PURPOSE: To examine the organizational structure of educational technology units within U.S. and Canadian medical schools in order to (1) identify organization models that support educational technology, (2) describe key attributes of these models, and (3) discuss the strengths and challenges associated with these models. METHOD: The authors distributed a survey to 88 schools that had previously provided information on their educational technology services and infrastructure. The authors developed the survey through a series of pilots and, then, from the data for each respondent school, created concept maps, which were used to identify organizational models. The authors conducted analyses to determine differences among models. The authors coded the comments about organizational models and identified themes. RESULTS: The authors received adequate data for analysis from 61 schools (69%). Four models for educational technology organizations emerged: (1) centralized units located in the school of medicine, (2) centralized units located at the health science center, (3) centralized units at the comprehensive university, and (4) no centralized unit (Dispersed Model). The majority (75%) of schools relied on some type of centralized organization. Whereas few organization attributes proved to be statistically significant, the centralized models have more resources devoted to educational technology and a closer alignment with the academic mission than the Dispersed Model. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools primarily use central models. The authors recommend that schools structuring their educational technology resources consider exploration of a central model because of its focused use of resources to improve teaching and learning.
PURPOSE: To examine the organizational structure of educational technology units within U.S. and Canadian medical schools in order to (1) identify organization models that support educational technology, (2) describe key attributes of these models, and (3) discuss the strengths and challenges associated with these models. METHOD: The authors distributed a survey to 88 schools that had previously provided information on their educational technology services and infrastructure. The authors developed the survey through a series of pilots and, then, from the data for each respondent school, created concept maps, which were used to identify organizational models. The authors conducted analyses to determine differences among models. The authors coded the comments about organizational models and identified themes. RESULTS: The authors received adequate data for analysis from 61 schools (69%). Four models for educational technology organizations emerged: (1) centralized units located in the school of medicine, (2) centralized units located at the health science center, (3) centralized units at the comprehensive university, and (4) no centralized unit (Dispersed Model). The majority (75%) of schools relied on some type of centralized organization. Whereas few organization attributes proved to be statistically significant, the centralized models have more resources devoted to educational technology and a closer alignment with the academic mission than the Dispersed Model. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools primarily use central models. The authors recommend that schools structuring their educational technology resources consider exploration of a central model because of its focused use of resources to improve teaching and learning.
Authors: Elmer V Bernstam; William R Hersh; Stephen B Johnson; Christopher G Chute; Hien Nguyen; Ida Sim; Meredith Nahm; Mark G Weiner; Perry Miller; Robert P DiLaura; Marc Overcash; Harold P Lehmann; David Eichmann; Brian D Athey; Richard H Scheuermann; Nick Anderson; Justin Starren; Paul A Harris; Jack W Smith; Ed Barbour; Jonathan C Silverstein; David A Krusch; Rakesh Nagarajan; Michael J Becich Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 6.893