Becoming an Academy Scholar

The Academy for Scholarship in Education (ASE) seeks to recognize faculty who make significant contributions to the areas of Teaching and Evaluation, Educational Research, Educational Leadership, or the Development of Enduring Materials.  Academy Scholars contribute to the field of Medical Education, assisting both SIU School of Medicine and the medical education community at large.  Faculty may become Scholars in one, more than one, or all of the four areas listed above.

Who is Eligible?

All faculty and adjunct faculty at SIU who are working to improve medical education at SIU and beyond are eligible to apply to become an Academy Scholar.

Why Do It?

Academy Scholars receive a five year membership, which entitles them to the following benefits:

      Money to attend educational conferences and/or workshops

      Individualized assistance with promotion and tenure

      Individualized assistance with research and teaching projects

      Recognition in Aspects magazine

      Members-only workshops

      Members-only networking opportunities

      A prestigious line on your CV

      A certificate suitable for framing

Criteria to become an Academy Scholar

Please refer to evaluation criteria for each application, download materials, and review samples (minus appendices).

Teaching and Evaluation

Educational Research

Educational Leadership

Development of Enduring Materials

Upon completion of application requirements, forward your application and attachments to:

Donna Peterson

SIU School of Medicine

Department of Education

PO Box 19681

Springfield, IL  62794-9681

TEACHING AND EVALUATION

QUALITY

            Clear, Realistic & Important Goals                                                    5 pts

           (e.g. Are the educational endeavors important to the mission of the

        School?)

(e.g. Are goals specific & obtainable)

(e.g. Do goals reflect the needs of learners?)

            Adequate Preparation and Self-Reflection                                               10 pts

           (e.g. Is teacher prepared to teach effectively?)

(e.g. Does teacher take advantage of educational opportunities to

                    improve his/her teaching?)

(e.g. Does teacher solicit and use feedback from learners and peers?)

(e.g. Does educator examine multiple perspectives before changing

                    strategies?)

            Appropriate Methods and Materials                                                           15 pts

           (e.g. Does teacher use appropriate teaching techniques?

-consistent with the task to be learned?

-consistent with current educational best evidence

-consistent with the applicant’s stated teaching philosophy)

(e.g. Is/are the design(s) of course(s) effective?)

(e.g. Are actions consistent with current literature?)

(e.g. Are teaching materials up to date and appropriate for what

                     is being taught?)

            Quality of Presentation of Results                                                              35 pts

           (e.g. Does educational strategy – ie teaching method, course

                    management – serve as a model for others?)

(e.g. Were stated goals achieved?)

(e.g. Are “lessons” learned about teaching shared with peers at local

                    regional and/or national levels?)

(e.g. How novel or creative is the work?)

(e.g. How well do peers and/or learners assess the work?)

QUANTITY/BREADTH                                                                                             35 pts

           (e.g. Number of teaching interactions given, number of courses involved      

         in) 

(e.g. Number of different thematic areas, different types of learner                                                             

         interactions focused on different learner populations.  Depth and

         scope may also be counted as breadth here)

 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

QUALITY

            Clear, realistic & important goals                                                                 5 pts

            (e.g. Is researcher’s line of research important to the field)

            (e.g. Are research goals specific & obtainable)

            Adequate preparation and self-reflection                                                  10 pts

            (e.g. Is researcher qualified to conduct research effectively)

            (e.g. Does researcher take advantage of educational research

                    development opportunities)

            (e.g. Does researcher solicit and effectively use advice from

        colleagues/mentors)

            Appropriate Methods and Materials                                                          15 pts

            (e.g. Are designs of studies appropriate)

            (e.g. Do studies have sufficient statistical power)

            (e.g. How do peers regard process and perceive outcomes)

            (e.g. Were new research methods used that were accepted

                     nationally)

            Quality of Presentation of results                                                                35 pts

            (e.g. Do the research studies lead to outcomes worthy of publication

                     in the literature?)

            (e.g. Were the results published?)

            (e.g. Do peer reviewers for grant, journal and/or educational

                    award find the presentation of results understandable

                    and credible?)

            (e.g. Are write ups of research results credible to local, regional,

                    and/or national audiences?)

            (e.g. How novel or creative are the works?)

QUANTITY/BREADTH                                                                                             35 pts

(e.g. Number of specific questions examined, number of initiatives associated    

        with each question, number of disseminations – publications, workshops,

        etc.)

(e.g. Number of different thematic areas, different types of questions focused on 

        different educational issues and/or learner populations, different types of

        research methods, different venues for disseminating results.  Depth and    

        scope may also be counted as breadth here)

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

QUALITY

            Clear, realistic and important goals and philosophy                                   5 pts

            (e.g. Are goals specific and obtainable; are values clear & visible)

            (e.g. Are goals consistent with leadership philosophy)

            (e.g. Do goals create a student-focused, learner-oriented climate where

                     there is a balance of the needs of the relevant stakeholders)

Adequate preparation and reflection                                                          10 pts

            (e.g. Does the leader strive to continuously learn new ways of

                    dealing with challenging issues)

            (e.g. Does the leader solicit and use feedback from learners/peers)

            (e.g. Is the leader aware of and sensitive to changing/emerging student

                    and stakeholder needs)

            (e.g. Is the leader capable of rapid/flexible responses to changes)

            Adequate methods and materials                                                               15 pts

            (e.g. Does the leader get others meaningfully involved)

            (e.g. Does the leader place primary emphasis on active learning)

            Quality of presentation of results                                                                 35 pts

            (e.g. Does the leadership strategy serve as a model for others)

            (e.g. Are key results/stated goals achieved)

            (e.g. Are lessons learned shared with peers at a local, regional

                    and/or national level)

            (e.g. Does the leader inspire, motivate, set high expectations, serve

                    as a role model)

            (e.g. Are faculty, staff and learners valued with a commitment to their

                    satisfaction, development, and well-being)

QUANTITY/BREADTH                                                                                             35 pts

(e.g. Number of leadership activities, number of hours or percent effort in

         leadership activities)

(e.g. Number of different populations led, number of different types of  leadership 

        responsibilities)

DEVELOPMENT OF ENDURING EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS

QUALITY

            Rationale/Goals                                                                                             5 pts

o        Statement of the overall theme underlying these enduring materials.

o        Rationale for dedicating part of career to creating these enduring materials.

o        What has the faculty member gained by having created these materials?

o        What value does the faculty member expect others to gain by using the materials?

Adequate preparation and self-reflection                                                  10 pt

o        Structured abstracts are included for each distinct type of enduring material.

o        Statement included regarding changes that have been made in enduring materials with experience and the rationale for each change.

o        Evidence that product developer has solicited and used advice from experts in the field, colleagues and mentors.

            Appropriate Methods and Materials                                                           15 pts                                                                          

o        Enduring products were designed with a clear and well documented educational need in mind.

o        Enduring products were designed with a clear set of learning outcomes directing development (Outcomes specifying what the student will be able to do as a result of using the product in the intended way).

o        Enduring products were designed in accordance with current principles of learning and instruction.

o        Enduring products encourage active learning.

o        Enduring products encourage application of knowledge and skills.

            Evidence of Product Effectiveness                                                 35 pts

o        Documented changes in knowledge and/or skills.

o        Documented changes in attitudes and/or perceptions.

o        Documented changes in behavior (evidence of changes in practice behavior).

o        Documented evidence of learner satisfaction with the product.

o        Documented evidence of product adoption by other teachers, learners and institutions.

o        Positive published review of product by expert in field.

            QUANTITY                                                                                                     35 pts

o        Scope and size of each product (number of pages, number of contact hours)

o        Number of distinct products developed.

o        Number of teachers who have used each  product.

o        Number of institutions that have used each product.

o        Evidence of continued use (use over multiple years – a measure of enduring quality).

Teaching and Evaluation

Personal Statement

I began my post-college career as a high school science teacher in Small Town, USA.  My original motivation for teaching was financial survival. I taught all levels of learners in all areas of science. Watching the struggle for some of my students and seeing that “light bulb” turn on when they finally “got it” became its own reward. What I had begun as a source of income had become a passion that has continued to grow—even through the arduous years of becoming a physician and specialist. This explains why becoming a clinical educator has been a major focus of my academic career at SIU School of Medicine.

As a teacher, my overarching goal is to generate energy and enthusiasm for learning. I feel that enthusiasm for learning goes in tandem with enthusiasm for teaching. I try to always be willing to laugh at myself and have fun. I try to gauge the educational interaction from all perspectives. At the end of an interaction, if I don’t feel spent then I don’t feel like I have given it my best.

I believe that variation in teaching style and method encourages interest and addresses differing learner needs. There should be no such thing as a “canned lecture” which implies rote regurgitation of the facts without regard to the audience. I strive to identify and relate the relevance of new information and skills, to learners’ demographics, baseline knowledge, and level of interest so that I can personalize the experience and engage the learner. Using eye contact and trying to read the learner’s understanding and interest, I try to vary my style on the spot …a question, a pause, repetition, anecdotes, examples. My knowledge of the learner’s attitude, needs and concerns helps guide my educational approach.

I would like to be someone who helps produce learning, not simply a provider of information. In this respect, I strive to foster life-long learning skills, helping students acquire the tools necessary to explore and apply the information. Small group activities whether in the preclinical years, on the wards, or even one-on-one mentoring and discussion, have the advantage of allowing individuals to play an active and interactive role to achieve specific needs and interests.

We all have our favorite teaching method and style, but I want to stay abreast of “best teaching practices” through reading the literature and attending educational meetings such as the annual AAMC meeting. I also experiment with new techniques, even ones that take me out of my comfort zone, to best achieve my educational goals.

Whenever I teach, I make a point of reviewing learner evaluations and any performance data (i.e., test scores) that I can get my hands on. I pay special attention to such data, however, after trying something new. I use the evaluations to guide my reflections on what worked and what didn’t work.

Speaking of moving beyond my comfort zone,” I recently requested feedback from a respected colleague who had participated in the Educational Scholars Fellowship Program.  I asked my colleague to observe me as I taught in the clinical environment and at the patient’s bedside.  My colleague made several important observations and I was able to use that information to make modifications in my teaching.  This person was then able to return with me to the wards and make additional observations that verified the positive impact of the changes I made in my teaching strategies.  (See Appendix D for letter from peer reviewer.) In addition, to ensure that my course materials were evidenced based, I submitted my power point slides and teaching notes to a nationally-recognized expert in the subject for review and comment.  This person directed me to some cutting edge scientific research that I could integrate into my lectures, particularly those for faculty and fellows.

In conclusion, the best rewards of a profession often come entirely from within. Why do I do what I do? When I teach, I learn, I grow, and I have fun.

Personal Statement – Anne Jones, MD, Clinical Department

The importance of research in medical education has recently been reaffirmed for me in a very strong way.  I met with a potential residency candidate who was participating in an elective in our department.  Before I could meet with her, I was contacted by 3 residents, who had worked with this individual, to put me on “alert.”  I was told she was a fantastic candidate.  Through our meeting, I learned that she was graduating 6 months late.  She attends a medical school that has introduced significant curricular changes while simultaneously having serious financial difficulties.  In my opinion, this upheaval had the direct result of inadequately preparing her for the USMLE Step 1.  She had left the school for 6 months to “relearn” the material or, as she clearly stated, “learn it for the first time.”  This action resulted not only in her passing the USMLE, but scoring well above the mean on Step 1 and Step 2.  This case is anecdotal; however, it highlights the danger of introducing new curricula without measuring outcomes. This educational experiment could have resulted in a catastrophe for this very bright medical student, and will have some long lasting implications for her ability to match to a top notch program.

My own involvement in research in medical education was initiated through an unusual circumstance.  I had the opportunity to “leave” medicine for two years between medical school and residency.  This gave me the opportunity to mature and to reflect on my undergraduate experience.  After two years, I returned to start my residency.  Because of personal family issues, I transferred residency programs in my second year.  The teaching style of the first program was considerably more structured than that of the second program, and I constantly questioned, (mostly to myself) “Why do we do this way? Why does our call have to be like this? Why are we not taught surgical techniques in a classroom prior to the operating room?”

After graduating from the residency program, I stayed with the department and began implementing and testing curricular changes.  This activity began with simple investigations to determine if text search was useful for residents in training or if this information was taught in medical schools and was redundant.  As is often the case, the most important thing I learned was not what I originally questioned, but additional information gleaned through the research.  I found that text search was useful to some but not all residents, but physically requiring them to go to the library was beneficial to all.  Since that time, I have worked in conjunction with others on a variety of educational projects including creating models for teaching surgical technique in basic labs, conducting and studying evaluations of the curriculum, and most recently trying to better understand why the surgical specialties have such high attrition and how to advise program directors to handle the financial and emotional cost of this particular “failure.”  Many of the projects were designed to specifically evaluate information for my program, but have been generalized to others.

Both my department leadership and my professional association have provided guidance and encouragement to me. In 1999-2000, I participated in the APGO/Solvay Scholars Program in which over an 18-month period a project is initiated and mentored, and a minimum of 40 classroom hours are spent looking at various aspects of educational research and teaching techniques, and gaining exposure to some of the brightest medical educators. In retrospect, I can see where I have used the information that I gained from this experience to refine my skills. I also attended an all day workshop at the fall 2000 AAMC Annual meeting entitled “Designing Medical Research for the 21^st Century.”

Also through the support of my department leadership, I have been able to develop the Division of Medical Education.  This group of physicians and one educator have worked together to take the educational mission of our department to a new level. We are teachers first, and physicians second, as the name implies.  We have recently introduced a skills lab which has improved morale, encouraged interaction between faculty and residents, and given us the ability to document procedural competencies as mandated by the ACGME.  We find it a great success, but to avoid mistakenly patting ourselves on the back, we are evaluating each skill with a validated scale and having the residents answer a questionnaire to find out, “Is it really useful? Should we do it again?”  Although this is on a much smaller scale than the scenario I discussed in the introduction, it is important to “test” and not to go with a hunch.

The true test in the academic pursuit of medical education is to see the outcomes of the research projects implemented in residency training. Sometimes the gains do not appear for a period of 4 years or so, as that is the length of one residency training class. At the end of a project, immediate statistical results are attained which then must  be translated into long-term goals. It is at this time that I pause to reflect, to wait, and look for the outcome of the practical application. I discuss these projects with various colleagues around the country for feedback and sometimes it comes unsolicited as confirmation of success.  It is incredibly rewarding, for example, when a colleague tells me at a national meeting that he/she has implemented our loop training device in his/her curriculum and it has been a success.

Perhaps the rigor that is required of scientific research has not been previously demanded of education, but the climate is changing.  The appreciation for educational research has   not been in the forefront of academic medicine, and it has been undervalued.  These characteristics seem very oppositional.  Intuitively, it would seem that we should test the techniques of teaching, at the very least; in order to produce the most prepared clinicians, researchers, and teachers in medical education.

Structured Abstracts

Anne Jones, MD, Clinical Department

Theme: Medical Instrumentation/Procedures

Research Question 1: Can a simple, inexpensive device be used to train residents with less injury to patients and with increased adequacy of pathological specimen acquisition in the loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP)?

Investigation: (1997-1998) Residents need to be able to use loop excision of the cervix to evaluate and treat cervical dysplasia. While training inexperienced residents in this technique, patients have been burned. In addition, this practice should occur away from apprehensive patients where instructional and constructive criticism can be given.

Methods: An empty cardboard bathroom tissue role with a piece of sausage at one end was devised to teach this technique. Touching the side of the cardboard tube with the hot wire loop resulted in a burn or char, quickly and graphically illustrating why the vaginal sidewall is to be avoided.

Results & Impact of Findings: There has been an 85% decline in complication rates and a 50% increase in adequacy of pathological specimens when “pretraining” with this inanimate model as compared with past methods for this training. I have been told by many colleagues at national meetings that this type of training is now used at institutions across the nation.

Contributorship:

·        Dr. Anne Jones collaborated in the development of the clinical apparatus, gathered data, and wrote and edited the paper.

·        Dr. K. O. Rogers collaborated in the development of the clinical apparatus.

·        Dr. Roger King analyzed the data.

Dissemination 1: Jones A, Rogers K, King R.  A Simple, Inexpensive Device for Teaching the Loop Electrical Excision Procedure.  Obstet. Gynecol. 94(3):474-475, 1999.

Dissemination 2: Results presented to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1998.

Research Question 2: What is the perceived proficiency in endoscopic techniques among senior OB GYN residents?

Investigation: (2000) This investigation was undertaken to assess current training methods in laparoscopic surgery employed in US OB GYN residency programs, the level of proficiency in various minimally invasive surgery procedures amongst senior OB GYN residents, and possible ways in which training in minimally invasive surgery can be improved.

Methods: A survey was sent to all accredited OB GYN programs in the United States. The subjects were all fourth-year residents in these programs.

Results & Impact of Findings: Responses were received from 133 programs and 295 residents. Of these, 67% of residents thought emphasis on laparoscopic surgery training should be increased or greatly increased; 87% thought laparoscopic skills were important for building a successful practice. As a result of this investigation our department has increased the number of hours residents spend training in laparoscopic surgery by more than 50%.

Contributorship:

·        Dr. Anne Jones was the PI, helped conduct the survey, and wrote the paper.

·        Dr. J. I. Evans conducted the survey.

·        L. Tsu assisted in data collection.

·        Dr. H. Young, performed statistical operations.

Dissemination 1: A. Jones, M.D., J. I. Evans, M.D., L. Tsu, and H. Young and Gynecology Residents.  J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(2): 158-164, 2002.

Dissemination 2: Results presented to the Department of OB GYN, 1998.

Theme: Resident Selection/ Attrition

Research Question 1: Does the current residency selection criteria predict performance in an OB GYN residency?

Investigation: (1999) This investigation was undertaken to establish that the system for ranking resident applicants in the OB GYN residency program is predictive of resident performance, to determine which factors in the residency selection process most adequately predict performance in residencies, and to help ensure selection of resident applicants most likely to succeed.

Methods: A retrospective evaluation of resident applicants that matched in our residency program was conducted. Thirty-three residents that had completed greater than 2 years of the program were included. Variables included numbers of publications, research experience, USMLE scores, and attendance at a top 10 medical school in women’s health.

Rank position on the rank list at this institution and data derived from the interview were also tabulated. Resident performance score (RPS) was calculated by a new assessment technique.  A team of five faculty members was created to evaluate each resident individually. Rank order was compared to RPS to determine if the system used at SIU is predictive of resident performance.

Results & Impact of Findings: A significant correlation existed between rank order and resident performance, indicating that applicants ranking in the top category on the rank list had the highest RPS score, while those in the bottom third had the lowest RPS scores (p<0.1). As a result of this study the department will continue to use the current method to select and rank perspective residents.

Contributorship:

·        Dr. Anne Jones designed the study and wrote the paper.

·        Dr. J. Leveck compiled data and helped with the study design.

·        Dr. H. Young performed statistical operations.

 

Dissemination 1: A. Jones, J. Leveck, H. Young, Abstract Presentation at the  APGO/GREOG Meeting “Does Residency Selection Predict Resident Performance in an OB GYN Residency? What Factors in Residency Selection Most Accurately Predict OB GYN Resident Performance?” Orlando, Florida, March 7-11, 2001.

Research Question 2: How many residents nationally are leaving OB GYN residency programs and why?

Investigation: (2001) I was interested in investigating the percentage of attrition nationally of first year residents in OB GYN Residency Programs, the perceived etiology behind the attrition, and how current program directors assess the adequacy of the replacement pool.

Methods: A survey was constructed of 10 questions and was emailed and faxed to the program directors of the 277 approved residency programs (excluding military programs.) Only information for the 2000-2001 academic year was requested. If a program “lost” one or more residents then the cause of that loss was explored as to etiology; withdrawal, non-renewal, or dismissal. Ultimately the program director was questioned as to whether he/she was satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat unsatisfied or unsatisfied with the applicant pool.  Descriptive statistics were applied to collected data.

Results & Impact of Findings: Of the 277 programs, with a total of 590 residents, 116 completed surveys were returned. Thirty-five percent of the responding program directors had at least one PGY1 leave the program and 5% lost more than one intern in the calendar year 2000-2001.  Eight percent of categorical interns left their parent program, 93% of these PGY1’s who left their programs did so of their own volition (of those residents 42% left for another program), 53% left for another specialty and no response was provided for two PGY1’s.  Of those that had non-renewal of their contract or dismissal, two left the field of medicine, and one changed specialties.

Contributorship:

·        Dr. Anne Jones designed the survey, analyzed the data and prepared the poster.

·        Dr. J. Leveck compiled data and helped with the study design.

Dissemination 1: A. Jones, J. Leveck, Poster presentation at the APGO/CREOG Meeting, Dallas, Texas, March 6-8, 2002.

Theme: Residency Curriculum

Research Question 1 and 2: Should formal rotations in neonatology and anesthesia be re-introduced into the curriculum? If so, what should be the content of that curriculum? Investigation: (2001) Several residents expressed a need for additional training in both neonatology and anesthesia based on conversations they had with volunteer and full-time faculty in the Texas Medical Center.

Methods: A needs assessment, using a 5 point Likert scale instrument, was conducted using an anonymous survey of full time and voluntary faculty in the Texas Medical Center. Questions relating to current practice patterns were formulated for neonatology and for anesthesiology based on CREOG objectives and the 2001 Program Requirements.

Results & Impac­t of Findings: Based on an 80% ret