FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS: WHERE DO WE STAND IN PAKISTAN?

Authors

  • Fatima Mukhtar
  • Abdul Majeed Chaudhry

Abstract

Background: The term ‘Faculty Development’ encompasses all those activities which help facultymembers enhance their academic competencies. It comprises three domains: personal development,professional development, and instructional and course development. The objectives of this study wereto determine the proportion of medical colleges involved in faculty development activities, to assess thetypes of faculty development activities, and to identify the factors influencing such activities, alongwith formulating recommendations for faculty development. Methods: A cross-sectional study wasconducted in the medical colleges (public and private) of Pakistan from September to December 2010.A questionnaire was designed through literature review, was pre-tested and then sent via mail toprincipals of the institutions outside Lahore. Questionnaires were self-administered to respondentswithin Lahore. Apart from describing the data, Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were applied todetermine statistical association between categorical variables at p≤0.05. Results: All the 65 public andprivate sector medical colleges recognised by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) at thattime were included in the study. Responses were received from 45 medical institutions, of which 37(82%) were involved in faculty development activities. Training on communication skills wereprovided by 31 (84%), and teaching skills by 30 (81%) institutes. Stress management was the topicaddressed by 15 (40%) institutes. Most institutes conducted such activities once a month (43%),followed by once every six months (30%). Faculty at all levels was equally involved in trainingactivities, except senior registrars involved by 5 (14%). The presence of Medical Education Department(DME) in the college (p<0.01), the respondent’s designation (p=0.0038) and the provincial location ofthe college (p=0.036) were significantly associated with faculty development activities. The barriers tofaculty training were identified as: lack of incentives 20 (54%), lack of faculty interest 15 (40%), anddearth of trained facilitators 15 (40%). Conclusion: Majority of the medical institutes were involved infaculty development activities imparting training regarding communication and teaching skills.Presence of DME in the college, the respondent’s designation, and the provincial location of the collegepositively influenced faculty development activities. Lack of incentives, lack of faculty interest and ashortage of trained faculty were identified as barriers.Keywords: Medical College, faculty development, medical education

References

McLeod PJ, Faculty development practices in Canadian medical

schools. CMAJ 1987;136:709‒12.

Siddiqui ZS, Faculty Development: A Step towards Quality and

Excellence. J Quality Tech Manag 2009;5(11):17‒26.

Singh T, Bansal P, Sharma M. A need and necessity for faculty

development: the role of medical education units in the Indian

context. South East Asian J Med Educ 2008;2(1):2–6.

Fidler DC, Khakoo R, Miller LA. Teaching Scholars Programs:

Faculty Development for Educators in the Health Professions.

Acad Psychiatry 2007;31:472–8.

Tang GWK. Continuing Professional Development – a Surrogate

for Recertification? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33:711–4.

McLean M, Cilliers F, Van Wyk JM. Faculty development:

yesterday, today and tomorrow. Med Teach 2008;30:555–84.

Srinivas DK, Adkoli BV. Faculty development in Medical

Education in India: The need of the day. Al Ameen J Med Sci

;2(1):6–13.

Gruppen LD, Frohna AZ, Anderson RM, Lowe KD. Faculty

development for educational leadership and scholarship. Acad

Med 2003;78:37–41.

Harris D, Krause KC, Parish DC, Smith MU. Academic

competencies for medical education. Fam Med 2007;39:343–50.

Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula

M. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives

designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education:

BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach 2006;28:497–526.

Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (2006). www.pmdc.org.pk.

Accessed on 10th October 2010.

McLeod PJ, Steinert Y. The evolution of faculty development in

Canada since the 1980s: coming of age or time for a change?

Med Teach 2010;32(1):e31‒5

Siddiqui ZS. Professional development of academics: a needs

assessment. 1st International Conference on Assessing Quality in

Higher Education, Lahore, Pakistan. 2006. p.9 –33.

Adkoli BV, Sood R. Faculty development and medical education

units in India: a survey. Natl Med J India 2009;22(1):28–32.

Gjerde CL, Kokotailo P, Olson CA, Hla KM. A Weekend

program model for faculty development with primary care

physicians. Fam Med 2004;36:S110–5.

Baral N, Paudel BH, Das BK, Aryal M, Das BP, Jha N et al. An

Evaluation of training of teachers in medical education in four

medical schools of Nepal. Nepal Med Coll J 2007;9:157–61.

Anshu, Bansal P, Mennin SG, Burdick WP, Singh T. Online

faculty development for medical educatots: experience of a soth

Asian Program. Educ Health (Abingdon) 2008;21:175.

Smolen DM. Constraints that nursing program administrators

encounter in promoting faculty change and development. J Prof

Nurs 1996;12:91–8.

Hendricson WD, Anderson E, Andrieu SC, Chadwick G, Cole

JR, George MC et al. Does Faculty Development Enhance

Teaching Effectiveness? J Dental Edu 2007;71:1513–33.

Downloads

Published

2010-09-01

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>