The Role of Faculty Development in Advancing Change at the Organizational Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Although the traditional goal of faculty development (FD) has been to enhance individual growth and development, this goal may no longer suffice to address the compelling challenges faculty members are facing, such as increasing workloads, emotional well-being, and institutional support for education. Addressing these challenges will require change at the organizational level. The purpose of this perspective is to articulate a vision for FD programming that describes ways in which FD leaders, together with other educational leaders, can bring about change at the organizational level to support excellence and innovation in health professions education. To impact the organization at large, the authors propose a model that includes 4 major goals: (1) promoting individual and group development, through educational and leadership development programs, coaching and mentoring, and advanced degrees; (2) advocating for infrastructure and resources, including academies of medical educators, educational scholarship units, educational awards, and intramural funding for educational innovation and scholarship; (3) influencing policies and procedures, by engaging educators on key committees, reviewing appointment and promotion criteria, defining educator roles and portfolios, and valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (4) contributing to organization-wide initiatives, such as addressing "hot button" issues, identifying value factors that support investments in FD and medical education, and enhancing the visibility of educators. In this model, the 4 goals are dynamically interconnected and can impact the culture of the organization. For each goal, the authors offer evidence-informed actions that FD leaders, along with other educational leaders, can adopt to improve the organizational culture and inspire institutionally relevant actions. Because each institution is unique, the options are illustrative and not prescriptive. The intent is to provide examples of how FD leaders and programs can enhance the educational mission through broader engagement with their institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".