|
Yvonne Steinert, Karen Mann,
Angel Centeno, Diana Dolmans, John Spencer, Mark Gelula, David Prideaux, A systematic
review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness
in medical education. Medical Teacher, Vol 28, Number 6, Pages 497
- 526, Sept. 2006 Review by Keith Boyd, MD, Rush University
What is the problem and what is known about it so far?
As clerkship directors,
many of us are responsible for faculty development. What are the key elements
of effective faculty development? Little is known about the various methods we
employ and few of these methods have been tested. The relative effectiveness of
one method over another has not been measured. Why did the researchers
do this particular study?
The authors, from a diverse group of global
academic institutions, reviewed the literature from 1980 to 2002 to determine
the impact of faculty development programs, isolating the most effective methods
that led to improved teaching. The researchers sought commonalities among the
effective programs. Who was studied?
Faculty at medical schools were
studied via a review of published literature. Three databases were reviewed: Medline,
ERIC, and EMBASE using key words searches as well as manual searches. Studies
focused on faculty development programs designed to improve the teaching effectiveness
of basic and clinical scientists were included. The researchers sought studies
that measured more than just survey data. How was the study done?
Using
a scoring system, studies were coded by 6 readers, two reading each study.
What did the researchers find?
Faculty satisfaction with programs designed
to improve teaching skills is high. Participants value these programs. Faculty
report a change in their behavior following programs and that this change is perceived
by their students. Participants in programs increased their knowledge of educational
principles. The key features of successful programs included: experiential learning,
feedback, well-designed interventions, and the use of diverse educational methods.
What were the limitations of the study?
Many of the studies reviewed
were flawed. Rigorous research methods were not typically used. Few studies measured
changes in behavior. In those that did, changes in behaviors were measured at
single points, rarely over time. The complex interactions in the various studies
are difficult to compare. Few of the studies were randomized, controlled studies.
Few of the studies had firm outcome measures and most did not involve large numbers.
What were the implications of the study?
Faculty development works! The faculty
want it, enjoy it, perceive value from it, and recognize change as a result of
it. Some methods are more effective than others. The most successful programs
deliberately use the theories of adult education, acknowledge the context of the
program (e.g.: organizational culture), extend over time, allow cumulative learning,
promote independent assessment, and are required of faculty (not voluntary).
(Editorial comment: We all want faculty development to work. This study shows
that faculty members do value faculty development programs. The big issue is whether
behavior actually changes over time. Stay tuned. Bill Raszka) | 
