Effectiveness of a Faculty Development Programme on Essential Teaching Skills for Allied Health Sciences Educators

Introduction

Faculty development refers to a range of activities that are perceived to help academicians in improving their professional skills that are vital for carrying out their teaching, research or administrative activities in medical education.¹ Developmental training is required to enrich teaching skills of faculty for enhancing the academic performance of learners.¹ Educators need to possess diversified skills to enable them to be facilitators and motivators in learning.^2-4 Structured and mandatory training on education technology are conducted in India for the medical faculty. However, such training sessions are not conducted for the faculty of allied health sciences (AHS). In this context, training the teachers of AHS in essential teaching skills becomes vital for the success of these courses.

Students of AHS generally have a difficulty in understanding medical terminologies and concepts of various subjects taught to them. The educators need to use effective lecturing skills, communication mechanisms, remedial measures and learner-centric approaches to motivate the students of AHS. Training of trainers on innovative teaching-learning methods, interactive teaching sessions, assessment methods and self-directed learning is considered to enhance learning.^2-4 Most of studies done previously on the effectiveness of faculty development programmes focus on the medical, nursing and dental faculty.^5,6 There are limited studies on faculty of AHS in general, and in India in particular.^5,6 In this regard, we made an attempt to conduct a faculty development programme for the faculty of AHS, to assess the effectiveness of such a programme.

Materials and Methods

Study design: This was a quasi-experimental study.

Study settings: This study was done at a college of allied health sciences for a duration of two months, from November to December 2023.

Study participants: Twenty six teaching faculty of AHS who attended a one day training on “essential teaching skills” were the participants in this research. Convenient sampling method was used. Data of all twenty six faculty who attended the training and consented to share the data in this research were included. Incomplete data were excluded.

Data collection method: This research protocol was implemented with approval from Institutional Ethics Committee. Voluntary informed consent was obtained from all the participants in this study. Permission was obtained from the Head of the Institution to include the faculties as participants.

The one day structured training involved interactive lectures with group activities on - know your learners, teaching-learning methods, assessment methods, lesson plan, use of teaching-learning media, how to take interactive lecture and innovation in teaching to motivate learning. The resource persons of these sessions were the faculty who had undergone basic course in medical education and had a minimum five years of teaching experience. Knowledge and perceptions of the faculty on teaching and assessment skills were assessed using validated questionnaires. Knowledge questionnaire had multiple choice questions on teaching and assessment methods, effectiveness of teaching-learning methods, learner-centric strategies and skills of a teacher. Effectiveness of the training was assessed based on the improvement of knowledge using a pre-test-post-test approach (Kirkpatrick level 2 evaluation). There were total 13 questions. Perceptions were captured on a five-point Likert scale with 15 items, and with the open-ended questions of what went well, what could have been done better and any suggestions (Kirkpatrick level 1 evaluation).

Statistical analysis

Significance of difference in knowledge, between post-test and pre-test was assessed by Student’s t test. Data in five-point Likert scale (strongly agree/agree/ neutral/disagree/strongly disagree) were expressed as percentage of participants expressing their perceptions for each statement. Open-ended questions were subjected to text analysis.

Results

Out of 26 participants, 69.2% (18) had the postgraduate qualification in their specialities and they were working as lecturers or assistant professors, while 30.8% (8) participants had the graduate qualification (BSc) and were working as tutors. With regard to teaching experience, 42.3% (11) had experience of less than one year, 42.3% (11) had experience of one to five years, and 11.5% (3) had experience of up to 10 years. Only one participant had teaching experience above 10 years. Only three participants had attended any workshop/ training on teaching skills or educational methodology.

The mean post-test score (12.33±0.87) was significantly higher than the pre-test score (7.61±1.26); P =.000. Pre test scores ranged from 5 to 10, while post test scores ranged from 10 to 13 out of a total possible score of 13. As given in Table 1, higher number of participants answered correctly for each question in post-test when compared to pre-test.

Most of the participants (88.4 to 92.3%) agreed (response of “strongly agree” or “agree”) that the training promoted their confidence in effective teaching skills, improved their understanding of teaching-learning methods, improved the understanding of using the media, motivated them to use learner-centric methods, improved the skills of preparing lesson plans and assessment, improved team work skills, improved understanding of interactive lectures and improved confidence in effective class room management (Table 2).

Faculty considered interactive nature of the workshop, gaining new knowledge of teaching and assessment, time management in the workshop, activities for each session and formative assessment as the things which “went well” in the one day training. They considered time duration allotted and advances in using the teaching-learning media as the factors which “could have been done better” (Table 3).

Discussion

In the present study, we observed the effectiveness of one day training in improving the knowledge of AHS faculty on teaching and assessment skills. The faculty showed favourable perceptions of this developmental training and need for such training sessions in future. The average post test score was significantly higher by 62% than the pre-test score indicating the effectiveness of training in terms of learning. A meta-analysis reported significant and positive impact of faculty development programmes in enhancing knowledge and professional competence of faculty from medical and allied fields. This meta-analysis looked at the overall long-term effect of development.⁵ Our study focused on immediate improvement of knowledge. Previously, Cole et al. reported that a longitudinal development program for health science faculty had significant impact on knowledge of teaching and assessment skills as indicated by the data of pre-test and post-test scores.⁷

The faculty had positive perceptions about the training with regards to gaining new knowledge on teaching and assessment methods, using innovative teaching-learning methods, motivation to use learner-centric methods, and methods to make the lecture classes interactive. They agreed that the training improved their team work and communication skills, empowered them to motivate students effectively and helped them to identify their lacunae. In previous studies, medical educators who underwent training on teaching skills agreed that the training improved their knowledge and attitudes, and expressed that they could apply the learnt lessons practically in their workplace.⁶ Further, the medical teachers who participated in a teachers’ training workshop strongly agreed that the training had transformed them as better educators.⁷

In the present study, participants appreciated the interactive nature of the sessions, acquisition of new knowledge of teaching and assessment skills, nature of the small group activities given during training, formative assessments done for each session and the time management. A previous study on medical teachers observed that participants reported interactive sessions, competent resource persons, friendly learning environment, small group activities and well-structured sessions as the strengths of the training.⁷ In an education series of faculty development program for health science faculty, participants perceived individual learning, resources, expertise of the facilitators and interactive sessions as the strengths of the training series.⁸

Participants of a basic medical education workshop agreed that the workshop was effective in improving their knowledge, but opined that training time was insufficient and the training did not help them to gain more knowledge of topics which were of specific importance to them individually.⁹ In our training, few participants opined that the training time was insufficient, latest advances in teaching media were not dealt in detail, and follow up training was required.

Faculty development programs have been perceived to motivate teachers to improve, and it has been demonstrated from the studies that faculty members had positive perceptions about all aspects of faculty development program.⁸ The current study too observed favourable response from the AHS educators. There is paucity of studies on the effectiveness of faculty development trainings on AHS teachers. In the present study, an attempt to assess effectiveness of such training was made and we received a very good response from the participants. Involvement of the trained members of medical education unit helped in effective conduct of the training. The participants expressed interest in attending many such training sessions and suggested periodic trainings.

Conclusion

The faculty of AHS expressed positive perceptions regarding the faculty development training. A significant improvement in the knowledge of faculty on teaching and assessment skills was evident. This study assessed immediate outcome of the training. Further studies on intermediate or long term outcomes in terms of implementation of innovative teaching methods by the faculty and assessing feedback from students is required to validate the outcomes of faculty development programmes.

Funding

Nil

Conflict of Intreset

Dr. Archana Bhat, the Editor-in-Chief of this journal, is a co-author of this manuscript. To ensure impartiality and transparency, the editorial handling and decision-making for this manuscript were delegated to an independent editor. The peer-review process was conducted without involvement from Dr. Bhat.