Details
Category: Volume 06 Issue 07 July 2018
Hits: 1038

Title: The impact of training in medical education technology as perceived by the teaching faculty in their own teaching practices

Authors: Jacob K Jacob, R. Sajith Kumar, Manjula V

 DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v6i7.200

Abstract

There is an increasing need for improving faculty development for ensuring quality in medical education in India with a fast growing number of medical colleges. There are very few studies which highlight the self-perception of the faculty regarding the impact of such training in medical education technology on their own teaching practice. Although the impact can be evaluated by various means, a self-evaluation of one’s own perception of the impact is an emerging concept.

Objective: To study the impact of training in medical education technology on one’s own teaching practice as perceived by the teaching faculty themselves.

Type of stud /Study design: Cross–sectional, Descriptive, Quantitative study.

Study setting: Government Medical College, Ernakulam.

Period of study: 3 months November 15th 2017 to February 15th 2018. Data collection and analysis: The confidential peer-validated questionnaire15 was the study tool used for collecting the data and data analysis was done using SPSS 16 software.

Results: 69.8 % perceived a change in their teaching practice and all of them attributed this change to the formal Training in Medical education Technology (TIMET) which they have received. The overall rating of teaching practice before and after the training was compared by applying paired t test and the difference was found to be statistically significant with a P value of 0.001.

Conclusion: The majority perceived a statistically significant change in their teaching practice over the years and all of them attributed this change to the formal training in medical education technology (TIMET) which they have received.

Recommendation: The recommendation from this study is that a basic training in medical education technology has to be included very early in the career of a medical professional which can be escalated in content and practice during residency and later on continued during the formal teaching practice as a faculty.

References

  1. Sanjay Zodpey, Anjali Sharma, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin, Abhay Gaidhane, Sunanda Shrikhande et al. Faculty development programs for medical teachers in India. J Adv Med Edu Prof. 2016 Apr; 4(2): 97–101.
  2. Arnold L, Willoughby TL, Calkins EV. Self-evaluation in undergraduate medical education: a longitudinal perspective. J Med Educ.1985 Jan;60(1):21-8.
  3. Gordon MJ. Self-assessment programs and their implications for health professions training. Acad Med.1992;67:672-9.  Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1492334/
  4. Wooliscroft JO, TenHaken J, Smith J, Calhoun JG. Medical students’ clinical self-assessments: comparisons with external measures of performance and the students’ self-assessments of overall performance and effort. Acad Med. 1993;68:285–9
  5. Arnold L, Willoughby TL, Calkins EV. Self-evaluation in undergraduate medical education: a longitudinal perspective. J Med Educ.1985;60:21–8.
  6. Zabarenko RN, Zabarenko LM. Teaching psychological medicine on hospital rounds: a liaison experiment. Int J Psychiatry Med.1978;8:325–34. 
  7. Carmel S. The professional self-esteem of physicians scale, structure, properties, and the relationship to work outcomes and life satisfaction. Psychol Rep.1997;80:591–602. 
  8. Rosenberg M, Schooler C, Schoenbach C, Rosenberg F. Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: different concepts, different outcomes. Am Social Rev.1995; 60:141–56.
  9. Gordon MJ. Self-assessment programs and their implications for health professions training. Acad Med.1992;67:672–9. 
  10. Donna M W, Amy M Knight, Scott M W. Clinician-teachers Self-assessments Versus Learners’ Perceptions. J Gen Inter Med. 2004 May;19(5 Pt 2):554–557.
  11. Kassebaum DG. The measurement of outcomes in the assessment of educational program effectiveness. 1997 Dec;72(12):1127-33;1990 May;65(5):293-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2337430
  12. Blumberg P. Multidimensional outcome considerations in assessing the efficacy of medical educational programs. Teach Learn Med.2003 Summer;15(3):210-4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12855393
  13. Hewson MG, Copeland HL. What's the use of faculty development? Program evaluation using retrospective self-assessments and independent performance ratings. Teach Learn Med. 2001;13:153–60. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11475658
  14. Baldwin CD, Levine HG, McCormick DP. Meeting the faculty development needs of generalist physicians in academia. Acad Med.1991;155:962–7. Available from :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1492334/
  15. Copeland L.H. and Hewson G. The Cleveland Clinic’s Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument. Academic Medicine 2000;75:161–166. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693849
  16. Piaget J. New York: Orion Press; 1970. Science of education and the psychology of the child.
  17. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, Prideaux D. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide Med Teach.2006 Sep;28(6):497-526
  18. Joshi S, Pradhan A, Dixit H Faculty opinion survey following attendance to teacher training workshops in Kathmandu Medical College. Kathmandu University Medical Journal (2003) Vol. 2, No. 3, Issue 7, 244-251
  19. Van Der Leeuw RM, Boerebach BC, Lombarts KM, Heineman MJ, Arah OA. Clinical teaching performance improvement of faculty in residency training: A prospective cohort study.Med Teach.2016 May;38(5):464-70.
  20. Mythili S.V., Arul Amutha Elizabeth. Perceptions of Medical Teachers on the Faculty Development Programme. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 2016; 60(1) : 96–101.

Corresponding Author

Jacob K Jacob

Professor, Department of Medicine, GMC Ernakulam