• Teri L Turner, Mark A Ward, Debra L Palazzi, and Martin I Lorin.
• J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Dec 1; 3 (4): 558-61.

BackgroundWhile much is known about how educational leaders at the medical school level (eg, deans) view the importance of formal training in education for medical school teachers, little is known about how leaders at the clinical level (eg, department chairs) view such training. We sought to determine how pediatric department chairs and residency program directors view the value of formal training in education, such as that at a Master of Education (MEd) level, and to estimate the number of clinical pediatric faculty with or pursuing such training.MethodsA survey designed to assess the value placed on formal training in education and to estimate the number of clinical faculty with or pursuing such training was mailed to pediatric department chair persons and residency program directors at all 131 allopathic medical schools in the United States and Puerto Rico.ResultsEighty department chairs (61%) responded, and most indicated that when hiring new faculty, they view an applicant with an MEd as having an advantage. Both chairs and residency directors considered an MEd to be advantageous for a residency director by a ranking of 4.5 and 4.2, respectively, on a scale of 1 to 5 (P  =  .008). Of the 80 chairs who responded, 58.8% of respondents reported one or more faculty in their department had or was pursuing an MEd. Of the 72 responding residency directors (55%), 11 respondents (15.3%) indicated that they had an MEd.ConclusionMore than half the medical school pediatric chairs responding to the survey had one or more clinical faculty with or pursuing an MEd in their departments. Survey results indicated that such training is valued by both department chairs and residency directors. Given the time and expense involved in obtaining an MEd, awareness of these data 5 be helpful to those considering pursuing, offering, or requiring such training.

10 keywords...

hide…