의 논쟁은 일상의 의학교육에서도 나타난다.

The controversies within the general educational research community between experimentalists and contextualists are mirrored in the practitioner community of day-to-day medical teaching, where university-based educational research is often viewed as inconclusive, impractical, and irrelevant.43

두 가지 권고

We make two recommendations related to the nature of the research on faculty development and its use. 

• 1. Promote high-quality, thematic, sustained, and cumulative research programs using various methods/models/paradigms in medical education. 
  
• 2. Embrace the use of an incremental and cyclical approach to research, as advocated by Bredo,42 in order to develop a deeper understanding of how faculty development actually works.

새로운 FD 모델을 위한 연구 질문들

Educational Research Questions for a New Model of Faculty Development

우리는 holistic 관점과 reductionist 관점의 연구를 모두 권고한다. 각 요소들간 관계와 연결을 밝히는 것, 그리고 각 요소들이 어떻게 도달하고자 하는 프로세스와 성과를 이루는지 등을 모두 연구해야 한다.

We encourage research on the overall model (a holistic perspective) and on each separate component (a reductionist perspective), on the relationships or associations among the components, and on how each component leads to desired process and performance outcomes.

Steinert 등은 엄격한 연구방법을 활용하여 프로세스-지향 연구를 요구하였다.

Steinert and colleagues,11 in a systematic review of faculty development, called for process- oriented studies and the use of rigorous research methods.

이러한 프로세스-지향 연구는 프로그램 내에서의 관계와 근무지 내에서의 관계 모두에 대한 것이다. FD연구는 전통적으로 개인에 초점을 두어왔지만 이제는 근무현장에서의 팀과 communities of teaching의 역할을 연구해야 한다.

This process-oriented inquiry leads to research on relationships within the program and within the academic workplace. Faculty development research has traditionally centered on the individual but now must also examine the role of the teams and communities of teaching practice in the workplace.

For example,

• does it make a difference if participants in faculty development programs come as members of an intact work team(e.g., a team-taught course leadership team, a residency program leadership team, or a curriculum committee)?
• What are the relationships within the faculty development program and within the workplace?
• How do these relationships impact the achievement of desired outcomes?
• What happens if only one individual froma particular course or clinical education program participates in a faculty development program?
• How do they engage their colleagues?

 

This line of research would put us a step closer to understanding how change in practice occurs within the teaching environment.

CME와 QI연구로부터, 교수개발은 변화를 평가하기 위한 다양한 척도를 개발할 필요가 있다.

Drawing on the continuing medical education and quality improvement literature, faculty development programs need to develop a wide set of measures to assess change. Examples might include

• process measures related to program implementation,
• participant networks established through the program and subsequent organizational support for education and change, and
• the creation of a faculty development community or a teaching commons.9,10

참가자들에 대한 연구

While studying participants, we encourage researchers to test this expanded faculty development model as it applies to different career pathways, including the paths that students, residents, fellows, all teaching faculty, and those specializing in medical education may choose to take. Questions might focus on,

• What is the community with which each type of participant interrelates?
• What is the developmental trajectory of each individual or cohort of teachers?
• What are the differences in skills needed based on the role of the participant in the faculty development program?

우리는 또한 조직과 맥락적 요인을 봐야 한다.

We also assert that organizational and contextual factors strongly shape the success of faculty development programs and should be studied. This is critical because the context often is quite complex, uniquely local, and embedded in patient care. Research questions might include,

• How do teachers make changes in these contexts?
• How would the new teaching approaches impact the teacher’s relationships with others in that environment?
• How does the local workplace culture impact changes in teaching and learning?

 

Faculty development programs not only need to provide participants with optimal approaches and best teaching practices but also need to support participant interactions within their teaching context. If this were done, would it result in the desired learning outcomes?

퍼실리테이터

Finally, our model calls for illuminating the underexplored role of the facilitator. Whereas articles in the literature discuss the notion of mentor and coach, research on the facilitator is not as well developed in faculty development. Questions to be addressed might include,

• Who serves in this facilitator role?
• How can this role be operationalized and sustained?
• How does this role impact the other programmatic components and result in change?

However, these questions provide the reader with a coherent narrative about research across these interesting and related arenas and lead to two additional recommendations.

• 3. Test this expanded model of faculty development examining all the components and interrelationships with an emphasis on studying processes to better ascertain their impact on desired outcomes. 
• 4. Test the application of the expanded faculty development model to various learners and career paths.

Educational Research and Financing

펀딩과 관련한 권고

Regarding research funding, we offer these further recommendations:

• 5. Establish a National Institute or Center for Health Professions Education Research with associated training, career development, investigator-initiated research, and centers of excellence funding mechanisms. Such a center should be multidisciplinary and interprofessional. 
• 6. Advocate state, local, and private funding to support educational research and faculty development.

 

 

 

 

 

38 Bligh J, Brice J. What is the value of good medical education research? Med Educ. 2008; 42:652–653. 

39 Eva KW. Broadening the debate about quality in medical education research. Med Educ. 2009;43:294–296. 

40 Monrouxe LV, Rees CE. Picking up the gauntlet: Constructing medical education as a social science. Med Educ. 2009;43:196–198.

---

Acad Med. 2011 Apr;86(4):421-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dc058.

Reframing research on faculty development.

O'Sullivan PS1, Irby DM.

Author information

• 1Department of Medicine, and director of educational research and faculty development, Office of Medical Education, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California 94143-0410, USA. patricia.osullivan@ucsf.edu

Abstract

Research on faculty development has focused primarily on individual participants and has produced relatively little generalizable knowledge that can guide faculty development programs. In this article, the authors examine how current research on faculty development in medical education can be enriched by research in related fields such as teacher education, quality improvement, continuing medical education, and workplace learning. As a result of this analysis, the authors revise the old model for conceptualizing faculty development (preferably called professional development). This expanded model calls for research on educational process and outcomes focused on two communities of practice: the community created among participants in faculty development programs and the communities of teaching practice in the workplace (classroom or clinic) where teaching actually occurs. For the faculty development community, the key components are the participants, program, content, facilitator, and context in which the program occurs and in which the faculty teach. For the workplace community, associated components include relationships and networks of association in that environment, the organization and culture of the setting, the teaching tasks and activities, and the mentoring available to the members of that academic and/or clinical community of teaching practice. This expanded model of faculty development generates a new set ofresearch questions, which are described along with six recommendations for enhancing research, including establishment of a national center forresearch in health professions education.

© by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Comment in

• Commentary: faculty development: the road less traveled. [Acad Med. 2011]