Combining Expertise: Reflecting on a Team Approach to Curriculum Development and Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: This article discussed curriculum development and implementation using a unique collaboration of basic scientists and clinicians functioning as course co-directors. It explores the pros, cons, and unintended consequences of this integrated approach through reflections of the faculty involved. METHODS: Ten faculty participated in semi-structured phone interviews to reflect on their experiences. RESULTS: Analysis of interview transcripts revealed four key themes: (1) the value of the basic scientist and clinician partnership, (2) strategies for coordination, (3) balancing responsibilities, and (4) hierarchy and power. DISCUSSION: This study identified that both basic scientists and clinicians experienced benefits from using a course co-director collaborative approach to curriculum development and implementation. While challenges are also noted, the benefits of the collaboration were evident in course organization, course evaluation reports, student feedback, and USMLE Step I pass rate.

Supporting medical education research quality: the Association of American Medical Colleges' Medical Education Research Certificate program.

The quality of the medical education research (MER) reported in the literature has been frequently criticized. Numerous reasons have been provided for these shortcomings, including the level of research training and experience of many medical school faculty. The faculty development required to improve MER can take various forms. This article describes the Medical Education Research Certificate (MERC) program, a national faculty development program that focuses exclusively on MER. Sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and led by a committee of established medical education researchers from across the United States, the MERC program is built on a set of 11 interactive workshops offered at various times and places across the United States. MERC participants can customize the program by selecting six workshops from this set to fulfill requirements for certification. This article describes the history, operations, current organization, and evaluation of the program. Key elements of the program's success include alignment of program content and focus with needs identified by prospective users, flexibility in program organization and logistics to fit participant schedules, an emphasis on practical application of MER principles in the context of the participants' activities and interests, consistency in program content and format to ensure standards of quality, and a sustainable financial model. The relationship between the national MERC program and local faculty development initiatives is also described. The success of the MERC program suggests that it may be a possible model for nationally disseminated faculty development programs in other domains.

Factors influencing implementation of team-based learning in health sciences education.

BACKGROUND: Limited studies have looked at factors that lead to successful implementation of team-based learning (TBL). The purpose of this study was to identify contextual factors associated with implementation of TBL with a larger pool of individuals. METHOD: The authors administered a questionnaire who had implemented TBL via the Web to participants who attended TBL workshops; 297 of 594 responded. We used the constant comparative method to analyze responses. RESULTS: Analysis revealed five factors important to successful implementation of TBL: buy-in, expertise, resources, time, and course characteristics, with 60%, 38%, 37%, 36%, and 16% of respondents identifying each factor, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When health science faculty and administrators implement TBL or other educational innovations, they must have buy-in, ensure adequate time and resources, develop needed expertise, and determine best fit within a course. Although these results are specific to TBL, they are consistent with models of dissemination and have implications for other educational innovations.

Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later.

PURPOSE: In 2003, we described initial use of team-based learning (TBL) at 10 medical schools. The purpose of the present study was to review progress and understand factors affecting the use of TBL at these schools during the subsequent 2 years. METHODS: Representatives from 10 schools evaluated in 2003 were again evaluated in 2005. They were interviewed by members of the Team Based Learning Collaborative using a semistructured interview process. Data were analysed by 2 researchers using the constant comparative method and were triangulated through sharing results with other interviewers at regular intervals to verify conclusions and form consensus. RESULTS: TBL continued to be used in all but 1 school. At the 9 remaining schools, TBL was added to 18 courses, continued to be used in 19 and was discontinued in 13 courses. At some schools, it was discontinued in single courses in lieu of new, longitudinal integration courses in which TBL was a main instructional strategy. Faculty, student, course and institutional factors were associated with changes in TBL use. CONCLUSION: Faculty, administration/curriculum, students and characteristics of specific courses influence ongoing utilisation of TBL. Those who desire to implement TBL would do well to take these factors into account as they plan implementation efforts at their schools.

Making it work: the evolution of a medical educational fellowship program.

Longitudinal programs to enhance the educational skills of medical school faculty are present in many medical schools and academic health centers. Multiinstitutional programs are less common. Three health professions schools, Baylor College of Medicine, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, and The University of Texas Dental Branch have jointly sponsored the Educational Scholars Fellowship Program (ESFP) since 2003. The evolution of this program, from one that addressed the faculty educator development needs of one medical school in the mid-1990s to a more flexible model that includes faculty and fellows from three institutions, reflects the changing needs of faculty as well as those of other health professions schools. The ESFP's strengths lie in the effective use of resources across three schools; the opportunity for an interinstitutional and interdisciplinary collaborative network; the flexibility of the curriculum offerings; and the positive impact on fellows' knowledge, skills and leadership in medical and dental education. The evolution of this program represents a cost-effective and educationally sound response to the changing needs of faculty educators.