Search

Academic faculty members in medical schools rarely receive formal instruction in basic pedagogic principles; nevertheless many develop into competent teachers. Perhaps they acquire tacit knowledge of these principles with teaching experience. This study was designed to assess clinical teachers' tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles and concepts. The authors developed a multiple-choice question (MCQ) exam based on 20 pedagogic principles judged by a panel of education experts to be important for clinical teaching. Three groups of clinician-educators sat the test: (1) clinicians with advanced education training and experience; (2) internal medicine specialists; (3) surgical specialists. All four groups of clinicians-educators passed the test, indicating that they possess a reasonable tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles. Those with advanced education training performed much better than members of the other two groups while specialists and residents working in teaching hospitals outperformed specialists from non-teaching hospitals. It is possible that converting this tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge may improve individual teaching effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine the current status of university based faculty development at Canadian Medical Schools., Background: The roles and responsibilities of faculty members at Canadian medical schools are changing significantly as a consequence of influences such as the competency dictates outlined in the CanMEDS roles. One result of the changes is an increased need for faculty development to assist faculty members in carrying out their new and expanded roles., Methods: The changing climate in medical schools, and the enhanced performance expectations of academic faculty, led us to conduct a survey of current faculty development practices in Canadian medical schools to determine what is being done to address the new and expanded expectations of faculty members. We used an on-line survey instrument based on surveys of faculty development conducted in 1987 and 1997., Results: We received responses from faculty development directors at all 17 Canadian medical schools. Among the principal findings are a continued emphasis on faculty members' teaching roles, increased funding of faculty development activities at most schools, and a broadened emphasis on faculty roles other than teaching. Among these are research and scholarship, and management and administrative roles. The survey revealed a mismatch between what faculty development directors consider to be effective development practices and which practices are actually used in their schools. Another notable finding is the absence of credible faculty development impact studies., Conclusion: The 2007 survey of faculty development practices in Canadian medical schools indicates that teaching is still the number one priority for faculty members and the main focus of faculty development programs. There are notable efforts to help faculty members deal with their newly identified roles including those outlined in the CanMEDS framework. In looking forward, Canadian faculty development directors should continue their efforts to devise credible program evaluation methods. Furthermore, they should expand their thinking beyond Canada's borders. It is time to aggressively explore and understand the approaches and experiences which have proven successful internationally in the United States and Europe.

Background: Faculty development activities in medical schools regularly target teaching behaviours but rarely address basic pedagogic principles underlying those behaviours. Although many teachers have an intuitive or tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles, overt knowledge of fundamental educational principles is rare., Aims: We conducted a short-term pilot study designed to transform teachers' tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge of pedagogic principles. We hypothesized that conscious awareness of these principles will positively influence their teaching effectiveness., Methods: The intervention included a workshop, provision of a workbook on pedagogic principles and free access to educational consultants. For the intervention, we chose a purposive sample of experienced teachers at our medical school., Results and Conclusions: Evaluation of the impact of the intervention using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews revealed three notable findings; 1. Participants were surprised to discover the existence of an extensive body of pedagogic science underlying teaching and learning. 2. They were enthusiastic about the intervention and expressed interest in learning more about basic pedagogic principles. 3. The knowledge acquired had an immediate impact on their teaching.

Background: Although educational innovations in medical education are increasing in number, many educators do not submit their ideas for publication., Aims: The goal of this initiative was to assist faculty members write about their educational innovations., Method: Twenty-four faculty members participated in this intervention, which consisted of a half-day workshop, three peer writing groups, and independent study. We assessed the impact of this intervention through post-workshop evaluations, a one-year follow-up questionnaire, tracking of manuscript submissions, and an analysis of curriculum vitae., Results: The workshop evaluations and one-year follow-up demonstrated that participants valued the workshop small groups, self-instructional workbook, and peer support and feedback provided by the peer writing groups. One year later, nine participants submitted a total of 14 manuscripts, 11 of which were accepted for publication. In addition, 10 participants presented a total of 38 abstracts at educational meetings. Five years later, we reviewed the curriculum vitae of all participants who had published or presented their educational innovation. Although the total number of publications remained the same, the number of educationally-related publications and presentations at scientific meetings increased considerably., Conclusions: A faculty development workshop and peer writing group can facilitate writing productivity and presentations of scholarly work in medical education.

Background: Many educators have had little or no preparation in the design, delivery or evaluation of workshops., Methods: This faculty development intervention consisted of a faculty development workshop on Developing Successful Workshops; a workbook to guide independent study; and peer consultations. Program evaluation included immediate and delayed post-workshop evaluations, tracking of site-specific activities, and assessment of self-perceived efficacy., Results: Participants found the workshop very useful, highlighting the assessment of learner needs, goal-setting, "matching" of objectives to content and methods, and use of a structured framework as most beneficial. Nine months after the intervention, seven of eleven participants had conducted a workshop in their own settings. Self-assessment of skills in workshop design also increased., Conclusion: A workshop on Developing Successful Workshops can help participants to understand the principles of workshop design and delivery.

Formal or traditional CME can be criticized because organizers often ignore adult learning principles when designing courses. Critics also suggest that formal CME courses have limited impact on attendees' behaviors and practices. The authors agree that attention must be paid to pedagogic principles to assure success of educational courses, but feel that the extant negative evidence related to the impact of formal CME is narrow in scope and of inadequate strength to seriously damn formal approaches. Survey responses were received from 853 practicing physicians who say they still regularly attend formal CME courses. They are motivated to attend to satisfy specific professional needs and for personal reasons. Formal CME is still popular despite what its critics say. The authors are convinced that attention to physicians' perceived needs, effective use of social marketing strategies, and adherence to adult learning principles can assure successful delivery of CME and that formal CME is a useful complement to physician-driven informal CME.

At our university, Internal Medicine clerks are members of a team responsible for the care of patients hospitalized on a teaching ward. Clerks first encounter their patients after the latter have been fully worked up by other physicians who have examined them and initiated investigations and management. Clerks are thus deprived of the opportunity to practice information acquisition, hypothesis generation and problem solving. We therefore undertook a 'blinding' initiative wherein each clerk was required to work up at least one hospitalized patient per week without access to the patient chart and without knowledge of information acquired and hypotheses generated by other physicians. Weekly data collection during the 8-week experiment with 40 clinical clerks revealed that work up of 'blinded' patients was more time-consuming and more difficult than work up of unblinded patients. Clerks were appreciative of the educational value of blinding. Teaching faculty felt clerk 'blinding' to be a practical approach to approximating the true conduct of medical practice and as such was useful for student learning.

Instructional text continues to play a major role in medical education. Production of this type of learning resource requires an understanding of the objectives of the learner and the characteristics of text which facilitate student learning. Success in producing effective readable text requires attention to the content as well as to the way it is presented. This review outlines the factors which have a major impact on those two elements.

General internal medicine instruction in an unsuccessful lecture-based course was replaced by a clinical problem-based 'junior clerkship'. Hospital and ambulatory-clinic instruction was centered around major common medical problems. Tutors willingly adopted a problem-based teaching approach and participated eagerly in a multi-component evaluation. Students and instructors responded favourably to questionnaires regarding the use of a problem list, the content and face validity of the course and the usefulness of the evaluations as learning experiences.