really good stuff
REFERENCE 1 Lemon TI, Stone BA, Lampard R. Research skills for undergraduates – a must!. Perspect Med Educ 2013;2 (3):174–5. Correspondence: Thomas I Lemon, Institute of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK. Tel: 00 44 29 2068 8101; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12456
Recognising and rewarding clinical educator scholarship Bruce Fisher & Liam Rourke What problems were addressed? Ernest Boyer1 reminded us that scholarship is composed of four domains – teaching, integration, application and discovery – and urged that faculty members be equitably recognised for all four. Faculties of Medicine agree with this ideal, but have struggled with its implementation. Clinical educators continue to occupy lower ranks than those in research paths and are promoted more slowly. Faculty members may lack means of reporting their non-research contributions in ways that communicate the scholarship of their work, and department heads may lack the resources to evaluate these contributions. We posited that user-friendly resources and training might have a favourable impact on the recognition of clinical educators’ scholarly contributions. What was tried? We developed a web-based annual report and faculty development support system to promote more complete and standardised reporting for all domains of scholarly activity, but with a focus on clinical education contributions. Development was informed by published effective practices for reporting scholarship and by wide consultation with stakeholders in the faculty. Major revisions included the use of controlled text entry employing dropdown box pick-lists to promote the reporting of contributions using shared language to make complete and explicit descriptions of scholarship components (including the nature, quantity and quality of contributions, scope of dissemination, and evidence of peer review). We also provided workshops to faculty staff that addressed the rationale for the report, explained how it could improve the quality, reliability and equity of reporting and assessment of scholarship, and demonstrated how to use the form. We also provided online manuals and a help line. A demonstration view of the report is available upon request.
544
What lessons were learned? The report is used in our annual faculty merit increment award process, in which a merit increment of 1 represents ‘average’ performance and greater values represent ‘superior’ performance. To gauge the report’s impact, we reviewed merit increment award data for the 3 years before and 3 years after its implementation. We focused on full-time clinical faculty staff at the rank of assistant professor. ‘Clinical’ was applied to staff who spend at least 15% of their time in clinical activities. We further classified faculty staff as clinical educators or clinical researchers by requiring that the pertinent domain of contribution should represent at least 30% of their job description. Total numbers of ‘superior’ merit increments were pooled for each group over the 3 years prior to and after the intervention. Changes in the frequency of recognition of this ‘superior’ merit were evidenced by assessing the percentages of each group to which it applied before and after the intervention. A total of 1016 merit decisions for assistant professors were analysed. In the 3 years prior to the implementation of the new reporting system, the mean annual percentage of ‘superior’ merit increments was lower in the clinical educator group (17%) than in the clinical researcher group (29%). In the 3 years after implementation, this percentage increased significantly in the clinical educator group (39%; p = 0.003) to approximate that seen in clinical researchers (33%; non-significant increase). We believe that providing reporting tools and faculty development support such as ours can help achieve Boyer’s vision of equitable recognition for all domains of scholarship. REFERENCE 1 Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ, Princeton University Press 1990. Correspondence: Bruce Fisher, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 5-112 Clinical Sciences Building, 11350-83 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G3. Tel: 00 1 780 492 5111; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12441
Near-peer facilitation: a win–win simulation Marilina Antonelou, Sanjay Krishnamoorthy, Gemma Walker & Nick Murch What problem was addressed? Peer and ‘nearpeer’ learning are rapidly expanding areas of
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 522–548
REFERENCE 1 Lemon TI, Stone BA, Lampard R. Research skills for undergraduates – a must!. Perspect Med Educ 2013;2 (3):174–5. Correspondence: Thomas I Lemon, Institute of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK. Tel: 00 44 29 2068 8101; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12456
Recognising and rewarding clinical educator scholarship Bruce Fisher & Liam Rourke What problems were addressed? Ernest Boyer1 reminded us that scholarship is composed of four domains – teaching, integration, application and discovery – and urged that faculty members be equitably recognised for all four. Faculties of Medicine agree with this ideal, but have struggled with its implementation. Clinical educators continue to occupy lower ranks than those in research paths and are promoted more slowly. Faculty members may lack means of reporting their non-research contributions in ways that communicate the scholarship of their work, and department heads may lack the resources to evaluate these contributions. We posited that user-friendly resources and training might have a favourable impact on the recognition of clinical educators’ scholarly contributions. What was tried? We developed a web-based annual report and faculty development support system to promote more complete and standardised reporting for all domains of scholarly activity, but with a focus on clinical education contributions. Development was informed by published effective practices for reporting scholarship and by wide consultation with stakeholders in the faculty. Major revisions included the use of controlled text entry employing dropdown box pick-lists to promote the reporting of contributions using shared language to make complete and explicit descriptions of scholarship components (including the nature, quantity and quality of contributions, scope of dissemination, and evidence of peer review). We also provided workshops to faculty staff that addressed the rationale for the report, explained how it could improve the quality, reliability and equity of reporting and assessment of scholarship, and demonstrated how to use the form. We also provided online manuals and a help line. A demonstration view of the report is available upon request.
544
What lessons were learned? The report is used in our annual faculty merit increment award process, in which a merit increment of 1 represents ‘average’ performance and greater values represent ‘superior’ performance. To gauge the report’s impact, we reviewed merit increment award data for the 3 years before and 3 years after its implementation. We focused on full-time clinical faculty staff at the rank of assistant professor. ‘Clinical’ was applied to staff who spend at least 15% of their time in clinical activities. We further classified faculty staff as clinical educators or clinical researchers by requiring that the pertinent domain of contribution should represent at least 30% of their job description. Total numbers of ‘superior’ merit increments were pooled for each group over the 3 years prior to and after the intervention. Changes in the frequency of recognition of this ‘superior’ merit were evidenced by assessing the percentages of each group to which it applied before and after the intervention. A total of 1016 merit decisions for assistant professors were analysed. In the 3 years prior to the implementation of the new reporting system, the mean annual percentage of ‘superior’ merit increments was lower in the clinical educator group (17%) than in the clinical researcher group (29%). In the 3 years after implementation, this percentage increased significantly in the clinical educator group (39%; p = 0.003) to approximate that seen in clinical researchers (33%; non-significant increase). We believe that providing reporting tools and faculty development support such as ours can help achieve Boyer’s vision of equitable recognition for all domains of scholarship. REFERENCE 1 Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ, Princeton University Press 1990. Correspondence: Bruce Fisher, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 5-112 Clinical Sciences Building, 11350-83 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G3. Tel: 00 1 780 492 5111; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12441
Near-peer facilitation: a win–win simulation Marilina Antonelou, Sanjay Krishnamoorthy, Gemma Walker & Nick Murch What problem was addressed? Peer and ‘nearpeer’ learning are rapidly expanding areas of
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 522–548
