NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
PDF pending restoration PDF pending restoration
ERIC Number: ED139330
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1977-Jun
Pages: 219
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Second Preliminary Report of the Faculty Development Survey. Special Report.
Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Four principal issues were addressed in this second preliminary report of the faculty development survey conducted by the AAMC. They were: (1) how medical faculty members have prepared for their roles as teachers, including formal training in teaching and their reports of workshops and teaching experiences that influenced them; (2) identification of specific instructional practices used by faculty members in specific situations; (3) identification of problem areas in instruction; and (4) identification of problem areas in which faculty members would be willing to accept outside assistance. Focus on this report is on issues (3) and (4). Two formats were used in the survey: the forced-choice item used in inventories and a written simulation covering instruction and instruction-related problems. A multiple matrix sampling approach was used, and a 75 percent response rate was achieved from the 2,688 randomly-selected individuals on medical school faculties who had undergraduate teaching responsibilities. The results presented in tabular form provide additional baseline data on medical school faculty members with focus on attitudes toward and uses of evaluation. Specific interpretations of selected results from the total survey will be presented in the final report scheduled for December 1977. (LBH)
Publication Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: N/A
Sponsor: Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI.; Commonwealth Fund, New York, NY.; Health Resources Administration (DHEW/PHS), Bethesda, MD. Bureau of Health Manpower.
Authoring Institution: Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Note: Some tables may be marginally legible due to print quality of the original document