The Effectiveness and Perceptions of Student Participation in Faculty Development D. Benjamin Wright Ashley Mullen, CPO, LPO Aimee K. Gardner, PhD @BCMHealthProf

Disclosures None

Roadmap for Today What is faculty development? The role of the student Our study Results Implications

Faculty Development “all activities health professionals pursue to improve their knowledge, skills, and behaviors as teachers and educators, So, what is faculty development? leaders and managers, & researchers and scholars” Steinert 2014

all the others can be pursued in other settings. “The one task that is distinctively related to being a faculty member is teaching; all the others can be pursued in other settings. Paradoxically, the central responsibility of faculty members is typically the one for which they tend to be least prepared.” One quote that has really stuck with me in regard to faculty development is this… But, the role of teacher cannot be left to chance, aptitude, or inclination This was the main impetus for me doing this project. When talking with my faculty I came to realize that most came directly from the clinic to academia with little to no training, and were frustrated that they didn’t have time to consume research about teaching and learning. Westberg & Jason 1981

And we acknowledge this, and numerous faculty development initiatives have been reported in the health professions literature. These are only a few of those initiatives.

Traditional Approaches Leadership  Faculty Senior faculty  Junior faculty Peer – Peer Regardless of modality, whether it be workshops, longitudinal modules, or lecture-based activities, we know that these activities are often top down – led by either an Office of Faculty Development, a leader within the unit, or perhaps just more senior faculty members. And, sometimes, they are peer to peer, where faculty help each other through observation and working together to achieve their goals. At Baylor College of Medicine, for example, we have a peer coaching program where faculty can sign up to have another faculty member outside of their department observe their teaching in the classroom, clinic, or on rounds and work with them on some of their pre-identified goals.

But, with all of this activity going on with faculty teaching other faculty, we have to wonder…what role can students play in this process?

Because, after all, don’t they have the most contact hours with faculty in the lab, clinic, and classroom??? They see and experience more of their teaching than anyone else. And aren’t students already crucial stakeholders in assessing the quality of faculty teaching through their ratings of courses and instructor performance??

So why should we get students involved in faculty development activities? Wouldn’t it be great to give them more experience and insight into the science behind teaching and learning, so that they may be more equipped when they are put in instructor roles in their future careers? Or, at a minimum, wouldn’t it be nice to have a venue through which they can increase their understanding of the challenges and struggles instructors face, so that they may be more malleable and empathetic learners? If their experiences and opinions are good enough to evaluate faculty, shouldn’t they be good enough to use those experiences to help sculpt faculty development activities?

Our Study Develop and implement a student-led modular, longitudinal faculty development course Examine the effectiveness of the course Gather reactions from faculty about the student-led course So that brings us to our current study, in which we had three overarching goals…

Methodology Individual interviews with faculty members Development of the curriculum based on teaching and learning research Four modules Evaluations and a pre/post knowledge test To achieve these aims, we held individual interviews with faculty members to gauge interest and what they might hope to gain from such a course. From these interviews we solidified our feeling that they wanted more training on evidence-based teaching and learning principles. We developed the course curriculum, created post-module and course surveys and a pre/post course knowledge test, implemented the four modules and the assessments, and then evaluated the responses. The curriculum was based largely upon these two books, as well as other evidence-based approaches and articles. I rehearsed each module with the assistant dean of the school. Each module consisted of a mixture of group discussion, low-stakes quizzing, and role-playing. I did my best to model the principles discussed in the modules and asked the faculty for feedback on how the experience was for them as learners.

This is a brief overview of what the curriculum ended up looking like This is a brief overview of what the curriculum ended up looking like. The learning strategies used came from the sources upon which we based the course curriculum. The faculty were provided with pre-module prep material that they were quizzed on during the module. As you see, Module 1 consisted of discussions about classroom culture, and used the learning tools of spaced retrieval, generation, reflection, and other active learning strategies. Much of the material in Module 2 came from How People Learn.

Assessment Tools Pre/post knowledge quiz (20 items) Module evaluations (5 items) Quality of instructor Relevance of material Pace of the module Effectiveness of presentation End of course evaluation Effectiveness of curriculum delivery (10 items) Curriculum delivery and presentation, compared to performance expectations of a faculty facilitator How faculty applied material Perceptions of having a student facilitator Assessments were adapted from best practices in teaching and peer coaching13-15 Part of the module evaluations was an open comments section in which the faculty could provide any other relevant feedback. Huston et al. 2008 Siddiqui et al. 2007 Skeff et al. 1992

Analyses Pre-post differences in knowledge test Paired-samples t test Module evaluations & end of course evaluation Basic descriptive statistics (means, SDs, etc.)

Results All faculty (N=5) from Orthotics-Prosthetics Master’s program participated 6.40 ± 4.32 years since completing OP training 4.40 ± 2.60 years in academia 3.80 ± 1.91 years in current role at this institution

They learned! Faculty pre/post knowledge differences. Module 3 was related to some of the newest science and research regarding learning, and this is a possible reason for the lower scores for that content.

They liked the modules Module 3, on teaching methods, was rated the highest overall. This was, ironically, the one they performed the worst on in the knowledge test. Its content was also probably the most hands-on and directly applicable of all the modules. Module 2, on the learner, was rated the lowest overall. The lowest rated item across all modules was “pace of module.” likely a result of us having to start late to wait for faculty to arrive, which pushed many modules over the intended course time. The highest rated item was the relevance of the topics to the instructors.

Overall, they liked the course Overall, at the high end of the scale. Likert scale (1-5). As you see, only one faculty member indicated they disagreed with one item, which was “provided feedback to participants.” The highest-rated item was regarding the safe, collegial environment.

Overall, they liked the course Overall, total mean was at or above a 3, which indicated, “similar to what I would expect of a faculty peer.” As you see, though, there were a few areas rated lower than what they would expect of a peer, such as “displayed confidence in instruction” and “discussed topics of relevance to our roles.” I admit that my confidence in my instruction was not always as high as I would have liked.

How did having a student facilitator impact your ability to apply these concepts? Positive “…it did not affect ability or willingness to apply concepts…” “It didn't impact my willingness to try to implement these concepts.” “It did not affect my ability…” Negative “The same presentation by the same person several years after graduation would be received completely differently.” “There was definitely a feeling of an "elephant in the room" at times.” “The same delivery of the same content 5 years from now (regardless of how interim time was spent by said recent graduate) would be significantly more effective to me.” 

Other comments about the course Appreciation of efforts expended Most valuable parts of the curriculum: Applicable content Introduction to evidence-based learning and teaching concepts Group discussions “Some of the concepts were utterly novel to me as a “clinician Educator” with little formal exposure to such theories on learning, teaching, and retaining.” “Ben did a great job and I love improving myself and the program. Thank you both for spending time making this meaningful for us!” The most valuable parts of the curriculum turned out to be three of the main focuses I had in developing the curriculum.

Limitations Only 5 faculty members One institution Modules were spaced out over five months Novel quiz and evaluations

Summary A student-led faculty development course improved faculty knowledge of learning, teaching, and assessment principles. The faculty were pleased with the course and rated the individual modules and the overall curriculum delivery very high, with the majority of faculty rating the student at or above what they would have expected from a faculty instructor.

The Effectiveness and Perceptions of Student Participation in Faculty Development D. Benjamin Wright Ashley Mullen, CPO, LPO Aimee K. Gardner, PhD @BCMHealthProf