1

PAS PAS EducationalEducational

Scholars ProgramScholars Program

This program is a product of the:This program is a product of the:• APA Faculty Development Program • APA Education Committee

2

CME DisclosuresCME DisclosuresSpeakers:Speakers:

• Constance Baldwin, University of Constance Baldwin, University of Rochester Rochester

• Miriam Bar-on, Loyola-Strich Med SchoolMiriam Bar-on, Loyola-Strich Med School• Latha Chandran, State Univ of NY at Latha Chandran, State Univ of NY at

StonybrookStonybrook• Maryellen Gusic, Penn StateMaryellen Gusic, Penn State• Franklin Trimm, Univ of So AlabamaFranklin Trimm, Univ of So Alabama

Each of these speakers has Each of these speakers has documented that he or she has documented that he or she has nothing to disclosenothing to disclose

3

Purpose of Purpose of APA FD Program (and ESP)APA FD Program (and ESP)

To provide a faculty development program for pediatric educators to: • enhance performance• increase job satisfaction• support career advancement

To increase the quality, status and visibility of pediatric educators in academia

4

Inauguration of Educational Inauguration of Educational Scholars ProgramScholars Program

July ’05: • ESP approved for delivery at next 3

PAS meetings• Target group: pediatric faculty in

all specialtiesJan ’06: 67 applications receivedFeb ’06: 30 Scholars selected May 2 ’06: First teaching session

5

Educational Scholars Educational Scholars Program FacultyProgram Faculty

Constance Baldwin, Director *

Latha Chandran, Co-Director *

Miriam Bar-on * Donna D'Alessandro *Charlene Gaebler Lynn Garfunkel *Angelo Giardino *Susan Guralnick*Maryellen Gusic *

David Keller * Lyuba Konopasek * Alice Kuo Joe Lopreiato * Virginia Niebuhr * Daniel Rauch * Wanessa Risko Judy Shaw * Franklin Trimm * Teri Turner *

* Project Facilitators

6

Educational Scholars Educational Scholars Program OverviewProgram Overview

1. Core curriculum: 1 full-day mini-course per year at PAS meeting

2. Formal reviews of 6 PAS workshops3. Mentored projects with 6-mo

progress report4. Electronic interactions between

PAS meetings5. Final requirement for certification:

• Peer-reviewed paper OR • Peer-reviewed presentation at a

national meeting

7

ESP: ESP: Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

Core of curriculum: 14 learning goals Principles of adult learning in all interactionsMany opportunities for hands-on practiceRequired scholarly projectsPeer learning through project sharing and

evaluation, feedback and supportProfessional networking facilitated by

electronic communications systemDynamic, evolving learning program,

shaped by evaluation and feedback from participants

8

Core Didactic/InteractiveCore Didactic/InteractiveCurriculum at PAS MeetingsCurriculum at PAS Meetings

Three yearly sessions will include:

Learning modules linked to our 14 educational goals

Peer group interactive activitiesProject presentations with feedbackCareer development sessions

9

FormalFormalWorkshop ReviewsWorkshop Reviews

You are expected to submit a written review of two PAS workshops per year

Two types of evaluation required:• Summative, quantitative evaluation• Open-ended (plus-delta) evaluation

We will recommend workshop options each year

You may choose others that will strengthen your projects

10

Intersession Activities Intersession Activities Between PAS meetingsBetween PAS meetings

Mentored projectsInteractive and self-directed

learning on Virtual Learning Platform

11

30 ESP Projects on 30 ESP Projects on Many Educational TopicsMany Educational Topics

Evidence-based medicine

Teaching skills Breastfeeding Emergency

medicine Cultural

competence Obesity Asthma Medical errors Oral health

International health Newborns, preterms PALS Evaluating learners Infectious Diseases Adolescent transitioning Use of interpreters Conflict resolution Evaluation of many educational methods

12

Peer GroupsPeer Groups Evaluation Curriculum Development 1

(outcomes evaluation emphasis) Curriculum Development 2

(teaching emphasis) Faculty Development Educational Technology6 Scholars and 3 Project

Facilitators per Group

13

New Development: Dyson New Development: Dyson Partnership with ESPPartnership with ESP

We have just received Dyson Foundation funding to:• Add a new cohort of 10 Scholars in

2007• They will for a peer group with

projects on education in community pediatrics

• Project facilitator will be David Keller, University of Massachusetts

14

Virtual Learning Virtual Learning CommunityCommunity

Virtual Learning PlatformVirtual Learning Platform will be used to:• Facilitate and monitor projects• Foster communications within

peer groups• Post bi-monthly assignments,

reading materials and discussion questions

• Post educational resources contributed by all ESP participants

15

Final CertificationFinal CertificationRequirementRequirement

“Final exam” will be successful peer review of a paper or presentation at a national meeting

We hope you will meet this goal by May 2008, or no later than Jan 2009

16

ESP EvaluationESP Evaluationof Scholarsof Scholars

At baseline, mid- and post-program:• Self- and peer-evaluations• Faculty evaluations (CV, Educator Portfolio,

presentations, projects)External evaluations of papers and

presentationsLong term outcomes as documented in

CV and Educator Portfolio:• Scholarly productivity, grants• Promotion, advancement, leadership

positions

17

ESP EvaluationESP Evaluationof Program as a Wholeof Program as a Whole

Process measures• Satisfaction, participation, attrition

Learner outcomesProgram outcomes

• Ongoing enrollment• Sustainable funding• Stakeholder evaluations of quality and

effectiveness• Peer-reviewed publications and other

dissemination activities

18

Questions or Questions or Comments?Comments?

19

A Brief Survey of A Brief Survey of Educational ScholarshipEducational Scholarship

Boyer’s model of educational Scholarship

Glassick’s criteria for evaluation of educational scholarship

The scholarship continuumMaking it relevant:

Prerequisites of career advancement as an educator

20

(Very) Brief History of (Very) Brief History of Scholarship in US AcademiaScholarship in US Academia

Teaching was once the premier activity of academia in the USA

In mid 20th century, research became the dominant force

Since 1990, efforts to redress the balance

21

What caused the shift in What caused the shift in emphasis? emphasis?

Drive for technological innovation (agriculture, medicine, war, space race)

Increased specialization within academia –more emphasis on individual advancement, increasingly gained through research in narrow content areas

Increased reliance on “objective” and quantifiable measures for faculty evaluation—easier to document for research than for teaching

Federal funding directed to research (and not education)—revolutionized the economic structures of academia

22

Efforts to Rectify the Efforts to Rectify the Research/Education BalanceResearch/Education Balance

Since 1990s: Increasingly rigorous definitions of a

educational scholarship (Boyer, 1990)Clearer criteria for educational

excellence (Glassick, 1997)Special theme issue of Academic

Medicine: “Expanding the View of Scholarship”

New efforts to enhance documentation of educational excellence (AAMC Consensus Conference, 2006)

23

Boyer’s Model of Educational Boyer’s Model of Educational ScholarshipScholarship

Discovery: original research to acquire new knowledge, enhance understanding of how things work

Integration: seeking connections between disciplines, bridging creatively across isolated research findings

Application: building bridges between theory and practice, using knowledge for practical purposes

Teaching: communicating knowledge to others, making new discoveries accessible and meaningful outside a specialized domain

24

Glassick’s Six Criteria for Glassick’s Six Criteria for Evaluation of Educ Evaluation of Educ ScholarshipScholarship

Scholarly work should exhibit:1. Clear goals: stated purpose, realistic

objectives, important questions?2. Adequate preparation:

understanding of literature, appropriate skills, needed resources?

3. Appropriate methods: choice of methods that match goals, effective use and flexible application of methods?

25

Glassick’s Six Criteria for Glassick’s Six Criteria for Evaluation of Educ Evaluation of Educ ScholarshipScholarship

Scholarly work should exhibit:4. Significant results: goals are

achieved, results are important, field is advanced?

5. Effective presentation: presentation well organized, forums appropriate, message clear and sound?

6. Reflective critique: work critically evaluated, supported with good evidence, evaluation used to improve future studies?

26

The Scholarship The Scholarship ContinuumContinuum

Excellence in teaching

Scholarly approach to teaching

Scholarship in teaching

27

Excellence Excellence in teachingin teaching

Documented by quantity and quality in CV

Examples in Educator Portfolio to demonstrate creativity, innovation, learner outcomes

28

Scholarly approach to Scholarly approach to teachingteaching

Demonstrated by: • Self-analysis (reflective practice)

in teaching or educational development activities

• Use of “best practices” from literature or recognized experts

29

Educational Educational Scholarship Scholarship

Requires fulfillment of three criteria: • Publication• Peer review• Creating a platform for others to

build upon [Fondly known as the 3 P’s]

30

Prerequisites for Career Prerequisites for Career Advancement as an EducatorAdvancement as an Educator

Documentation of educational productivity (~quantity)

Documentation of educational quality (teaching, scholarly approach)

Peer review of products and reportsDissemination and adoption of

educational productsEvidence of national reputation