Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 29–41 | Cite as

What should we teach the teachers? Identifying the learning priorities of clinical supervisors

  • Margaret Bearman
  • Joanna Tai
  • Fiona Kent
  • Vicki Edouard
  • Debra Nestel
  • Elizabeth Molloy
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Clinicians who teach are essential for the health workforce but require faculty development to improve their educational skills. Curricula for faculty development programs are often based on expert frameworks without consideration of the learning priorities as defined by clinical supervisors themselves. We sought to inform these curricula by highlighting clinical supervisors own requirements through answering the research question: what do clinical supervisors identify as relative strengths and areas for improvement in their teaching practice? This mixed methods study employed a modified version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (mMCTQ) which included free-text reflections. Descriptive statistics were calculated and content analysis was conducted on textual comments. 481 (49%) of 978 clinical supervisors submitted their mMCTQs and associated reflections for the research study. Clinical supervisors self-identified relatively strong capability with interpersonal skills or attributes and indicated least capability with assisting learners to explore strengths, weaknesses and learning goals. The qualitative category ‘establishing relationships’ was the most reported strength with 224 responses. The qualitative category ‘feedback’ was the most reported area for improvement, with 151 responses. Key areas for curricular focus include: improving feedback practices; stimulating reflective and agentic learning; and managing the logistics of a clinical education environment. Clinical supervisors’ self-identified needs provide a foundation for designing engaging and relevant faculty development programs.

Keywords

Clinical supervision Faculty development Clinical teaching Clinical education frameworks Health professional education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Clinical Supervision Support across Contexts program was supported by the Victorian Government. We would like to acknowledge Dr. Rola Ajjawi for her helpful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Academy of Medical Educators, Professional Standards. (2014). http://www.medicaleducators.org/write/MediaManager/AOME_Professional_Standards_2014.pdf. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
  2. Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2015). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. doi:  10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863.
  3. Andrews, C. E., & Ford, K. (2013). Clinical facilitator learning and development needs: Exploring the why, what and how. Nurse Education in Practice, 13, 413–417. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2013.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bearman, M., Molloy, E., Ajjawi, R., & Keating, J. (2013). ‘Is there a Plan B?’ Clinical educators supporting underperforming students in practice settings. Teaching in Higher Education, 18, 531–544. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.752732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boerboom, T. B. B., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Jaarsma, A. D. C., Muijtjens, A. M. M., Van Beukelen, P., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2011a). Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating veterinary clinical teachers’ supervisory skills during clinical rotations. Medical Teacher, 33, e84–e91. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.536277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boerboom, T. B. B., Jaarsma, D., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., Mastenbroek, N. J. J. M., & Van Beukelen, P. (2011b). Peer group reflection helps clinical teachers to critically reflect on their teaching. Medical Teacher, 33, e615–e623. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.610840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529–549. doi: 10.1007/bf00138746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 698–712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleland, J., Leggett, H., Sandars, J., Costa, M. J., Patel, R., & Moffat, M. (2013). The remediation challenge: Theoretical and methodological insights from a systematic review. Medical Education, 47, 242–251. doi: 10.1111/medu.12052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clement, T., Brown, J., Morrison, J., & Nestel, D. (2016). Ad hoc supervision of general practice registrars as a ‘community of practice’: Analysis, interpretation and re-presentation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21, 415–437. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9639-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jong, J., Visser, M., Van Dijk, N., van der Vleuten, C., & Wieringa-de Waard, M. (2013). A systematic review of the relationship between patient mix and learning in work-based clinical settings. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 24. Medical Teacher, 35, e1181–e1196. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.797570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennick, R. (2012). Twelve tips for incorporating educational theory into teaching practices. Medical Teacher, 34, 618–624. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.668244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ende, J. (1983). FEedback in clinical medical education. JAMA, 250, 777–781. doi: 10.1001/jama.1983.03340060055026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2008). “I’ll never play professional football” and other fallacies of self-assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 14–19. doi: 10.1002/chp.150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzpatrick, S., Smith, M., & Wilding, C. (2012). Quality allied health clinical supervision policy in Australia: a literature review. Australian Health Review, 36, 461–465. doi: 10.1071/AH11053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fluit, C. R. M. G., Bolhuis, S., Grol, R., Laan, R., & Wensing, M. (2010). Assessing the quality of clinical teachers. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 1337–1345. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1458-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson, A., & Eaton, E. (2013). Assisting nurses to facilitate student and new graduate learning in practice settings: What ‘support’ do nurses at the bedside need? Nurse Education in Practice, 13, 197–201. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2012.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hesketh, E. A., Bagnall, G., Buckley, E. G., Friedman, M., Goodall, E., Harden, R. M., et al. (2001). A framework for developing excellence as a clinical educator. Medical Education, 35, 555–564. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00920.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson, J., Skeff, K., & Stratos, G. (2009). Clinical teaching improvement: The transportability of the Stanford Faculty Development Program. Medical Teacher, 31, e377–e382. doi: 10.1080/01421590802638055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kilminster, S. M., & Jolly, B. C. (2000). Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: A literature review. Medical Education, 34, 827–840. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00758.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leslie, K., Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Esdaile, M., & Reeves, S. (2013). Advancing Faculty Development in Medical Education: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 88, 1038–1045. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294fd29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLean, M., Cilliers, F., & Van Wyk, J. M. (2008). Faculty development: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Medical Teacher, 30, 555–584. doi: 10.1080/01421590802109834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Molenaar, W. M., Zanting, A., van Beukelen, P., de Grave, W., Baane, J. A., Bustraan, J. A., et al. (2009). A framework of teaching competencies across the medical education continuum. Medical Teacher, 31, 390–396. doi: 10.1080/01421590902845881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neville, S., & French, S. (1991). Clinical education: Students’ and clinical tutors’ views. Physiotherapy, 77, 351–354. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9406(10)61803-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Norman, G. (2014). Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: Twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Sullivan, P. S. E., & Irby, D. M. P. (2011). Reframing Research on Faculty Development. Academic Medicine, 86, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schuwirth, L., & van der Vleuten, C. (2011). Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher, 33, 478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stalmeijer, R. E., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Muijtjens, A. M. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2008). The development of an instrument for evaluating clinical teachers: Involving stakeholders to determine content validity. Medical Teacher, 30, e272–e277. doi: 10.1080/01421590802258904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stalmeijer, R. E., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Muijtjens, A. M. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2010). The Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MCTQ) as a valid and reliable instrument for the evaluation of clinical teachers. Academic Medicine, 85, 1732–1738. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f554d6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B. M., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., et al. (2016). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update—BEME Guide No. 40. Medical Teacher, 38, 769–786. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., Spencer, J., Gelula, M., et al. (2006). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Medical Teacher, 28, 497–526. doi: 10.1080/01421590600902976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Strand, P., Edgren, G., Borna, P., Lindgren, S., Wichmann-Hansen, G., & Stalmeijer, R. (2015). Conceptions of how a learning or teaching curriculum, workplace culture and agency of individuals shape medical student learning and supervisory practices in the clinical workplace. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20, 531–557. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-9546-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tai, J., Bearman, M., Edouard, V., Kent, F., Nestel, D., & Molloy, E. (2015). Clinical supervision training across contexts. The Clinical Teacher. doi: 10.1111/tct.12432.Google Scholar
  34. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398–405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winstanley, J., & White, E. (2011). The MCSS-26©: Revision of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale© Using the Rasch Measurement Model. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 19, 160–178. doi: 10.1891/1061-3749.19.3.160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research into Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE)Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.WISER Unit, Monash HealthMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Melbourne Medical SchoolUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.Monash Institute of Health and Clinical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.Department of Medical EducationUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations