Defining and Promoting Educational Scholarship

1. Defining and Promoting Educational Scholarship Intensive Mentoring Group Workshop March 13, 2014 Jeffrey G. Wong, MD Professor of Medicine

2. Learning Goals • Identify the work of Boyer, Glassick, and Shulman defining and refining the meaning of scholarship in higher education • Recognize and begin to formulate educational scholarship as defined by AAMC-GEA Consensus Conference statement • Construct and codify personal projects that demonstrate educational scholarship

3. Structure of Presentation • Discuss the seminal work of Ernest Boyer and the subsequent expansion by Charles Glassick and Lee Shulman (15 mins) • Outline the AAMC-GEA Consensus Conference of 2007 (15 mins) • Begin outline of personal educational scholarship projects (pair-share) (15 mins) • Summary (5 minutes)

4. Background – Academic Medicine • Abraham Flexner – 1910 • Medical Education in the United States and Canada • Official report to the Carnegie Foundation (sponsors) • Goal: To improve the state of medical education • Academic Universities • Disproportionate rewards for externally funded research • Teaching versus research debate

5. Ernest Boyer (1928-1995) • American Educator • President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching • Importance of Teaching, Service and Research in academia • Worried that research had “trumped” the roles over teaching and service in academic institutions

6. The Carnegie Foundation Published in 1990

7. Four Categories of Scholarship • DISCOVERY – Original research that advances knowledge within a discipline • INTEGRATION – Involves synthesis of information across disciplines, across topics within disciplines or across time • APPLICATION (ENGAGEMENT) – application of disciplinary expertise to be shared with and evaluated by peers • TEACHING (TRANSMISSION) – systematic study of processes involving teaching and learning which effectively transmits disciplinary expertise

9. The Carnegie Foundation Published in 1997

10. Book Methodologies • A group of Carnegie scholars contacted: • 51 Granting agencies and asked, “How do you decide which proposals to fund?” • 58 Scholarly press directors and asked, “What criteria do you use when selecting manuscripts for publication?” • 31 Scholarly journal editors and asked, “What do you tell referees to look for?”

11. Standards for Assessing Scholarship • Clear Goals • Adequate Preparation • Appropriate Methods • Significant Results • Effective Presentation • Reflective Critique

12. Clear Goals • Does the scholar state the basic purpose of his/her work clearly? • Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable? • Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?

13. Adequate Preparation • Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? • Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to her/his work? • Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?

14. Appropriate Methods • Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals? • Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected? • Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?

15. Significant Results • Does the scholar achieve the goals? • Does the scholar’s work add consequentially to the field? • Does the scholar’s work open additional areas for further exploration?

16. Effective Presentation • Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present her/his work? • Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audiences? • Does the scholar present his/her message with clarity and integrity?

17. Reflective Critique • Does the scholar critically evaluate his/her own work? • Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to her/his critique? • Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?

18. Lee Shulman – Defining Scholarship • The work must be made public • The work must be available for peer review and critique according to accepted standards • The work must be able to be reproduced and built on by other scholars

19. Three P’s • Professional interest– inherent obligations and responsibilities to the discipline associated with becoming a professional scholar/ educator • Pragmatic responsibilities –ensuring that one’s work is constantly improving and meeting the learners’ objectives and needs • Policy pressures – capacity to respond to external social and political demands and expectations

20. Deborah Simpson, PhD MCW Ruth Marie E. Fincher, MD MCG Janet P. Hafler, EdD Tufts David M. Irby, PhD UCSF Boyd F. Richards, PhD Columbia Gary C. Rosenfeld, PhD UT – Houston Thomas R. Viggiano, MD, MEd Mayo AAMC-GEA Consensus Conference On Educational Scholarship February 9-10, 2006 Charlotte, NC

21. Consensus Conference Goals • Categories of scholarly activities for educators in medical schools • Appropriate forms of evidence and presentation displays for each category • Area that need further investigation specific to educational scholarship

22. Conceptual Framework • Quantity – Descriptive information regarding the types and frequencies of educational activities and roles • Quality – Evidence that activities achieve excellence using comparative measures, when available • Engagement with the educational community • Scholarly approach • Educational scholarship

23. Scholarly approach • Systematically design, implement, assess and redesign and an educational activity • Drawing from the literature and/or “best practices” • Documentation on how the literature and/or “best practices” informed construction is required.

24. Educational Scholarship • Both drawing upon resources as well as contributing resources • The educational activity product is publicly available in a form that others can build on • This availability is at local as well as distant levels • Peers can assess its value to the community applying accepted criteria

26. Educator Activity Categories • Teaching • Curriculum • Advising and Mentoring • Educational Leadership and Administration • Learner Assessment

27. Teaching - Defined • Any activity that fosters learning, including: • Direct teaching • Creation of Associated instruction materials (when specifically designed to enhance instructors’ own presentations) • Examples of direct teaching • Lectures, workshops, small-group facilitation, role modeling in any setting, precepting, demonstration of procedural skills, facilitation of online courses, providing formative feedback

28. Curriculum - Defined • A longitudinal set of designed educational activities that includes evaluation. • Can occur at any level and in a variety of venues • Delivered face-to-face or electronically • Four questions: • What is the educational purpose of the activity? • Which learning experiences are most useful in achieving those purposes? • How are those learning experiences organized and longitudinally sequenced for effective instruction? • How is the curriculum’s effectiveness evaluated?

29. Advising/Mentoring - Defined • Developmental relationships encompassing a spectrum of activities in which educators help learners or colleagues accomplish their goals. • Mentoring implies a sustained committed relationship from which both parties obtain reciprocal benefits • Advising is a more limited relationship that usually occurs over a limited period of time

30. Leadership/Administration - Defined • Achieve results through others • Transforming organizations through rigorous pursuit of excellence • Key Features • Active and continuous pursuit of excellence • Ongoing evaluation • Dissemination of results • Maximization of resources

31. Learner Assessment - Defined • All activities associated with measuring learners’ knowledge, skills and attitudes • Must include at least one of the four assessment activities • Development – Identifying and creating assessment processes and tools • Implementation – Collecting data using processes and tools • Analysis – Comparing data with correct answer key or performance standards • Synthesis and Presentation – Interpreting and reporting data to learners, faculty, and curriculum leaders

32. Workshop Exercise • Individually (5 minutes) • Think about one project that you are presently doing or are thinking about doing • In which of the five educator categories does it belong? • Are you taking a scholarly approach? • Can you create educational scholarship? • Pair-Share (10 minutes) • Present your plans to your partner for critique (5 mins) and vice-versa

33. Summary – Next Steps • Take workshop ideas to begin formulating educational scholarship project(s) • Meet with Mentor and/or Vice-Chair • Strategy • Logistics • Evaluation • Follow through

34. Schedule of Events (through June) • 2nd CE workshop – Thursday April 3rd 12:00-1:00 [TBA] “Teaching in a small group setting” • 1st Combined workshop – Tuesday April 22 5:00-6:00 [HCC Room 120] “How to write a scientific manuscript” • 3rd CE workshop – Thursday May 1st 12:00-1:00 [TBA] “Effective Curriculum Design” • 2nd Combined workshop – Tuesday May 27th 5:00-6:00 [HCC Room 120] “Resources at SCTR” • 4th CE workshop – Thursday May 29th 12:00-1:00 [TBA] “Evaluating Learners’ Performance” • 3rd Combined workshop – Tuesday June 17th 5:00-6:00 [HCC Room 120] “How to be an effective mentee” • 5th CE workshop – Thursday June 26th 12:00-1:00 [TBA] “Making it Count Twice – Identifying Opportunities for Educational Scholarship”