A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review, which focused on faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness, synthesized findings related to intervention types, study characteristics, individual and organizational outcomes, key features, and community building. METHODS: This review included 111 studies (between 2002 and 2012) that met the review criteria. FINDINGS: Overall satisfaction with faculty development programs was high. Participants reported increased confidence, enthusiasm, and awareness of effective educational practices. Gains in knowledge and skills, and self-reported changes in teaching behaviors, were frequently noted. Observed behavior changes included enhanced teaching practices, new educational initiatives, new leadership positions, and increased academic output. Organizational changes were infrequently explored. Key features included evidence-informed educational design, relevant content, experiential learning, feedback and reflection, educational projects, intentional community building, longitudinal program design, and institutional support. CONCLUSION: This review holds implications for practice and research. Moving forward, we should build on current success, broaden the focus beyond individual teaching effectiveness, develop programs that extend over time, promote workplace learning, foster community development, and secure institutional support. We should also embed studies in a theoretical framework, conduct more qualitative and mixed methods studies, assess behavioral and organizational change, evaluate transfer to practice, analyse key features, and explore the role of faculty development within the larger organizational context.
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 | 0.021 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".