The International Literature on Teaching Faculty Development in English-Language Journals: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Core Topics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing physician mobility, there is interest in how medical schools and postgraduate medical education institutions across the world develop and maintain the competence of medical teachers. Published reviews of faculty development (FD) have predominantly included studies from the United States and Canada. OBJECTIVE: We synthesized the international FD literature (beyond the US and Canada), focusing on FD type, intended audience, study format, effectiveness, differences among countries, and potential unique features. METHODS: We identified English-language publications that addressed FD for medical faculty for teaching and related activities, excluding US and Canadian publications. RESULTS: A search of 4 databases identified 149 publications, including 83 intervention studies. There was significant growth in international FD publications for the most recent decade, and a sizable number of studies were from developing economies and/or resulted from international collaborations. Focal areas echo those in earlier published reviews, suggesting the international FD literature addresses similar faculty needs and organizational concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The growth in publications in recent years and a higher proportion of reporting on participant reactions, coupled with less frequent reporting of results, transfer to practice, and impact on learners and the organization, suggest this is an evolving field. To enhance international FD, educators and researchers should focus on addressing common needs expressed by faculty, including curriculum design and evaluation, small group teaching, assessing professionalism and providing feedback. Future research should focus on approaches for developing comprehensive institutional FD programs that include communities of learning and practice and evaluating their impact.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".