| Literature DB >> 31908590 |
Riry Ambarsarie1, Rita Mustika2, Diantha Soemantri2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The focus of medical schools in developing countries is on fulfilling a quantity of faculty members. A faculty development model will help formulate programmes that accommodate faculty members' needs as well as institutional demands. This study aims to formulate a faculty development model relevant for medical schools in developing countries, specifically Indonesia.Entities:
Keywords: faculty development; medical education; medical teacher; model
Year: 2019 PMID: 31908590 PMCID: PMC6939731 DOI: 10.21315/mjms2019.26.6.9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malays J Med Sci ISSN: 1394-195X
Figure 1Diagram depicting the flow of inclusion/exclusion criteria
List of included articles and data extracted
| Article | Definition of faculty development | Objectives of faculty development | Model/framework/guidelines used to design faculty development programme | Characteristics of participants in faculty development programme | Approaches used in faculty development programme | Content discussed in the faculty development programme | Challenges encountered | Output and evaluation of faculty development programme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behar-Horenstein et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × |
| Smith and Hardinger ( | × | × | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × |
| Phuong and McLean ( | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | × | × | ✓ | ✓ |
| Onyura et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | × | ✓ | × |
| Purba ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | ✓ | × | × |
| Amin et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | × |
| Daley et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | × |
| Kim et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × |
| Walters et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | × |
| Hesketh et al. ( | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Characteristics of the faculty development experts
| ID | Status of the institution in which the expert works (public/private) | Years of working experience | Education level |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Public | 9 years | Master |
| T2 | Private | 7 years | Master |
| T3 | Public | 18 years | PhD |
| T4 | Public | 16 years | Master |
| T5 | Public | 10 years | PhD candidate |
| T6 | Public | 15 years | Master |
| T7 | Private | 7 years | Master |
| T8 | Public | 12 years | Master |
| T9 | Private | 14 years | PhD |
| T10 | Private | 9 years | Master |
Themes and subthemes obtained from the expert interview
| Theme | Sub-theme |
|---|---|
| Factors influencing existing faculty development programme | Institutional awareness |
| Needs analysis | |
| Funding | |
| Motivation | |
| Components of faculty development model | Content |
| Process | |
| System | |
| Benefits of faculty development model | Improving skills in teaching |
| Improving content expertise | |
| Strengthening the institution’s vision and missions | |
| Challenges in implementing faculty development model | Generation gap |
| Resistance to new concepts | |
| Difficulty of faculty members to manage time | |
| Working/institutional culture |
Components of faculty development model
| Components obtained from literature review | Components obtained from expert interview |
|---|---|
| Instructional skills development | Soft skills development (content) |
| Organisational skills development | Spiritual development (content) |
| Leadership skills development | Stages of faculty development (process) |
| Professional development | Implementation cycle (process) |
| Government/institution policy | Role of leaders (system) |
| Medical education trends | Expert availability (system) |
| Student generations | |
| Institutional characteristics |
Figure 2Final model of faculty development model based on literature and experts review