Developing a Novel 4-C Framework to Enhance Participation in Faculty Development

Abstract

Phenomenon: Universities offer a variety of voluntary faculty development to ensure quality education, but face inconsistent faculty participation. Therefore, all Dutch universities require all faculty to obtain a teaching qualification certificate. Yet, like other medical centers, University Medical Center Utrecht continued to struggle with faculty nonparticipation. It has been postulated that clinician teachers may face unique challenges with responsibilities for patient care in addition to teaching and research, challenges that cannot be overcome by merely mandating faculty development or a teaching certificate. This project was conducted to gain insight into factors that hinder faculty participation and better understand what is needed to enhance faculty engagement in their professional development as teachers. Approach: UMC Utrecht has had a teaching certificate requirement for over 20 years. In 2015-2016, we conducted a local needs assessment, gathering faculty perspectives about the teaching certification process. To convey seriousness of purpose and promote commitment to change, we formally engaged key stakeholders from the outset, obtained grant funding for the needs assessment, and had an outside consultant lead the project. Faculty who were stalled or never started were questioned via semi-structured interviews. A focus group with those actively in the process of obtaining their certificate discussed perceived challenges in the process and recommended solutions. Faculty who obtained their teaching certificate completed an anonymous evaluation form. All evaluation comments and transcripts were thematically analyzed using open and axial coding. A literature review was performed to contextualize our findings and identify potential solutions. We compared our initial themes to these findings and found key challenge/solution categories, which we subsequently developed into a novel framework. Findings from the study and literature review were organized using this framework and shared with different stakeholders, all of whom engaged in problem-solving. Ideas and potential solutions were incorporated into a final report with recommendations for improving faculty support and provided to the institutional leadership. Findings: Of 23 faculty teachers approached, 8 (34.8%) agreed to be interviewed; 7 of 25 (28.0%) participated in the focus group; and 83 of 156 (53.2%) completed the evaluation. From the transcripts and evaluation comments, three themes emerged related to context and barriers: (a) skill development versus certification; (b) workplace priorities and culture, and (c) visibility and feasibility of the teacher’s role. Triangulation of these themes with the literature revealed four challenge/solution categories – Competence, Context, Community, and Career. This 4-C framework facilitated communication of findings, structured the development of an action plan in response to the findings, and assured implementation of new initiatives for faculty support beyond competence development. Insights: Simply adopting requirements for faculty development may be insufficient and even invoke resistance. Improving faculty participation in faculty development and the quality of education requires institutional attention to not just faculty Competence needs, but also the factors of Context, Community, and Career that together comprise the culture experienced by faculty teachers. With institutional buy-in and commitment to change, the 4-C framework can help focus institutional attention on existing gaps in all four domains and guide the development of comprehensive solutions.

Keywords:

• Faculty development
• university teaching qualification
• support faculty teachers

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the faculty teachers at UMC Utrecht who provided insightful comments and suggestions on the teaching qualification program, the barriers they have experienced and their suggestions on how to improve faculty development.

Declaration of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.