Browsing by Author "Nelson Laird, Thomas F."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Does time matter? : a search for meaningful medical school faculty cohorts
    (2014-12) Guillot III, Gerard Majella; Palmer, Megan M.; Dankoski, Mary E.; Nelson Laird, Thomas F.; Seifert, Mark F.; Shew, Ronald L.
    Background. Traditionally, departmental appointment type (basic science or clinical) and/or degree earned (PhD, MD, or MD-PhD) have served as proxies for how we conceptualize clinical and basic science faculty. However, the landscape in which faculty work has considerably changed and now challenges the meaning of these cohorts. Within this context I introduce a behavior-based role variable that is defined by how faculty spend their time in four academic activities: teaching, research, patient care, and administrative duties. Methods. Two approaches to role were compared to department type and degree earned in terms of their effects on how faculty report their perceptions and experiences of faculty vitality and its related constructs. One approach included the percent of time faculty spent engaged in each of the four academic activities. The second approach included role groups described by a time allocation rubric. This study included faculty from four U.S. medical schools (N = 1,497) and data from the 2011 Indiana University School of Medicine Faculty Vitality Survey. Observed variable path analysis evaluated models that included traditional demographic variables, the role variable, and faculty vitality constructs (e.g., productivity, professional engagement, and career satisfaction). Results. Role group effects on faculty vitality constructs were much stronger than those of percent time variables, suggesting that patterns of how faculty distribute their time are more important than exactly how much time they allocate to single activities. Role group effects were generally similar to, and sometimes stronger than, those of department type and degree earned. Further, the number of activities that faculty participate in is as important a predictor of how faculty experience vitality constructs as their role groups. Conclusions. How faculty spend their time is a valuable and significant addition to vitality models and offers several advantages over traditional cohort variables. Insights into faculty behavior can also show how institutional missions are (or are not) being served. These data can inform hiring practices, development of academic tracks, and faculty development interventions. As institutions continue to unbundle faculty roles and faculty become increasingly differentiated, the role variable can offer a simple way to study faculty, especially across multiple institutions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Three-Dimensional Visualization Technology in the Medical Curriculum: Exploring Faculty Use in Preclinical, Clinical, and Postgraduate Anatomy Education
    (2021-01) Helbling, Shannon Amara; Torbeck, Laura J.; Byram, Jessica N.; Deane, Andrew S.; Nelson Laird, Thomas F.
    Background: The advancement of three-dimensional visualization technology provides exciting new opportunities in medical education, including new methods for teaching complex anatomical relationships and promising tools for the training of postgraduate physicians. Information on how faculty use three-dimensional visualization technology for anatomy education is essential for informed discussions surrounding their effectiveness as a teaching tool and use in the medical curriculum, yet the current literature lacks necessary contextual details on how faculty integrate these technologies into actual medical curricula. Methods: Fifteen medical educators from North American medical schools and teaching hospitals completed semi-structured interviews and discussed how they use three-dimensional visualization technology for teaching in preclinical courses, clinical clerkships, and postgraduate programs. Transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method and resulting themes were used to inform the creation of a questionnaire. Results: The resulting themes of analysis were organized according to a curricular framework that describes how faculty use these technologies as an instructional resource and how this use is related to the purposes, content, sequence, instructional processes and evaluation of medical curricula. The results demonstrate how three-dimensional visualization technology is being is implemented in a variety of ways in the curriculum and revealed numerous similarities of use across the levels of medical education. Analyses revealed minimal use of three-dimensional visualization technology for assessment and indicated faculty face significant challenges in designing such assessment. Conclusions: Results suggest continuing assessment of the effectiveness of these technologies as a teaching tool needs to encompass broader aspects of use, such as those described in this study. Additionally, results showing similarities of use across levels suggest that educators and administrators should consider how threedimensional visualization technology can be thoughtfully integrated to address the changing needs of learners as they progress through medical education. Findings also suggest that administrators who want to support the integration of three-dimensional visualization technology into the curriculum need to provide adequate support and training to help faculty overcome time limitations and difficulties designing assessment methods.