Faculty Development as an Instrument of Change: A Case Study on Teaching Professionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faculty development includes those activities that are designed to renew or assist faculty in their different roles. As such, it encompasses a wide variety of interventions to help individual faculty members improve their skills. However, it can also be used as a tool to engage faculty in the process of institutional change. The Faculty of Medicine at McGill University determined that such a change was necessary to effectively teach and evaluate professionalism at the undergraduate level, and a faculty development program on professionalism helped to bring about the desired curricular change. The authors describe that program to illustrate how faculty development can serve as a useful instrument in the process of change. The ongoing program, established in 1997, consists of medical education rounds and "think tanks" to promote faculty consensus and buy-in, and diverse faculty-wide and departmental workshops to convey core content, examine teaching and evaluation strategies, and promote reflection and self-awareness. To analyze the approach used and the results achieved, the authors applied a well-known model by J.P. Kotter for implementing change that consists of the following phases: establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others to act on the vision, generating short-term wins, consolidating gains and producing more change, and anchoring new approaches in the culture. The authors hope that their school's experience will be useful to others who seek institutional change via faculty development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".