Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Medical Education Fellowship Program for the Faculty Members of Kerman University of Medical Sciences Based on the Kirkpatrick Model

Dehghani, Mahmoud Reza; Salajegheh, Mahla; Fasihi Harandi, Majid; Bahaadinbeigy, Kambiz; Bahman Bijari, Bahareh; Shakiba, Zeynab; Fatahi, Zahra

doi:10.5812/sdme.64668

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Medical Education Fellowship Program for the Faculty Members of Kerman University of Medical Sciences Based on the Kirkpatrick Model

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mahmoud Reza Dehghani ¹

Mahla Salajegheh ²

Majid Fasihi Harandi ³

Kambiz Bahaadinbeigy ⁴

Bahareh Bahman Bijari ⁵

Zeynab Shakiba ⁶

Zahra Fatahi ¹

¹ Medical Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

² Medical Education Department, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran Medical Education Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

³ Research Center for Hydatid Disease in Iran, Medical Education Department, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁴ Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁵ School of Medicine, Physiology Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁶ Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.64668

Abstract

Background Attempts to increase the development of faculty members can improve their ability to assume different roles. Objectives The purpose of this study was to design, implementation, and evaluation a medical education fellowship program for the faculty members of Kerman University of Medical Sciences and to propose practical recommendations for the future design of development programs. Methods In this semi-experimental study, a total of 53 faculty members of Kerman University of Medical Sciences participated in a one-year development program, which was designed by the Education Development Center and included the main disciplines of medical education. The program was evaluated in several steps, using the Kirkpatrick model. Results In the first level of Kirkpatrick model, the majority of the participants were satisfied with the general quality of the fellowship program. Based on the findings, the program led to an increase in the knowledge of faculty members and promoted a more positive attitude towards education and these programs. The findings related to the second level of Kirkpatrick model showed a significant difference between the pretest and posttest results (P < 0.05). In addition, analysis of the effects of the program on the participants’ behaviors and practical learning indicated positive changes. Conclusions The medical education fellowship program led to positive changes in the participants’ attitudes towards education and faculty development programs and increased their knowledge about educational principles and strategies and achieving of training skills. It can be concluded that the medical education fellowship program could achieve many of its preset goals.

Keywords

Faculty Development Programs

Medical Education

Faculty Members

Leslie K, Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Esdaile M, Reeves S. Advancing faculty development in medical education: A systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88(7):1038–45. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294fd29. [PubMed:23702523].
Steinert Y. Faculty development in the new millennium: Key challenges and future directions. Med Teach. 2009;22(1):44–50. doi:10.1080/01421590078814.
Wilkerson L, Irby DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices: A comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med. 1998;73(4):387–96. [PubMed: 9580715].
Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME guide No.8. Med Teach. 2006;28(6):497–526. doi: 10.1080/01421590600902976. [PubMed: 17074699].
Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, Barnett BM, Centeno A, Naismith L, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME guide No. 40. Med Teach. 2016;38(8):769–86. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851. [PubMed:27420193].
O’Sullivan PS, Irby DM. Reframing research on faculty development. Acad Med. 2011;86(4):421–8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dc058. [PubMed: 21346505].
Steinert Y. Staff development for clinical teachers. Clin Teach. 2005;2(2):104–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2005.00062.x.
Sorinola OO, Thistlethwaite J. A systematic review of faculty development activities in familymedicine. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):e1309–18. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.770132. [PubMed: 23464818].
Steinert Y, Cruess S, Cruess R, Snell L. Faculty development for teaching and evaluating professionalism: From programme design to curriculum change. Med Educ. 2005;39(2):127–36. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02069.x. [PubMed: 15679679].
McLeod PJ, Steinert Y, Nasmith L, Conochie L. Faculty development in Canadian medical schools: A 10-year update. CMAJ. 1997;156(10):1419–23. [PubMed: 9164401]. [PubMed Central: PMC1227411].
Steinert Y, Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Boudreau JD, Fuks A. Faculty development as an instrument of change: A case study on teaching professionalism. Acad Med. 2007;82(11):1057–64. doi:10.1097/01.ACM.0000285346.87708.67. [PubMed: 17971692].
Dent J, Harden R. A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2013.
Gillespie M. Student-teacher connection: A place of possibility. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(2):211–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03581.x. [PubMed:16164482].
Rajeev P, Madan MS, Jayarajan K. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s model–an evaluation of an academic training. Current Sci. 2009;96(2).
Hewson MG, Copeland HL, Fishleder AJ. What’s the use of faculty development? Program evaluation using retrospective selfassessments and independent performance ratings. Teach Learn Med. 2001; 13(3):153–60. doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1303_4. [PubMed:11475658].
Ramalanjaona G. Faculty development: How to evaluate the effectiveness of a faculty development program in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(8):891–2. [PubMed: 12896893].
Elliot DL, Skeff KM, Stratos GA. How do you get to the improvement of teaching? A longitudinal faculty development program for medical. Teach Learn Med. 1999;11(1):52–7. doi:10.1207/s15328015tlm1101_12.
Knight AM, Cole KA, Kern DE, Barker LR, Kolodner K, Wright SM. Long-term follow-up of a longitudinal faculty development program in teaching skills. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(8):721–5. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0145.x. [PubMed: 16050881]. [PubMed Central:PMC1490179].
McLean M, Cilliers F, Van Wyk JM. Faculty development: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Med Teach. 2008;30(6):555–84. doi:10.1080/01421590802109834. [PubMed: 18677659].
Nasmith L, Steinert Y. The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive lecturing. Teach Learn Med. 2001;13(1):43–8. doi:10.1207/S15328015TLM1301_8. [PubMed: 11273379].
Rust G, Taylor V, Herbert-Carter J, Smith QT, Earles K, Kondwani K. The morehouse faculty development program: Evolving methods and 10-year outcomes. Fam Med. 2006;38(1):43–9. [PubMed:16378258].
Kollisch D, Linsey S, Weiss JE. Using residents’ ratings of teaching to assess the effectiveness of faculty development. Acad Med. 2000;75(5):558–9. [PubMed: 10824844].
Gelula MH, Yudkowsky R. Using standardised students in faculty development workshops to improve clinical teaching skills. Med Educ. 2003;37(7):621–9. [PubMed: 12834420].
Berbano EP, Browning R, Pangaro L, Jackson JL. The impact of the stanford faculty development program on ambulatory teaching behavior. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(5):430–4. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00422.x. [PubMed: 16704383]. [PubMed Central:PMC1484783].

Tax CL, Doucette H, Neish NR,Maillet JP. Amodel for cultivating dental hygiene faculty development within a community of practice. J Dent Educ. 2012;76(3):311–21. [PubMed: 22383599].
Behar-Horenstein LS, Childs GS, Graff RA. Observation and assessment of faculty development learning outcomes. J Dent Educ. 2010;74(11):1245–54. [PubMed: 21045231].