S P E C I A L T H E M E A R T I C L E

A TeachingScholars Programto Develop Leaders

in Medical Education
YvonneSteinert, PhD, LouiseNasmith, MD, Peter J. McLeod, MD, andLarryConochie, MD
F
aculty development programs have become increas-
ingly popular as health care professionals seek to
upgradetheir skillsin teaching, research, andadmin-
istration. Common faculty development formats
include workshops or seminars, short courses, sabbaticals,
and year-long fellowships. Although workshops have the
stated advantage of increasing motivation for teaching and
learning, and promoting skill acquisition, they are often
limitedbytheir brevity, lackof built-infollow-up, andlimited
ability to sustain change over time. On the other hand,
faculty development fellowships or sabbaticals, which allow
for morein-depth learning, areusuallyoff-site andrequire
time away from ongoing responsibilities. Recruitment for
such programsisalso difcult becauseof their potential cost
and timerequirements.
1
In an attempt to move beyond workshops and seminars,
and to makemoreintensivetrainingavailableto our faculty
members, we developed the TeachingScholars Programfor
Educatorsin theHealth Sciences at McGill University. Our
program, which was inspired byaprogramat theUniversity
of NorthCarolina,
2
wasdesignedtocreateleadersinmedical
education. Rubeck and Witzke
3
dene faculty development
as the enhancement of educational knowledge and skill of
ABSTRACT
The authors describe a year-long faculty development
initiative to develop leaders in medical education. The
Teaching Scholars Programfor Educators in the Health
Sciences at McGill University enables faculty to improve
their educational knowledgeand skills while maintaining
their clinical, teaching, and research responsibilities. The
program, tailored to the participants individual needs,
consists of vemain components: two universitycourses;
independent study; participation in faculty-wide faculty
development workshops and medical education rounds;
a monthly seminar; and attendance at a national or
international conferenceor course. Sinceits inception in
1997, 22 faculty members have completed the program;
four arecurrentlyparticipatingin it. Thisreport discusses
theexperienceof 15scholarswhocompletedtheprogram
bySeptember 2000. Evaluationsindicatethat thescholars
achieved most of their stated objectives. The university
courses provided a foundation in educational principles
and methodology; independent study allowed them to
work on educational projectsrelevant to their disciplines;
and the monthly seminars, faculty development work-
shops, and outside courses offered opportunities for skill
acquisition and reection. Participants also appreciated
the opportunity to meet others interested in medical
education and to become aware of available educational
resources. A year after completingtheprogram, manyhad
joined new educational committees, taken on new
leadership roles in medical education, and developed
new courses for students and residents. Some of their
projectshadbeenpresentedat national meetingsandwere
beingprepared for publication. Two scholarshadpursued
further study at a masters level. Despite the ongoing
challengeof protectingtimefor educational pursuits, this
program has been benecial in helping to develop
educational leadersin theFacultyof Medicine.
Acad. Med. 2003;78:142149.
Dr. Steinert is associate dean for faculty development, McGill University
Facultyof Medicine(MUFM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; at thetimethis
articlewaswritten, Dr. Nasmithwaschair, Department of FamilyMedicine,
MUFM; sheisnowchair, Department of FamilyandCommunityMedicine,
Universityof TorontoFaculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Dr.
McLeod is director, Center for Medical Education, MUFM; and Dr.
Conochie is assistant professor of surgery, MUFM. All the authors were
members of the faculty development committee at MUFM, chaired by Dr.
Steinert.
Correspondenceandrequestsfor reprintsshouldbeaddressedtoDr. Steinert,
Facultyof Medicine, McGill University, 3655PromenadeSir WilliamOsler,
Montreal, Quebec H3G 1Y6, Canada; telephone: (514) 398-2698; fax:
(514) 398-2231; e-mail: hyvonne.steinert@mcgill.cai.
For anarticleonarelatedtopic, seepage137.
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 142
faculty members so that their educational contributions can
extend to advancing the educational program rather than
just teachingwithit. Our programfallswithinthisdenition
of faculty development, and that of Cusimano and David,
4
whostresstheneedtoeducatetheeducators inthehealth
professions.
Our teachingscholarsprogramdiffersfromother programs
described in the literature
2,5
in that we emphasize edu-
cational leadership, faculty development, and a scholarly
approach to teaching and learning rather than the
improvement of specic teaching skills. Participants make
useof availableuniversityresources(e.g., coursesoutsidethe
Faculty of Medicine) and attend a national or international
meeting on medical education. Our program is similar to
others in that we encourage peer support and require the
development of an educational project or research study. A
unique feature is that scholars maintain their other pro-
fessional responsibilitieswhileparticipatingin this program.
Our goal in thisarticleistodescribetheteachingscholars
program and to discuss the programs successes and
limitations in the hope of encouraging others to consider
this model of facultydevelopment.
6
THE PROGRAM
Goals
Theteachingscholarsprogram(TSP) wasdesignedtoenable
facultymemberstoimprovetheir educational knowledgeand
skills while maintaining their clinical, teaching, research,
and administrative responsibilities. In particular, this year-
longprogram, whichhasbeencarriedout since1997, aimsto
promote the professional development of health science
educators by increasing their expertise in developing
educational programs and assuming leadership roles in
education. The program emphasizes four major themes:
curriculumdesign and innovation; effective teachingmeth-
ods and evaluation strategies; program evaluation; and
research in medical/health sciences education.
Curriculum
The curriculum is tailored to the needs of the individual
participants and consistsof vemain components:
n
Two universitycourses, in theDepartmentsof Education,
Epidemiology, or Management
n
Independent study, devoted to curriculum design, the
improvement of teaching methods and evaluation strate-
gies, programevaluation, and research in medical/health
sciences education
n
Participation in faculty-wide faculty development work-
shops and medical education rounds
n
A monthlyseminar, designed to revieweducational issues
emanating from the university courses and to discuss
independent projects
n
Attendance at a national or international conference or
course
Eachscholar isexpectedtodevoteaminimumof twohalf-
days per week to complete the programs requirements.
Funding froma private foundation covers tuition costs for
the university courses, travel to an outside meeting, and
support for thescholars researchprojects. Thisprogramdoes
not providesalarysupport. At theendof theacademic year,
the scholars present their projects at faculty-wide medical
education rounds.
Faculty
Theprogramfacultyincludesthreephysiciansandoneclinical
psychologist, all of whomhaveaspecic interest in medical
educationanddevotepart of their professional timetofaculty
development in the Faculty of Medicine. Each of these
individualsalsoservesasanadvisor tooneof thescholars.
Participants
Letters describing the TSP are sent to department chairs,
programdirectors, and faculty members involved in medical
education. Interested individuals submit an application that
describes their goals for the program, their intended edu-
cational project or research study, and their perceptions of
howinvolvement in the programwill benet their division
or department. Two lettersof reference, includingoneletter
of support fromthedepartmental chair, arealso required. A
selection committee, nominated by the dean, reviews all
applications. Successful applicantsarechosen basedon their
previous educational contributions, their stated interest in
medical education, thepotential valueof their independent
study to their department, and the anticipated benet of
their participation to theeducational mission of theFaculty
of Medicine.
At the time this report was written, 22 individuals had
completed the TSP since its inception in 1997, and four
others were currently involved in the program. This report
discussestheexperiencesof the15facultymemberswhohad
completed the programby September 2000. These scholars
were from the Departments of Medicine (three), Surgery
(four), FamilyMedicine(two), Pediatrics (four), Anesthesia
(one), and Otolaryngology (one). Fourteen were practicing
clinicians, and one was a basic scientist. All of the scholars
hadbeen activelyinvolvedin teachingmedical studentsand
residents and had been faculty members for an average of
seven years(with arangefromoneto 20years). Four of the
scholarsheldadministrativepositionsduringtheir TSP year:
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 143
one was a department chair; two were residency program
directors; andonewasanundergraduateprogramdirector. In
addition, threewereundergraduatecoursedirectors.
Incentivesto participatein theTSP includedsupport and
encouragement fromthechair of thedepartment, apersonal
interest in medical education and professional development,
and adesireto address an identied curricular need.
EVALUATI ON
Evaluation data have been collected for three cohorts of
scholars. Two major questions guided the programs evalu-
ation process: (1) What were the scholars and advisors
perceptions of the programs strengths and limitations (i.e.,
process evaluation)? (2) Were the scholars able to accom-
plish what theyhadset out todo(i.e., outcomeevaluation)?
The evaluation data, which are qualitative, consist of on-
going feedback from the scholars and members of the
program committee, written notes recorded during the
monthly seminars, and a comprehensive, written evaluation
completed by each scholar at the end of the TSP year and
one year after program completion. The written question-
naires, which were designed jointly by the scholars and the
program faculty, aimed to assess the scholars appraisal of
each component of the program, their perceptions of the
impact of theTSP onthemselvesandtheir departments, and
their recommendations for change.
Achievement of Personal Goals and Objectives
Thescholars personal goalsat theoutset of theprogramcan
be classied into three main categories: (1) a desire to
increase their knowledge about educational theory and
methods; (2) a desire to upgrade/improve their teaching
and administrative skills; and (3) a desire to learn how to
transmit this increased knowledgeand skill to their peers.
At the end of each year of the program, the scholars felt
that they had been able to achieve their goals related to
teaching and learning. That is, they reported that their
educational knowledgeandskillshadincreasedandthat they
had become more cognizant of how to transfer this in-
formation to their peers. They also believed that they now
had a more structured approach to teaching and learning,
aswell asacontext in which toplacetheir dailyexperience.
As one individual stated: We now have a framework to
understandwhat wedo. Wehaveadvancedinthepathfrom
amateur to professional. Examples of new educational
knowledge included the need for clearly identied learning
objectives and outcomes; the use of concept maps for cur-
riculumdesign; anappreciation of diverselearningstylesand
principlesof adult learning; methodsof student andresident
assessment; and principles of programevaluation. Examples
of improved teaching skills included interactive lecturing,
small-groupteaching, andtheuseof role-playsandvideotape
reviews to facilitate learning. The two scholars who were
interested in improving their administrative skills felt that
they would need to devote more time to this part of their
learningexperienceafter completion of theTSP.
Other benets of the program, from the scholars
perspective, included the opportunity to meet with like-
minded people, to become part of a network, and to
becomemoreawareof availableeducational resources. They
viewed this programas a reafrmation of the importance of
teaching in a university setting and felt that their own
interest in medical education had been renewed or further
stimulated. One individual commented that this program
allowed himto expand hishorizonsand nowseeeducation
asapossiblecareer track; another saidthat shenowseesher
practicethrough education-colored glasses.
Astheprogramsadvisers, weconcurredwiththescholars
viewthat their knowledgeandskillsabout educational issues
had improved. In particular, we were impressed by their
changes in language and their approaches to educational
problems. LingaardandHaber
7
havesaidthat thelanguage
peopleusemakespossiblethethoughtstheycan have, and
that languageshapesideasandthepracticesthat follow. The
scholars increased understandingof educational terms(e.g.,
learningoutcomesandobjectives; concept maps) helpedthem
to modify their educational practices. They also learned to
appreciate thelink between evaluation strategies and initial
learning goals, the need for reliable and valid methods of
assessment, and the distinction between formative and
summativeevaluation. Inaddition, wenotedthat thescholars,
all of whomregularlytaught studentsandresidents, had not
been aware of available educational resources, either in the
Facultyof Medicineor in theuniversityat large. Networking
with other individuals interested in medical education was
seentobeanimportant benet of theprogram.
One year after program completion, all the scholars
reafrmed that their goals had been met and reported that
thebenetsof theprogramfell intofour mainareas. TheTSP
gavethemopportunitiesto(1) gainagreater understandingof
educational theoriesandprinciples; (2) meet otherindividuals
interestedinmedical education; (3) developnewdirectionsin
their professional careers; and (4) design and implement
undergraduateand postgraduateprogramsof benet to their
departmentsandtheFacultyof Medicine. Examplesof these
outcomesaredescribedinthefollowingsections.
When asked to specify the programs limitations, the
scholars mentioned a lack of time as the major challenge.
All of the scholars talked about the difculty of freeing
themselves up from their clinical and administrative
responsibilities and maintaining their protected time, for
both their coursework and their independent projects. Two
scholars recommended that the TSP become a two-year
program, and two others reected on the need for more
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 144
support fromtheir department chairs. As programadvisers,
we observed that time was also an issue, especially for
scholarswhoseclinical responsibilitieswereintenseregardless
of attemptsto set asidetimefor theprogram.
Benets and Limitations of theUniversity Courses
Most of thescholarsoptedtotakecoursesin theuniversitys
Facultyof Education. Thirteen participatedin Teachingand
Learningin Higher Education, four registered for Cognition
and Learning, and three took Instructional Design. Other
popular courses in the Department of Education included
Foundations of Adult Education, The Adult Learner, and
Values and Morals in Education. Onescholar took acourse
on cross-cultural management, and another completed
adistance-education courseon creatingcomputer software.
Feedback fromthe scholars, both at the end of the year
and oneyear later, underscored thevalueof theses courses.
Fromtheir perspective, the courses had direct applications
to the medical curriculum and to their own projects. For
example, thecoursecalledTeachingandLearningin Higher
Education was particularly valuable to the scholars in that
it emphasized the principles of course design (e.g., stating
objectives; choosinginstructional methods; designingcourse
evaluations) and allowed each scholar to develop a course
relevant to his or her discipline.
8
The following comments
highlight the perceived benets of this course: The course
gave me an overview of the whole process of designing
a course from start to nish. I learned the jargon and I
appliedit! Thiscoursewasveryuseful inintroducingnovel
concepts in the development and delivery of teaching
material. It encouragedmetoexperiment withapproximately
25different strategiesand I wasableto perfect myabilityto
usethemin teaching. In practical terms, thiscoursehelped
12 of thescholarsdevelop newcourses for medical students
or residents, which were implemented and evaluated (e.g.,
a trauma course in orthopedics; a life in medicine course
for undergraduatemedical students; acomputer-based mod-
uleinanesthesia). Beyondthis, oneof thescholarsrevisedhis
journal-club format based on his involvement in this course
and was asked to be a group leader for a university-wide
workshop on teaching and learning. Eight of the scholars
developed additional courses based on their rst initiatives.
These new initiatives have included a core curriculumfor
pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine resi-
dents; a continuing medical education (CME) course in
evidence-based medicine; and a surgical skills course for
medical students.
Benets and Limitations of theIndependent Study
The goal of the independent study was to encourage the
scholars to addressadepartmental or divisional need, to re-
inforce the principles learned in the university courses, and
to promote scholarly activity in education. Each of the
scholarschoseatopic that reectedhisor her owndiscipline
and area of interest. The topics selected are outlined in
List 1.
Fromthe scholars perspective, the independent projects
wereextremelyuseful andrelevant totheir own settingsand
allowed themto work on topicsthat had been of interest to
themfor alongtime. Theprojectsreinforcedcourseconcepts
and inuenced the scholars perceptions of the value of
research in medical education. This sentiment was most
obvious in the following statement made by a clinician re-
searcher: I wouldnowliketotransfer myresearch expertise
to education and pursue this line of research as my career
path. Most of the scholars presented their projects, or
selected components, to their colleagues at McGill Medical
EducationRounds. Eight of thescholarspresentedtheresults
of their projectsat national/international meetings(e.g., the
Canadian Association for Medical Education; the annual
meetingof the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Canada); ve are in the process of preparing their course
descriptions and evaluations for publication, and two have
publishedaspectsof their independent study.
9,10
Four of the
scholars designed research grant proposals based on their
independent projects and were successful in obtaining
funding. Examples of these grant proposals included an
examination of learning styles among residents; the use
of Web-basedlearningin critical care; andtheevaluation of
family medicine residents knowledge and skills of musculo-
skeletal problems.
Fromtheadvisors perspective, completion of theprojects
within the one-year time frame was a major challenge. Not
surprisingly, thescholars project objectives changed as they
became more knowledgeable about educational theory and
research. Aswell, budgetingtimefor project completion was
difcult, and many of the scholars nished their projects
several months after the completion of the academic year.
On the other hand, the one-year follow-up further high-
lighted the value of the independent projects and their
relevance to departmental needs, as these original courses
continued to thriveand evolve.
Benets and Limitations of theMonthly Seminars
Thescholarsandadvisorsmet inamonthly, two-hour session
todiscussthescholars independent projects, toreviewissues
and concepts addressed in the university courses, and to
debate issues of common interest (e.g., the role of adult
learning in residency education; the use of role plays and
videotapereviewsto facilitatelearning; theroleof theoryin
the design of faculty development activities). The meetings
were also designed to allowfor group buildingand support,
and to give the scholars an opportunity to reect on edu-
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 145
cational issues and problems. In addition, scholars brought
videotapes of themselves in diverse teaching situations for
discussion andreview. A typical meetingincludedan update
on the university courses, feedback on the independent
projects, and discussion of an educational topic. Thefaculty
advisors facilitated themeetings.
All of the scholars appreciated the opportunity to par-
ticipate in interactive discussions of educational topics, to
reect on teaching and learning, and to present their
projects. They also valued the collegial atmosphere of the
meetings, theescapefromother professional obligations, and
thepeer support. Asoneindividual stated: Theexcitement
List 1
Topics Chosenby Scholars in the Independent Study Portion of the Teaching Scholars Programfor Educators in the Health Sciences,
Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 19972000
DevelopingaTraumaCoursefor Medical Students
Thedevelopment and evaluation of acase-study approachto teachingmedical students about orthopedic trauma
Incorporating Problem-based Learninginto UndergraduateSurgical Teaching
Acomparisonof PBL andtraditional lectures incoreundergraduatesurgical teaching, usingknowledgequestionnaires, measures of student satisfaction,
and videotaped analyses of teaching sessions
DevelopingaLifein Medicine Course
Thedesign and evaluation of athree-week undergraduatecoursethat explores art and literaturein medicinein order to increasestudents personal
awareness of factors that affect caring and compassion
Evaluatingan UndergraduateSocial Scienceand MedicineCourse
Thedesign andevaluation of athree-week undergraduatecourseusingcasestudies fromanthropology andsocial studies to promotecultural sensitivity
Encouraging Co-tutors in aBasis of MedicineCourse
Thedevelopment andevaluationof aco-tutoringprogramfor undergraduateteachinginaBasis of Medicinecourseas awayof includingbasicscientists in
medical education
DevelopingaComputer-basedModulefor TeachingAnesthesiaResidents
Thedesign and evaluation of an interactivecomputer programfor teachingspecic aspects of pediatric anesthesiology to senior residents
OrientingForeign Medical Graduates to Medicine
Thedesign and implementation of an orientation programfor foreign residents in medicineto facilitatetheir integration into anewculture
ImprovingCoreTeachingin Otolaryngology
Theredesignof aresident lectureseries inotolaryngologyto incorporateprinciples of problem-basedlearning, usingmeasures of attendance, satisfaction
and examsuccess to assess outcome
EvaluatingFamily MedicineResidents Musculoskeletal Examination Skills
Thedesignandimplementationof asystemtoevaluatetheacquisitionof musculoskeletal examinationskills duringathree-monthsports medicineelective,
using patient feedback, teacher observation, and videotaped objectivestructured clinical examination (OSCE) stations with real patients
EvaluatingStudents Feedback Following aSurgery Clerkship
An analysis of students perceptions of their surgeryclerkships over afour-year period to highlight areas of satisfactionand change
ImprovingtheDischargeof Asthmatic Children fromtheEmergency Department
An evaluation of an intervention, targetingboth faculty and students, to improvethemanagement of asthmatic children discharged fromtheEmergency
Department
DesigningaCurriculumfor Cardiothoracic Surgery
Thedesignanddevelopment of athree-year curriculumincardiacsurgerythat includes coreobjectives, instructional strategies, andevaluationmethods for
residents and their teachers
EvaluatingtheLearningStyles of McGill Residents
An assessment of learningstyles among residents across different specialties to improvelearning outcomes
Developingan Ambulatory Internal MedicineRotation
Thedevelopment and evaluation of an ambulatory internal medicinerotation for third- and fourth-year medical students
Designingan InnovativeWeb-based LearningEnvironment for Pediatric Critical Care
Thedesignandimplementationof aproblem-basedsituatedlearningenvironment ontheWorldWideWebtoallowresidents tolearnkeyissues inpediatric
critical care
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 146
of thegroup iscontagious. Another madethisobservation:
Where else do I get an opportunity to close the door and
talk about students and residents?
Benets and Limitations of theFaculty Development
Workshops and Medical Education Rounds
The scholars all participated in faculty-wide faculty de-
velopment workshops, attendinganaverageof 3.5workshops
during the year. At the beginning of the program, the
scholarsall participatedasgroupmembers; bytheendof the
year, the majority had participated as co-leaders or
facilitators, and had had the opportunity to be involved in
thedesign anddeliveryof aworkshopactivity. A seriesof six
workshops was offered each year. Topics included small-
groupteaching, writingfor excellence, effectivelecturingand
audiovisual aids, and teachingin theambulatorysetting. All
of the scholars valued this experience and commented on
the benet of seeing what goes on behind the scenes.
The workshops gave the scholars an opportunity to observe
experts in action, to acquire new skills, and to better
understand the process of designing a faculty development
workshop. Six of thescholarsorganized facultydevelopment
activities for their own divisions or departments, and four
conducted educational workshops at scientic meetings
organized bytheir medical specialties.
Thescholarsalso participated in thefaculty-widemedical
education rounds that are offered four times a year. All
of the scholars felt that their participation in these rounds
was of benet to them, especially because it gave themthe
opportunitytomeet colleagueswith similar interests. Asone
individual commented: I never knewsomanypeoplein our
Faculty[of Medicine] wereinterestedinmedical education!
Indeed, thevalueof networkingandmeetingcolleagueswith
similar interests was highlighted byall of thescholars.
Benets and Limitations of AttendingOutside
Conferences/Courses
The scholars were encouraged to attend national or
international conferences/courses, to increase their skills in
specic areas, and to participate in scientic meetings de-
voted to medical education. Two of the scholars attended
a course on management skills for health care profes-
sionals; six attended different medical education meetings
inCanadaandtheUnitedStates, andoneattendedacourse
on evidence-based medicine in the United Kingdom;
two scholars visited another university site that had direct
relevanceto their project development.
Participation in outside meetings inuenced the scholars
in a number of ways. For example, two individuals became
membersof theassociation that sponsored themeeting, and
two other scholars started to attend the meeting on an
annual basis. Another scholar developed an interest in peer
evaluation followingattendanceat an education meetingon
the topic of evaluation and was asked to participate in
a faculty committee on teaching dossiers as a result. One
scholar developed a new teaching program at McGill on
evidence-based surgeryfollowinghisvisit to acourseon this
topic, and another decided to pursue a degree in business
administration following his involvement in both the TSP
and thecourseon executivemanagement skills.
Overall Impact
Follow-up data one year later indicate that the scholars
continued to achieve changes in specic teaching practices
(e.g., resident evaluation), haddevelopednewcourses(seven
todate), haddesignedfacultydevelopment activitiesfor their
own departments, and functioned as a resource for their
colleagues and peers. As one scholar stated, My education
books and course manuals are beingused on a regular basis
by my colleagues and residents. The scholars also had
successfully applied for grants in medical education, contin-
ued to present at educational meetings (e.g., The Ottawa
Conference on Medical Education), and assumed new
leadershiprolesin medical education. Ten of the15scholars
had joined new education committees at McGill; two had
becomeactivein national committees; andsix hadtaken on
newleadership roles in medical education, includingthat of
postgraduateprogramdirector in surgery and associatedean
for CME. All of thescholarshavecontinuedtoparticipatein
faculty-wide faculty development activities and medical
education rounds, and they are frequently asked to consult
on educational projects in the Faculty of Medicine. Two
scholars have also pursued further study at a masters level,
one in education and one in administration. The following
quote reects the perceived impact of the programon one
individual: TheTSP hashelpedmestart anewcareer path.
Sincecompletion, I havebecometheundergraduateprogram
director in my department, I have revised the ambulatory
care teaching program, designed a survival handbook for
students, introduced a problem-based lecture series for
students, and developed a new journal club for residents.
Together with another scholar, I have developed a faculty
development workshop on leadership and change, and I am
conductingaresearch project on problem-solvingin medical
studentsWithout theTSP, I couldnot haveaccomplishedall
that I did in thelast year.
DI SCUSSI ON
As this report indicates, our Teaching Scholars Program
designed to promote educational leadership in medical
education can beconsidered successful based on participant
feedback, follow-up data, and the assessments we made as
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 147
program advisors. To date, faculty development pro-
grams for physician educators have primarily consisted of
year-long fellowships or masters degree programs.
4
In-
tegrated, longitudinal programs such as the one described
in thisarticlearenot common.
6,11
Moreover, themajorityof
similar programs have primarily focused on teaching
improvement.
12
This program was designed to develop
leaders in medical education.
This experience has demonstrated that faculty members
can increasetheir skillsin particular areaswhilemaintaining
most of their clinical and research responsibilities, and that
programgoals can beachieved through adifferent model of
faculty development. In many ways, the TSP features many
of the benets of fellowships described by Ullian and
Stritter:
11
the availability of faculty expertise; multiple
opportunities for feedback; collegial networks; and sufcient
timeto learn newconceptsandideas. Thisprogramhasalso
demonstratedthebenet of goingbeyondteachingimprove-
ment. Although it is still early to assess the long-term
development of educational leadership over time, the
preliminary results are encouraging. Program participants
havereportedchangesintheir identitiesasmedical educators
and havetaken on newroles and responsibilities in medical
education. In addition, the TSP has helped to promote the
concept of teaching as scholarship
13
and to increase the
critical mass of faculty members interested in medical
education.
The value of specic program components has been
identied by the preliminary evaluation reported earlier in
this article. For example, in contrast to other programs, we
didnot developour ownseminar series.
2,12
Instead, werelied
on university courses to promote skill acquisition. In our
opinion, thisapproachwasverysuccessful, aswewereableto
make use of available resources, promote intra-university
collaboration, and encouragethedevelopment of newinter-
departmental relationships.
Saroyan and her colleagues
8
have stated that change in
teachingpracticeisanintrospectiveandlengthyprocessthat
is mediated by questioning personal assumptions and by
learning fromrisks in instructional contexts. These authors
alsocontendthat peer andinstitutional support facilitatethis
process. The TSP provided this opportunity to faculty
members, both in theuniversitycoursesand in themonthly
meetings. The value of peer support in educational
13,14
and
patient-centered activities
15
has been reported previously.
Feedback fromthe scholars highlighted the benet of peer
companionship, camaraderie, andinterpersonal support,
12
as
well as the need to become aware of available educational
resources. The monthly seminars underscored the value of
protected time for discussion and reection. Many authors
have described the value of reection in teaching.
16,17
The
TSP is one example of reection-in-action, as the scholars
had an opportunity to reect on the principles that they
learned duringtheyear and to apply themin practice, with
constructivefeedback fromtheir students and colleagues.
Other faculty developers have reported some of the
changes we observed amongour scholars. For example, the
change in language and increased use of educational terms
was noted by Elliot and her colleagues.
12
The value of
educational projects was emphasized by Marks,
14
Talbot
et al.,
18
andWilkerson andHodgson,
13
andthelimitation of
time has been noted by many. Indeed, 18 months may be
amorerealistic timeframe.
12
The TSP evaluation process was similar to the one used
by Elliot and colleagues,
12
who assessed perceived program
usefulness from both the participants and the program
directors perspectives. Our evaluation is limited, however,
inanumber of ways. Todate, only15scholarshavecompleted
the program; we have not yet obtained systematic feedback
fromthescholars students, colleagues, or chairs; andwehave
not yet conducted a longer-term evaluation. As well, our
programevaluation pertainstoauniquegroupof individuals
in aparticular educational environment. However, asothers
have pointed out,
12
the similarity of ndings across institu-
tionshelpstoincreasethereliabilityof our joint ndings.
Based on this experience, we offer the following recom-
mendations for others interested in developing similar
programs:
n
Take advantage of university courses and other existing
resources.
n
Capitalize on the value of peer support and do not
underestimatetheimportanceof networking.
n
Ensure that each individual applies his or her increased
knowledgein aconcretefashion (e.g., independent study)
and whenever possible, encourage publication or pre-
sentation of theresults.
n
Make the program requirements and time allocation
explicit before the scholars apply and work with themto
ensureprotected time.
n
Buildinexibilitytoallowfor individuallytailoredprogram
activities.
Cusimano and David
4
have described the need for more
health care professionals trained specically in the methods
of educating others to ensure that medical education is
responsivetothedrivingforcesof change. Asthehealthcare
delivery and educational system evolves, we will need to
consider alternative ways of preparing our faculty members
for their newroles and responsibilities. A teachingscholars
program, as described here, is one way in which to achieve
this goal.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Henry and Berenice Kaufmann
Foundationfor nancial support of thisprogram, colleaguesfromtheCenter
for University Teaching and Learning and the Faculty of Education at
McGill University for contributing to the scholars development, and the
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 148
teaching scholars for their active participation and involvement in the
program.
REFERENCES
1. Sheets KJ, Schwenk TL. Facultydevelopment for familymedicineedu-
cators: an agendafor futureactivities. Teach Learn Med. 1990;2:1418.
2. Stritter FT, Herbert WNP, Harward DH. The teaching scholars
program: promoting teaching as scholarship. Teach Learn Med. 1994;
6:2079.
3. Rubeck RF, Witzke DB. Faculty development: a eld of dreams. Acad
Med. 1998;73(9 suppl):S32S37.
4. Cusimano MD, David MA. A compendium of higher education
opportunities in health professions education. Acad Med.
1998;73:12559.
5. Gelula MH. Scholars for teaching excellence: institutionalizing faculty
development. Acad Med. 1997;72:459.
6. Steinert Y. Facultydevelopment in thenewmillennium: keychallenges
and futuredirections. Med Teach. 2000;22(1):4450.
7. Lingaard L, Haber RJ. Teaching and learning communication in
medicine: arhetorical approach. Acad Med. 1999;74:50710.
8. SaroyanA, AmundsenC, Li C. Incorporatingtheoriesof teacher growth
and adult education in a faculty development program. In: D. DeZure
(ed). To Improve the Academy. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press,
1997;16:93116.
9. HendersonJ, ConochieL, Steinert Y. Co-tutorsinthebasisof medicine.
Clin Invest Med. 2000;23(1):869.
10. MeterissianS, TremblayF, SeelyA, WestonC, MorganG. Challengesof
implementingproblem-based learningfor teachingsurgical oncology to
second-year medical students: apilot study. Ann R Coll PhysSurgCan.
2001;34:5014.
11. Ullian JA, Stritter FT. Types of faculty development programs. Fam
Med. 1997;29:23741.
12. Elliot DL, Skeff KM, StratosGA. Howdoyouget totheimprovement of
teaching? A longitudinal faculty development program for medical
educators. Teach Learn Med. 1999;11:527.
13. Wilkerson L, Hodgson C. A fellowshipin medical education to develop
educational leaders. Acad Med. 1995;705:4578.
14. Marks M. Academic careers in medical education: perceptions of
the effects of a faculty development program. Acad Med. 1999;74(10
suppl):S72S74.
15. Balint M. The Doctor, His Patient, and His Illness. London, U.K.:
Churchill, 1986.
16. Bing-You RG, Renfrew RA, Hampton SH. Faculty development of
community-based preceptors through a collegial site-visit program.
Teach Learn Med. 1999;11:1004.
17. Scho n DA. Thenewscholarship requires a newepistemology. Change.
1995;Nov/Dec:2734.
18. Talbot Y, BattyH, Rosser WW. Fiveweekendnational familymedicine
fellowship. Can FamPhysician. 1997;43:21517.
T EA C H I N G SC H O L A RS PRO GRA M , C O N T I N U ED
A C A DEM I C MEDI C I N E, V O L . 78, NO . 2 / FEBRU A RY 2003 149