The evolution of faculty development in Canada since the 1980s: Coming of age or time for a change?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: To determine the current status of university based faculty development at Canadian Medical Schools. BACKGROUND: The roles and responsibilities of faculty members at Canadian medical schools are changing significantly as a consequence of influences such as the competency dictates outlined in the CanMEDS roles. One result of the changes is an increased need for faculty development to assist faculty members in carrying out their new and expanded roles. METHODS: The changing climate in medical schools, and the enhanced performance expectations of academic faculty, led us to conduct a survey of current faculty development practices in Canadian medical schools to determine what is being done to address the new and expanded expectations of faculty members. We used an on-line survey instrument based on surveys of faculty development conducted in 1987 and 1997. RESULTS: We received responses from faculty development directors at all 17 Canadian medical schools. Among the principal findings are a continued emphasis on faculty members' teaching roles, increased funding of faculty development activities at most schools, and a broadened emphasis on faculty roles other than teaching. Among these are research and scholarship, and management and administrative roles. The survey revealed a mismatch between what faculty development directors consider to be effective development practices and which practices are actually used in their schools. Another notable finding is the absence of credible faculty development impact studies. CONCLUSION: The 2007 survey of faculty development practices in Canadian medical schools indicates that teaching is still the number one priority for faculty members and the main focus of faculty development programs. There are notable efforts to help faculty members deal with their newly identified roles including those outlined in the CanMEDS framework. In looking forward, Canadian faculty development directors should continue their efforts to devise credible program evaluation methods. Furthermore, they should expand their thinking beyond Canada's borders. It is time to aggressively explore and understand the approaches and experiences which have proven successful internationally in the United States and Europe.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».