We studied the academic outcomes of graduates of our online MEd program. The overall methodology and use of the results will be presented in this Education Session. Our findings are currently being used as additional approaches to program evaluation as well as marketing and recruitment tools.
Introduction
Medical education research is a developing and expanding field. The importance of linking medical education to clinical outcomes has been emphasized.1,2 Practical strategies for medical educators to increase scholarly activity have been published.3 However, traditional physician education often lacks formal training in educational theory, curriculum development and evaluation. This need has led to educator development programs such as the Advancing Pediatric Educator Excellence (APEX) Teaching Program4 and the Clinical Teaching Program;5 however, these programs focus on improving teaching skills.
A few faculty development programs focused on educational research have published programmatic outcomes. Participants in the Medical Education Research Certificate program, by the Association of American Medical Colleges, documented increased knowledge and activity in medical education research.6 Graduates of the Educational Scholars Program7, demonstrated engagement in scholarship.8 However, these faculty development programs require significant in-person training with the challenges related to travel. Online learning may mitigate these challenges with more flexible learning opportunities, decreased costs, and enhanced access.9
An online master of education (MEd) degree program for physicians was created in 1999 by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati10 to leverage the benefits of online learning and the needs for formal educational research training. Outcomes from the first few graduates of this program indicated success in publication, grant funding, teaching awards, and promotion.11 Currently, the 30-semester hour program focuses on adult education, curriculum and instruction, and medical education research with the aim of publishing the final master’s project. Relevant leadership topics are embedded within multiple courses.12 This project describes the academic outcomes of the program’s first 15 years of graduates. Historically, approximately 80% of graduates have been physicians and 20% have been allied health professionals.
Methods and Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study was a descriptive analysis of 112 MEd graduates’ (2001-2015) academic outcomes. Graduates received an email request for an updated CV; non-responders received two additional e-mail requests. Data from CVs were entered into a secure REDCap™ database and aggregated for analysis. The outcomes of interest included 1) total peer-reviewed publications since matriculation sorted as first, second, or senior author; 2) total current and past grant funding classified as education related, other, external, or internal; 3) current institutional educational leadership roles; 4) awards and honors since matriculation; and 5) academic appointments. We used content analysis to review CVs and classified the items of interest related to academic productivity. Publications, grants, and awards and honors were summed and classified as education related or other, based on a predetermined coding scheme. Publications classified as education related were compared to a list of graduates’ final project titles to determine the percentage of those who published their final research projects. Institutional educational leadership positions and academic appointments were analyzed for content, and then summed. Any discrepancies in interpretation of the data were discussed by two of the authors until consensus was reached. Graduates’ consent was implied by submitting updated CVs according to our Institutional Review Board approval.
Results
Of the 112 eligible graduates, 74 (67%) submitted CVs representing 63 (85%) physicians and 11 (15%) allied health care professionals. Since matriculation, 65 (88%) respondents reported publishing 978 total peer-reviewed manuscripts and 417 (42%) were education related. A total of 54 (73%) respondents had educational publications. Final masters’ projects were published by 28 (38%) respondents. Educational project topics included curriculum development (36%), evaluation and assessment of learning (32%), instructional strategies and technology (14%), feedback and communication (11%), and other (11%). Approximately $32.6 million dollars in total current and past grant funding was reported by 42 (57%) respondents with 114 external and 83 internal grants. Of the respondents, 16 (38%) had received past or current education related grant funding. Almost half of the respondents (N=35) held at least one institutional educational leadership role with several serving in multiple roles. [Table 1]. Sixty-three respondents reported 407 awards and honors, with 143 education related. There were 121 awards at the institutional level (e.g. Golden Apple Award; Outstanding Teacher Award) and 22 from professional organizations (e.g. Walter Tunnesen Advancing Pediatric Residency Education; Darlene Buczak Award for Innovations in Medical Education). Fifty-nine (80%) respondents hold academic appointments, including 10 professors, 14 associate professors, 32 assistant professors, and 3 instructors.
Discussion
Graduates of our online MEd program demonstrated academic achievement through successful publications, including their final master’s project, and funding. Many graduates also hold a variety of educational leadership roles and have received educational honors and awards.
Similar to health service and bench research, educational researchers require rigorous training.13 This is especially true as medical educators expand their research outcomes,1 to include evidence of provider change and patient outcomes, represented on the upper levels of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation pyramid.14 We believe that our curriculum, which emphasizes educational research, may have influenced our graduates’ scholarly productivity. This training has important implications for both the individual and institution,15 as institutional RPT guidelines often focus on scholarly productivity as the marker of academic success. More importantly, our learners and patients deserve well-trained medical education researchers to ensure that newly developed curricula provide highly effective and efficient training that impacts patient outcomes. This type of education design and evaluation may increase education related publications and funding, impacting the institution’s reputation and ranking.8
This study has several limitations. First, these scholarly outcomes described are associations. Second, our outcomes may not be generalizable to other education faculty; those who undertake a MEd degree may inherently be more academically minded. In addition, without an institution, track, and rank specific control group, we cannot compare our graduates’ productivity to other faculty. Finally, while our response rate is acceptable, the results reported may not be representative of all our graduates. The reported publication of our graduates’ final projects may also be falsely lower as submitted CVs may not have been completely updated and a quarter of the respondents were recent graduates, not allowing enough time for project publication.
Conclusion
Our online MEd program graduates reported substantial academic achievements over the past 15 years. Formal training in educational theory and research through participation in a graduate-level degree program may be essential for physicians interested in academic careers in medical education.
References
1. Chen F, Bauchner H, Burstin H. A call for outcomes research in medical education. Acad Med 2004; 79:(10):955-960.
2. Whitcomb M. Research in medical education: What do we know about the link between what doctors are taught and what they do? Acad Med 2002; 77:1067-8.
3. Crites G, Gaines J, Cottrell S, Kalsihman S, Gusic M, Mavis B, Durning S. Medical education scholarship: An introductory guide: AMEE Guide No. 89. Med Teach 2014; 36(8):657-675.
4. American Academy of Pediatrics 2016. Advancing Pediatric Educator Excellence (APEX) Teaching Program. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/Committees-Councils-Sections/Sec.... Accessed January 12, 2017.
5. Stanford School of Medicine. Clinical Teaching Program http://sfdc.stanford.edu/clinical_teaching.html. Accessed January 6, 2017.
6. Gruppen L, Yoder E, Frye A, Perkowski L, Mavis B. Supporting medical education research quality: The Association of American Medical Colleges’ medical education research certificate program. Acad Med 2011; 86(1):122-6.
7. Academic Pediatrics Association. APA Educator Scholars Program. https://www.academicpeds.org/education/education_scholars_program.cfm. Accessed January 6, 2017.
8. Jerardi K, Mogilner L, Turner T, Chandran L, Baldwin C, Klein M. Investment in faculty as educational scholars: Outcomes from the National Educational Scholars Program. J Pediatr 2016; 171, 4-5.e1.
9. Treacy B, Kleiman G, Peterson K. Successful online professional development. Learn Lead Tech 2002; 30(1): 42-7.
10. Lewis K, Baker R. Development and implementation of an online Master's Degree in Education program for health care professionals. Acad Med 2005; 80(2):141-146.
11. Baker R, Lewis K. Online master's degree in education for healthcare professionals: early outcomes of a new program. Med Teach 2007; 29(9/10):987-9.
12. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Online masters degree and certificate programs.https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/education/clinical/graduate/grad/mas.... Accessed January 17, 2017.
13. Klein M, O’Toole J, McLinden D, DeWitt T. Training tomorrow’s medical education leaders: Creating a general pediatric master educator fellowship. J Pediatr 2013; 162(3): 440-441.e1.
14. Morrison J. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Evaluation. BMJ 2003; 326(7385):385-7.
15. Daily J. The quest to become a master teacher: One cardiologist’s story and recommendations for others. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(21):2382-4.