教师胜任力:可行性与可接受性探索。

PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) Pub Date : 2022-08-30 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.22454/PRiMER.2022.111657
Priyanka Tulshian, Bharat Gopal, Tina Kenyon
{"title":"教师胜任力:可行性与可接受性探索。","authors":"Priyanka Tulshian,&nbsp;Bharat Gopal,&nbsp;Tina Kenyon","doi":"10.22454/PRiMER.2022.111657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A uniform method of iterative professional development for medical educators does not exist in the United States graduate medical education system. The Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Faculty Competencies Special Project Team, a subgroup of the Faculty Development Collaborative, sought to create a competency-based assessment framework for medical educators. This paper describes the feasibility and acceptance of a draft competencies resource using a survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods, ten-question survey to assess the feasibility and acceptance of the draft competencies resource was created and distributed to medical educators through educational contacts from October 2019 to November 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-six surveys were completed. Of the 86 respondents, 48 (55%) answered all the survey questions. Thematic analysis for acceptance of the draft yielded three groups, the accepting, neutral, and nonacceptance groups. Each group had distinct characteristics regarding the likelihood of accepting and using the draft competencies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The draft competencies are thought to be feasible, with overall acceptance in the current form. Further research will guide revisions of the competency resource before final distribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":74494,"journal":{"name":"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)","volume":" ","pages":"32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9484531/pdf/primer-6-32.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Faculty Competencies: An Exploration of Feasibility and Acceptance.\",\"authors\":\"Priyanka Tulshian,&nbsp;Bharat Gopal,&nbsp;Tina Kenyon\",\"doi\":\"10.22454/PRiMER.2022.111657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A uniform method of iterative professional development for medical educators does not exist in the United States graduate medical education system. The Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Faculty Competencies Special Project Team, a subgroup of the Faculty Development Collaborative, sought to create a competency-based assessment framework for medical educators. This paper describes the feasibility and acceptance of a draft competencies resource using a survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods, ten-question survey to assess the feasibility and acceptance of the draft competencies resource was created and distributed to medical educators through educational contacts from October 2019 to November 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-six surveys were completed. Of the 86 respondents, 48 (55%) answered all the survey questions. Thematic analysis for acceptance of the draft yielded three groups, the accepting, neutral, and nonacceptance groups. Each group had distinct characteristics regarding the likelihood of accepting and using the draft competencies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The draft competencies are thought to be feasible, with overall acceptance in the current form. Further research will guide revisions of the competency resource before final distribution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9484531/pdf/primer-6-32.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2022.111657\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2022.111657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:在美国的研究生医学教育系统中,不存在医学教育者统一的迭代专业发展方法。家庭医学教师协会教师能力特别项目小组是教师发展协作组织的一个小组,旨在为医学教育工作者创建一个基于能力的评估框架。本文通过调查描述了能力资源草案的可行性和可接受性。方法:在2019年10月至2019年11月期间,采用混合方法、10个问题的调查方法,评估能力能力资源草案的可行性和可接受性,并通过教育联系向医学教育工作者分发。结果:共完成86份问卷调查。在86名受访者中,48人(55%)回答了所有调查问题。对草案接受情况的专题分析得出接受、中立和不接受三组。在接受和使用能力草案的可能性方面,每一组都有不同的特点。结论:权限草案被认为是可行的,目前的形式得到了全面接受。在最终发布之前,进一步的研究将指导能力资源的修订。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Faculty Competencies: An Exploration of Feasibility and Acceptance.

Introduction: A uniform method of iterative professional development for medical educators does not exist in the United States graduate medical education system. The Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Faculty Competencies Special Project Team, a subgroup of the Faculty Development Collaborative, sought to create a competency-based assessment framework for medical educators. This paper describes the feasibility and acceptance of a draft competencies resource using a survey.

Methods: A mixed-methods, ten-question survey to assess the feasibility and acceptance of the draft competencies resource was created and distributed to medical educators through educational contacts from October 2019 to November 2019.

Results: Eighty-six surveys were completed. Of the 86 respondents, 48 (55%) answered all the survey questions. Thematic analysis for acceptance of the draft yielded three groups, the accepting, neutral, and nonacceptance groups. Each group had distinct characteristics regarding the likelihood of accepting and using the draft competencies.

Conclusions: The draft competencies are thought to be feasible, with overall acceptance in the current form. Further research will guide revisions of the competency resource before final distribution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信