Coproducing a Faculty Feedback Program for School of Medicine Educators.

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Medical Science Educator Pub Date : 2024-11-09 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s40670-024-02203-9

Kathryn B Moore, Mary E Steinmann, Rachel Bonnett, Jorie M Colbert-Getz, Katherine A Anderson

{"title":"Coproducing a Faculty Feedback Program for School of Medicine Educators.","authors":"Kathryn B Moore, Mary E Steinmann, Rachel Bonnett, Jorie M Colbert-Getz, Katherine A Anderson","doi":"10.1007/s40670-024-02203-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Many institutions have developed holistic faculty evaluation programs to address limitations of using student feedback as a sole means of measuring teaching effectiveness. Much of the current literature on faculty development and evaluation explores retrospective data about faculty reactions and/or outcomes of teaching evaluation programs, but few have described this level of faculty input gathered prospectively. As a first step in designing a faculty evaluation program, we partnered with faculty, using the conceptual framework of co-production to ensure we have considered their needs, and anticipate this will promote stakeholder buy-in, and lead to more uptake in faculty who want to participate in a faculty evaluation program.Methods: In 2023, we conducted focus groups with 25 faculty to proactively determine faculty educator needs before design of a faculty evaluation program at the Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah. Codes from focus group transcripts were mapped to the Faculty Developmental Conceptual Framework to determine themes.Results: Resultant themes mapped to contextual factors of the institution, relationships between individuals, and individual-level factors.Conclusions: We established three guiding principles to address faculty needs and values in a model faculty feedback program with the aim of building a sustainable program to promote faculty growth and development.Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02203-9.","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"35 1","pages":"381-388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11933599/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Educator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-02203-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Many institutions have developed holistic faculty evaluation programs to address limitations of using student feedback as a sole means of measuring teaching effectiveness. Much of the current literature on faculty development and evaluation explores retrospective data about faculty reactions and/or outcomes of teaching evaluation programs, but few have described this level of faculty input gathered prospectively. As a first step in designing a faculty evaluation program, we partnered with faculty, using the conceptual framework of co-production to ensure we have considered their needs, and anticipate this will promote stakeholder buy-in, and lead to more uptake in faculty who want to participate in a faculty evaluation program.

Methods: In 2023, we conducted focus groups with 25 faculty to proactively determine faculty educator needs before design of a faculty evaluation program at the Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah. Codes from focus group transcripts were mapped to the Faculty Developmental Conceptual Framework to determine themes.

Results: Resultant themes mapped to contextual factors of the institution, relationships between individuals, and individual-level factors.

Conclusions: We established three guiding principles to address faculty needs and values in a model faculty feedback program with the aim of building a sustainable program to promote faculty growth and development.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02203-9.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为医学院教育工作者共同制定教师反馈计划。

目标：许多机构已经制定了全面的教师评估计划，以解决使用学生反馈作为衡量教学效果的唯一手段的局限性。目前许多关于教师发展和评估的文献探讨了教师反应和/或教学评估项目结果的回顾性数据，但很少有文献描述了这种前瞻性收集的教师投入水平。作为设计教师评估计划的第一步，我们与教师合作，使用合作生产的概念框架来确保我们考虑到他们的需求，并期望这将促进利益相关者的参与，并导致更多想要参与教师评估计划的教师的吸收。方法：在2023年，我们对犹他大学斯宾塞·福克斯·埃克尔斯医学院的25名教师进行了焦点小组讨论，以在设计教师评估计划之前主动确定教师教育者的需求。从焦点小组成绩单的代码被映射到教师发展概念框架，以确定主题。结果：结果主题映射到机构的背景因素、个人之间的关系和个人层面的因素。结论：我们建立了三个指导原则，以解决教师的需求和价值观的模范教师反馈计划，目的是建立一个可持续的计划，以促进教师的成长和发展。补充资料：在线版本提供补充资料，网址为10.1007/s40670-024-02203-9。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Medical Science Educator Social Sciences-Education

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

11.80%

发文量

202

期刊介绍： Medical Science Educator is the successor of the journal JIAMSE. It is the peer-reviewed publication of the International Association of Medical Science Educators (IAMSE). The Journal offers all who teach in healthcare the most current information to succeed in their task by publishing scholarly activities, opinions, and resources in medical science education. Published articles focus on teaching the sciences fundamental to modern medicine and health, and include basic science education, clinical teaching, and the use of modern education technologies. The Journal provides the readership a better understanding of teaching and learning techniques in order to advance medical science education.