BACKGROUND: Best practices for faculty development programs include longitudinal, practice-based formats incorporating experiential learning with opportunities for reflection and community building. Peer coaching for faculty development provides personalized, learner-centered, work-based learning. Implementation of traditional 1-on-1 peer coaching programs is challenging due to time, logistics, and methodological barriers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to improve observation and reflection skills and to expand personal teaching practices of clinician educators. METHODS: In 2016, we developed and evaluated an innovative "1-to-many" peer-coaching model utilizing large group review of video-recorded teaching encounters. Forty-three clinician-educator faculty in general internal medicine at the University of Pittsburgh attended at least 1 of 6 sessions between February and August 2016. Sessions were moderated by a master facilitator who guided direct observation of, and reflection on, observed teaching and highlighted efficacious teaching methods. The study evaluated the acceptability and efficacy of this novel faculty development program qualitatively, with semistructured, postcurriculum telephone interviews with 20 participating faculty. RESULTS: All respondents stated that they would continue to attend faculty development sessions and would recommend them to others. The most frequently cited advantages included exposure to new teaching strategies, direct feedback, safe environment, community of practice, and growth mind-set, yet barriers emerged, such as discomfort reviewing video, difficulty giving feedback across hierarchy, and initial skepticism. None described the curriculum as critical or unsafe. Most reported increased self-reflection and adoption of new teaching behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-coaching, video-based faculty development program was well received, feasible, and effective in changing self-reported teaching attitudes and practices.
BACKGROUND: Best practices for faculty development programs include longitudinal, practice-based formats incorporating experiential learning with opportunities for reflection and community building. Peer coaching for faculty development provides personalized, learner-centered, work-based learning. Implementation of traditional 1-on-1 peer coaching programs is challenging due to time, logistics, and methodological barriers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to improve observation and reflection skills and to expand personal teaching practices of clinician educators. METHODS: In 2016, we developed and evaluated an innovative "1-to-many" peer-coaching model utilizing large group review of video-recorded teaching encounters. Forty-three clinician-educator faculty in general internal medicine at the University of Pittsburgh attended at least 1 of 6 sessions between February and August 2016. Sessions were moderated by a master facilitator who guided direct observation of, and reflection on, observed teaching and highlighted efficacious teaching methods. The study evaluated the acceptability and efficacy of this novel faculty development program qualitatively, with semistructured, postcurriculum telephone interviews with 20 participating faculty. RESULTS: All respondents stated that they would continue to attend faculty development sessions and would recommend them to others. The most frequently cited advantages included exposure to new teaching strategies, direct feedback, safe environment, community of practice, and growth mind-set, yet barriers emerged, such as discomfort reviewing video, difficulty giving feedback across hierarchy, and initial skepticism. None described the curriculum as critical or unsafe. Most reported increased self-reflection and adoption of new teaching behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-coaching, video-based faculty development program was well received, feasible, and effective in changing self-reported teaching attitudes and practices.
Authors: Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Robert M Arnold; Walter Baile; James A Tulsky; Frances Petracca; Anthony Back Journal: Acad Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Craig Noronha; Margaret C Lo; Tanya Nikiforova; Danielle Jones; Deepa Rani Nandiwada; Tiffany I Leung; Janeen E Smith; Wei Wei Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Kimberly Pedram; Michelle N Brooks; Carolyn Marcelo; Nargiza Kurbanova; Laura Paletta-Hobbs; Adam M Garber; Alice Wong; Rehan Qayyum Journal: Cureus Date: 2020-02-22