The Compass Model to plan faculty development programs

Abstract

Faculty development is an imperative if institutions are to develop professional and competent teachers, educators, researchers and leaders. Planning of faculty development currently focuses on meeting the perceived needs of staff and their interests. We would like to propose the Compass Model as a conceptual framework to plan faculty development, which was inspired by the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic forces for learning, as outlined in the Self-Determination Theory (SDT). In planning faculty development, the Compass Model acknowledges four agendas (directions) from various stakeholders: Strategies (N), Competencies (E), Resources (S) and Wish lists (W). The model then describes four avenues for faculty development offerings (quadrants): Foundation (NE), Innovation (SE), Response (SW) and Motivation (NW) (i.e. outputs, activities). The model was compared theoretically with another approach to faculty development planning. It was then piloted as a quality measure for a current program to check for omissions or missed opportunities. We plan to use it in a multi-center study to compare approaches in faculty development planning in different contexts. We hope our model assists faculty developers to consider all stakeholders' agendas when planning faculty development, beyond the current standard customer-based approach.

Factors Affecting Transfer of Training to the Workplace after Faculty Development Program: what do Trainers Think?

“…The training programs also differ in instructional designs, delivery methods and evaluation criteria. Most of the times, faculty training programs are designed on the wish list of the faculty members or administrative authorities which lead to focused training on desired skills and fail to cater generic teaching competencies [2]. It was also found out in this study that most training programs do not provide follow-up protocols and tend not to observe whether the intended outcomes have been achieved or not.…”

“…This is specially a serious concern in medical education where health professionals are trained to be physicians and not the academic teachers [1]. In such circumstances, faculty development plays pivotal role in medical education if the institutes aim to develop competent and effective teachers [2]. Especially, it holds pivotal value when the institutes are undergoing through curricular reforms, restructuring and / or educational transformations [3].…”

Formulating a Need-Based Faculty Development Model for Medical Schools in Indonesia

“…Results from in-depth interviews strengthened the proposed model because the interviews involved representative experts from various medical schools in Indonesia. The process of formulating a model consisting of these two stages has a distinct advantage compared to other faculty development models that used only one stage of development (27, 28, 29).…”

Theory-Informed Research Training and Mentoring of Underrepresented Early-Career Faculty at Teaching-Intensive Institutions: The Obesity Health Disparities PRIDE Program

“…26 Our adapted model maps out the interplay between self-determination and intrinsic and extrinsic forces for learning by modifying the Compass Model's four primary directions (N, S, E, W) and quadrants (NW, NE, SW, SE) to reflect issues relevant for research training and mentoring programs. The directions represent the perspectives (input) of various stakeholders (eg, faculty, administrators) that should be included in planning faculty development/research training programs.…”

“…N reflects the qualities needed to be an effective researcher; E represents the core competencies required for individual faculty members; W mirrors the interests of individual academics; and S acknowledges the limited resources needed to support faculty training programs. 26 The OHD Compass Model also includes the domains of emotional and social intelligence within the competencies of perception, understanding, utilizing and managing one's own and others' emotions effectively, particularly to manage problems. 27 The growing literature on the science of team science has demonstrated that emotional intelligence is necessary for effective teamwork.…”