The participants of this focus session noted that many schools of medicine are facing the problem of the retirement of senior faculty, who devote significant time to basic science teaching, with only a limited number of junior faculty being able and prepared to take over these important teaching roles. In an effort to address this problem, some schools are relying more heavily on clinical faculty to teach basic science material. Multiple factors including the nature of Ph.D. training programs, institutional priorities (i.e., research versus education), faculty time, and the reward system (i.e., promotion, tenure and compensation) were felt to contribute to this problem. The group highlighted that the current focus of many Ph.D. training programs is on research with little or no teaching experience or requirements. It was felt that as a result of their training these individuals did not possess a knowledge base broad enough to be able to teach core basic science topics to medical and other health professions students. Moreover, most junior faculty are recruited solely for their research expertise and little or no consideration is given to their roles as teachers. The group participants concurred that the development of “teaching academies” or “institutes”, as is currently being done in some schools, would do little to address this problem, especially in the short-term. There was also limited support for the creation of a separate teaching faculty. Rather it was felt that faculty whose major academic activity is teaching need to remain connected to, and active in, their discipline in order to be able to integrate information and new discoveries into the curriculum. The group felt that solving this problem will require the training and development of faculty who possess a significant fund of knowledge in a particular discipline, and who are also able to place that knowledge into a broader context. Importantly, these faculty need to be able to work with students to provide a framework upon which the student will then add facts, details and concepts that they will obtain on their own from sources outside of the lecture hall. Because the current problem was defined in the group’s discussion as multifactorial, its solution (i.e., by the training and development of faculty as described above) was felt to require multiple interventions. Importantly, the critical leverage point to effect the required systems changes was the Dean and other institutional leaders. Steps that the Dean could take in this regard include: (1) require that all Ph.D. programs in the school include appropriate course work to provide candidates with the context in which their research focus lies, and require that all candidates have teaching requirements; (2) require department chairs to define a teaching role for faculty at the time they are hired, and provide these junior faculty with a teaching mentor to help them transition into this role; (3) if the school has a “teaching academy” or “institute” one of its charges must be the mentoring and development of junior faculty as teachers and educational leaders; and (4) ensure that the school values, supports and rewards faculty who play an important teaching role. **** **** ****
|
||||||||||||||