Literature DB >> 12228112

An online discussion for medical faculty: an experiment that failed.

Yvonne Steinert1, Peter J McLeod, Larry Conochie, Louise Nasmith.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although online discussion groups are being used with increasing frequency in undergraduate and postgraduate education, their usefulness in faculty development has not been explored. The goal of this innovation was to offer an online discussion group following a faculty development workshop in order to reinforce workshop concepts and to allow participants to seek advice related to specific teaching and learning problems. We also wanted to assess the benefits of this educational tool. DESCRIPTION: We originally wanted to implement an online discussion group following a one-day workshop "The "Problem" Resident: Whose Problem Is It?" However, once this proposal was presented to our academic administrators, they asked us not to implement the discussion group because of concerns related to confidentiality and due process. They were worried that an online discussion might replace the faculty's evaluation and promotion guidelines, that teachers might no longer go to the "right" person to discuss a problem, and that we would give teachers a false sense of security. To respect these concerns, we changed the discussion topic and decided to implement an online discussion following a workshop "Promoting Interaction in Small-group Teaching." We chose this venue because it was less "emotionally charged" and because online discussions are seen as a potential adjunct to small-group teaching. We introduced the idea of a facilitated WebCT group discussion at the end of the workshop, and gave faculty members clear instructions on how to access the discussion group. Most of the workshop participants liked the idea of a follow-up to the workshop, but they preferred an e-mail listserv. We therefore decided to offer the WebCT discussion group to half of the participants, and an e-mail listserv to the others. To initiate the discussion, we posted several issues for both groups, and we awaited the participants' responses. To our surprise, only two individuals (8%) responded on the e-mail listserv, after several attempts to stimulate discussion. DISCUSSION: In looking back at our "medical experiment" we were disappointed that our efforts to facilitate an online discussion following a faculty development workshop were not successful. However, based on personal reflections and conversations with a number of the workshop participants, we feel that some important lessons were learned. Time and competing demands clearly pose a major barrier. In addition, the "perceived need" of the initiative is critical. Our faculty members did not see the need for discussing interactive small-group teaching techniques online. Faculty members' comfort with technology must also be considered. Many of our teachers were not familiar with the potential uses of online learning. Moving faculty development beyond workshops also remains a challenge. With these lessons in mind, we plan to initiate another online discussion with faculty members, based on a need that they have defined around a topic that they have identified as critical to their own development as faculty members. We continue to believe that follow-up activities are essential in faculty development and that we need to further assess the potential value of this educational method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12228112     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200209000-00046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  6 in total

Review 1.  A practical guide to developing effective web-based learning.

Authors:  David A Cook; Denise M Dupras
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Brief report: Utilizing an audiotape for outpatient preceptor faculty development.

Authors:  Laura Rees Willett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Advancing Inclusive Mentoring Through an Online Mentor Training Program and Coordinated Discussion Group.

Authors:  Kelly A Young; Malcolm A Finney; Panadda Marayong; Kim-Phuong L Vu
Journal:  Hum Interface Manag Inf Inf Rich Intell Environ (2021)       Date:  2021-07-03

4.  Assessing the learning needs of maternal and child health professionals to teach health promotion.

Authors:  Henry H Bernstein; Sarah Rieber; Rebecca A Stoltz; David E Shapiro; Kara M Connors
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2004-06

5.  Enablers and Barriers of Blended Learning in Faculty Development.

Authors:  Yusuf Yilmaz; Halil Ibrahim Durak; Soner Yildirim
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-03-04

6.  Concept maps: A tool for knowledge management and synthesis in web-based conversational learning.

Authors:  Ankur Joshi; Satendra Singh; Shivani Jaswal; Dinesh Kumar Badyal; Tejinder Singh
Journal:  Int J Appl Basic Med Res       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.