Nurturing clinical teachers' professional learning: A phased approach

For busy clinicians, the time to attend faculty development initiatives can be challenging, as these clinicians juggle multiple roles. In our resource-constrained environment, the same clinicians who facilitate the learning of students on the clinical platform are the ones who are responsible for patient care, leaving them with little time to attend faculty development sessions, especially if these sessions are presented in the traditional, once-off, unidirectional, face-to-face manner and only during work hours. Literature advocates for a varied approach to faculty development, where faculty can engage in educational matters over an extended period.¹ These approaches should include face-to-face and synchronous or asynchronous online sessions, to allow participants to engage with the content and skills in a format most appropriate for them. What is also crucial is the opportunity for interaction and mutual learning, an approach that aligns well with the principles of socio-constructive learning theory.

To tailor a faculty development initiative focusing on clinician teachers, we designed a three-phased short course, spanning 3 months. The first phase featured an asynchronous online offering which incorporated a PowerPoint presentation. This provided an introduction to the course, including links to pertinent articles that served as a flipped classroom for the second phase. The second phase was offered as a face-to-face interactive session, employing techniques such as think-pair-share, the jigsaw method and online tools like Mentimeter. For phase three, participants had to prepare a video recording of a teaching-learning event, showcasing any of the teaching strategies covered during the course. The third phase was offered as both online synchronous and face-to-face formats to accommodate clinicians' busy schedules and those who are not local. During this session, we utilised reflective exercises, peer discussions and the opportunity for clinicians to engage in feedback practice based on each other's video recordings. After the course, we invited these clinicians to join our community of practice, fostering ongoing learning and contribution to future courses.

The phased and interactive approach to delivering the short course to our clinicians appear to be rewarding for both facilitators and clinicians. Facilitators gained insight into how clinicians integrated teaching and learning concepts over time. Clinicians attained a clearer perspective of their learning from their reflections and through feedback conversations with peers in a facilitated space, highlighting the importance of these strategies for learning. However, some clinicians acknowledged that they failed to engage with the interactive PowerPoint presentation, as well as preparing their video. Our plan is that future short courses will commence with an online learning package, with clear outcomes and several formative assessment opportunities, for example, quizzes. This will assist clinician teachers to prepare adequately and allow for optimal participation. In addition, longitudinal follow-ups will be undertaken to explore how clinicians have progressed and identify opportunities for further development. Feedback from clinicians over time, as well as from the students they teach, would contribute to further development of relevant, interactive and longitudinal faculty development initiatives.

Rhoda Meyer, San Schmutz and Elize Archer contributed to the conceptualization, writing original draft, review and editing.

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.