A five-year retrospective evaluation of a faculty research fellowship programme at the medical college of Georgia

Tasha Rosemary Wyatt, Kelli Braun, Lance Evans, Alexis Rossi, Paul M. Wallach, Lara M Stepleman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: In institutional assessments of faculty, scholarly activity is often cited as a deficiency. Faculty lack the training and resources needed to produce peer-reviewed, quality scholarship. Although a variety of formats have been suggested and used to fill this void, fellowships are a commonly used format to foster educational leaders within institutions. In 2010, the Educational Innovation Institute at the Medical College of Georgia created an educational research fellowship to address this need. Methods: To assess the success of our programme, we compared all graduating fellows’ current curriculum vitae (CVs) with the version submitted at the time of their application, looking for educational scholarship produced during and after their participation in the fellowship. Qualitative data sources, such as article reflections, mid-fellowship surveys, and exit surveys were analyzed to identify the mechanisms that contributed to their success. The constant comparative method was used to identify themes and patterns. Results: A comparison of CVs collected at the time of application with a current CV indicate the 11 participants produced: 60 presentations at regional or national meetings, 16 peer reviewed publications, received funding for 7 grants supporting educational research, and won 7 national research awards. Our qualitative analysis identified three major mechanisms: 1) dedicated time to conducting educational research, 2) opportunities to engage with others, and 3 ) understanding the differences between educational and clinical research. Discussion: Previous criticisms of fellowships include faculty not producing educational scholarship after completing their programme. Our retrospective analysis indicates our research fellowship was successful in developing physicians and clinical educators to become educational researchers. What was most useful was having dedicated time to work with others interested in producing educational scholarship, and expert guidance in understanding the differences between clinical and educational research. The most challenging aspect of conducting education research was their need to use conceptual frameworks and learning theory in their work. Implications for this study include the need for a strong curricular focus on the differences between clinical and educational research for any fellowship programme.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)332-337
Number of pages6
JournalPerspectives on Medical Education
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

Fingerprint

educational research
evaluation
Research
curriculum
Curriculum
learning theory
criticism
funding
physician
expert
educator
leader
innovation
participation
time
lack
Information Storage and Retrieval
resources
education
Publications

Keywords

  • Educational research
  • Faculty development
  • Fellowship

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

A five-year retrospective evaluation of a faculty research fellowship programme at the medical college of Georgia. / Wyatt, Tasha Rosemary; Braun, Kelli; Evans, Lance; Rossi, Alexis; Wallach, Paul M.; Stepleman, Lara M.

In: Perspectives on Medical Education, Vol. 5, No. 6, 01.12.2016, p. 332-337.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{303501e8be074f4a943e880c9e1ad937,
title = "A five-year retrospective evaluation of a faculty research fellowship programme at the medical college of Georgia",
abstract = "Introduction: In institutional assessments of faculty, scholarly activity is often cited as a deficiency. Faculty lack the training and resources needed to produce peer-reviewed, quality scholarship. Although a variety of formats have been suggested and used to fill this void, fellowships are a commonly used format to foster educational leaders within institutions. In 2010, the Educational Innovation Institute at the Medical College of Georgia created an educational research fellowship to address this need. Methods: To assess the success of our programme, we compared all graduating fellows’ current curriculum vitae (CVs) with the version submitted at the time of their application, looking for educational scholarship produced during and after their participation in the fellowship. Qualitative data sources, such as article reflections, mid-fellowship surveys, and exit surveys were analyzed to identify the mechanisms that contributed to their success. The constant comparative method was used to identify themes and patterns. Results: A comparison of CVs collected at the time of application with a current CV indicate the 11 participants produced: 60 presentations at regional or national meetings, 16 peer reviewed publications, received funding for 7 grants supporting educational research, and won 7 national research awards. Our qualitative analysis identified three major mechanisms: 1) dedicated time to conducting educational research, 2) opportunities to engage with others, and 3 ) understanding the differences between educational and clinical research. Discussion: Previous criticisms of fellowships include faculty not producing educational scholarship after completing their programme. Our retrospective analysis indicates our research fellowship was successful in developing physicians and clinical educators to become educational researchers. What was most useful was having dedicated time to work with others interested in producing educational scholarship, and expert guidance in understanding the differences between clinical and educational research. The most challenging aspect of conducting education research was their need to use conceptual frameworks and learning theory in their work. Implications for this study include the need for a strong curricular focus on the differences between clinical and educational research for any fellowship programme.",
keywords = "Educational research, Faculty development, Fellowship",
author = "Wyatt, {Tasha Rosemary} and Kelli Braun and Lance Evans and Alexis Rossi and Wallach, {Paul M.} and Stepleman, {Lara M}",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40037-016-0303-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "332--337",
journal = "Perspectives on Medical Education",
issn = "2212-2761",
publisher = "Bohn Stafleu van Loghum",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A five-year retrospective evaluation of a faculty research fellowship programme at the medical college of Georgia

AU - Wyatt, Tasha Rosemary

AU - Braun, Kelli

AU - Evans, Lance

AU - Rossi, Alexis

AU - Wallach, Paul M.

AU - Stepleman, Lara M

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - Introduction: In institutional assessments of faculty, scholarly activity is often cited as a deficiency. Faculty lack the training and resources needed to produce peer-reviewed, quality scholarship. Although a variety of formats have been suggested and used to fill this void, fellowships are a commonly used format to foster educational leaders within institutions. In 2010, the Educational Innovation Institute at the Medical College of Georgia created an educational research fellowship to address this need. Methods: To assess the success of our programme, we compared all graduating fellows’ current curriculum vitae (CVs) with the version submitted at the time of their application, looking for educational scholarship produced during and after their participation in the fellowship. Qualitative data sources, such as article reflections, mid-fellowship surveys, and exit surveys were analyzed to identify the mechanisms that contributed to their success. The constant comparative method was used to identify themes and patterns. Results: A comparison of CVs collected at the time of application with a current CV indicate the 11 participants produced: 60 presentations at regional or national meetings, 16 peer reviewed publications, received funding for 7 grants supporting educational research, and won 7 national research awards. Our qualitative analysis identified three major mechanisms: 1) dedicated time to conducting educational research, 2) opportunities to engage with others, and 3 ) understanding the differences between educational and clinical research. Discussion: Previous criticisms of fellowships include faculty not producing educational scholarship after completing their programme. Our retrospective analysis indicates our research fellowship was successful in developing physicians and clinical educators to become educational researchers. What was most useful was having dedicated time to work with others interested in producing educational scholarship, and expert guidance in understanding the differences between clinical and educational research. The most challenging aspect of conducting education research was their need to use conceptual frameworks and learning theory in their work. Implications for this study include the need for a strong curricular focus on the differences between clinical and educational research for any fellowship programme.

AB - Introduction: In institutional assessments of faculty, scholarly activity is often cited as a deficiency. Faculty lack the training and resources needed to produce peer-reviewed, quality scholarship. Although a variety of formats have been suggested and used to fill this void, fellowships are a commonly used format to foster educational leaders within institutions. In 2010, the Educational Innovation Institute at the Medical College of Georgia created an educational research fellowship to address this need. Methods: To assess the success of our programme, we compared all graduating fellows’ current curriculum vitae (CVs) with the version submitted at the time of their application, looking for educational scholarship produced during and after their participation in the fellowship. Qualitative data sources, such as article reflections, mid-fellowship surveys, and exit surveys were analyzed to identify the mechanisms that contributed to their success. The constant comparative method was used to identify themes and patterns. Results: A comparison of CVs collected at the time of application with a current CV indicate the 11 participants produced: 60 presentations at regional or national meetings, 16 peer reviewed publications, received funding for 7 grants supporting educational research, and won 7 national research awards. Our qualitative analysis identified three major mechanisms: 1) dedicated time to conducting educational research, 2) opportunities to engage with others, and 3 ) understanding the differences between educational and clinical research. Discussion: Previous criticisms of fellowships include faculty not producing educational scholarship after completing their programme. Our retrospective analysis indicates our research fellowship was successful in developing physicians and clinical educators to become educational researchers. What was most useful was having dedicated time to work with others interested in producing educational scholarship, and expert guidance in understanding the differences between clinical and educational research. The most challenging aspect of conducting education research was their need to use conceptual frameworks and learning theory in their work. Implications for this study include the need for a strong curricular focus on the differences between clinical and educational research for any fellowship programme.

KW - Educational research

KW - Faculty development

KW - Fellowship

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065132913&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065132913&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40037-016-0303-3

DO - 10.1007/s40037-016-0303-3

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85065132913

VL - 5

SP - 332

EP - 337

JO - Perspectives on Medical Education

JF - Perspectives on Medical Education

SN - 2212-2761

IS - 6

ER -