Exploring Faculty Developers’ Experiences to Inform Our Understanding of Competence in Faculty Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Now a mainstay in medical education, faculty development has created the role of the faculty developer. However, faculty development research tends to overlook faculty developers' roles and experiences. This study aimed to develop an empirical understanding of faculty developer competence by digging deeper into the actions, experiences, and perceptions of faculty developers as they perform their facilitator role. METHOD: A constructivist grounded theory approach guided observations of faculty development activities, field interviews, and formal interviews with 31 faculty developers across two academic institutions from 2013 to 2014. Analysis occurred alongside and informed data collection. Themes were identified using a constant comparison process. RESULTS: Consistent with the literature, findings highlighted the knowledge and skills of the faculty developer and the importance of context in the design and delivery of faculty development activities. Three novel processes (negotiating, constructing, and attuning) were identified that integrate the individual faculty developer, her context, and the evolution of her competence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that faculty developer competence is best understood as a situated construct. A faculty developer's ability to attune to, construct, and negotiate her environment can both enhance and minimize the impact of contextual variables as needed. Thus, faculty developers do not passively experience context; rather, they actively interact with their environment in ways that maximize their performance. Faculty developers should be trained for the adaptive, situated use of knowledge.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".