Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Faculty development is pivotal for supporting teachers in health professions education, yet concerns remain about its value in terms of change in practice. Attention is therefore shifting towards offering activities situated in practice and providing faculty with opportunities to develop their own local practices, focusing more on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as well as collegial interactions and teamwork. This study reports how a new faculty development programme focusing on scholarship and local change work was designed, and how the programme supported faculty in their Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and collegial networking. Methods We describe the co-design and implementation of an eight-month, department-based faculty development programme at a medical university, built around scholarship and the development and documentation of a scholarly educational project. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data, we explore participants’ and mentors’ experiences of the programme. Results Participants reported that the programme contributed to their professional growth and development as teachers and strengthened their capacity and mindset to pursue scholarly educational development. Working closely with other faculty members from the same department enhanced opportunities for feedback and collaborative learning, and the programme was perceived as creating a platform for continued networking beyond its duration. Conclusion This study provides an example of how faculty development can be purposefully designed to address key concerns in the faculty development literature related to transfer and change in practice. The findings highlight the value of a longitudinal design and locally situated programme that enables collegial interaction and collaboration, and suggest that supporting faculty in developing as scholars strengthens their capacity to improve teaching and enact educational change in practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elmberger et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: