Faculty Teachers’ Perspectives of Resident Academic Half Day
- 20 Downloads
Academic Half Day (AHD) is an innovative curricular model in which learning is condensed into half day blocks. Perspectives of faculty teachers who have implemented AHD have not been well described. The objective of our study was to explore faculty teachers’ perspectives of resident AHD.
We conducted a qualitative study using individual interviews (Sept–Dec 2017) of faculty who coordinated and taught resident AHD. We used a semi-structured interview guide, analyzed data using constant comparative methods, and collected data until reaching saturation. In accordance with grounded theory methodology, we iteratively developed codes and identified major themes, resolving discrepancies by consensus.
Twelve faculty participated in interviews; 75% previously gave noon conference. Analysis yielded three themes.
Recruitment of Teaching Faculty
Recruiting enough colleagues to teach at AHD was challenging. Competing clinical demands, time commitment to teach, and hesitancy facilitating small group learning compared to giving a lecture limited recruitment.
Teaching, Resident Engagement, and Learning
Faculty valued different teaching formats. Residents were engaged in active learning, and faculty enjoyed getting to know residents. Long-term learning outcomes were uncertain.
Challenges Selecting Curricular Content
Choosing topics with limited teaching time was difficult; faculty worried insufficient content was delivered. The coordination of AHD within the residency core curriculum was unclear.
Faculty feel residents are engaged in learning at AHD. Faculty face challenges recruiting colleagues to teach and worry insufficient topics are covered. The impact of their teaching on long-term learning is uncertain. Further work is needed to coordinate AHD with other learning activities.
KeywordsAcademic Half Day Graduate medical education Teaching
We thank Sheryl Martinson for her transcription services. We also thank Lindsey Lane, BM BCh, Janice Hanson, PhD EdS, and Sheilah Jimenez (certified training administrator of graduate medical education) for their reviews of this manuscript. Study findings, in part, were presented at poster sessions at the Association of Pediatric Program Directors and Pediatric Academic Societies’ 2018 national conferences.
This study was funded by the West Region of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (grant # 181346).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 8.Jorgensen D. Participant observation. In: Scott R, Kosslyn S, editors. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015. p. 82–123.Google Scholar
- 9.Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008.Google Scholar
- 10.Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar
- 11.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatrics. 2017. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs_2017-07-01.pdf Accessed May 14 2018.
- 14.Bolman L, Deal T. Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Wiley imprint; 2008.Google Scholar