Print this page Email this page Users Online: 251 | Click here to view old website
Home About us Editorial Board Search Current Issue Archives Submit Article Author Instructions Contact Us Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 39-40

The 5X2 backward planning model for faculty development


1 Forensic Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Medical Education, WAH Medical College, Rawalpindi, Punjab, India
3 Department of Medical Education, Peshawar Medical College, Peshawar, Pakistan
4 Department of Medical Education, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan

Date of Submission23-Apr-2020
Date of Decision13-Jun-2020
Date of Acceptance09-May-2021
Date of Web Publication30-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Samar Abdelazim Ahmed
Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Abbassia Square, Cairo
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/efh.EfH_131_20


How to cite this article:
Ahmed SA, Younas A, Salem U, Mashhood S. The 5X2 backward planning model for faculty development. Educ Health 2021;34:39-40

How to cite this URL:
Ahmed SA, Younas A, Salem U, Mashhood S. The 5X2 backward planning model for faculty development. Educ Health [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 4];34:39-40. Available from: https://www.educationforhealth.net/text.asp?2021/34/1/39/320335



Dear Editor,

There is a clear distinction between faculty training and faculty development (FD). Needs assessments used in the beginning of planning are not as often practiced on the ground as they are reported.[1],[2] Thus, the linear thinking model of FD is not sufficient.[1] and the need for a new model for FD arises to reinvent the way we approach FD and should be considered as a continuous cyclical process, rather than just a direct one-time measure.

The model we are proposing is the result of a process of backward planning.[1],[3] To this end, we first identified the criteria of a good FD experience through a series of focus groups with participation from representatives of 14 schools who were a part of a government reform discussion in Egypt to redesign the linear approach to planning a FD program. The protocols of focus group required these participants to address the discrepancy between how they develop FD programs and how they report this process. They were asked how much they think that the actual plan for development relies on needs assessment and how much information they can elicit from it. Participants were also asked how needs assessment was done in their institutes and how data from needs assessment were analyzed. This resulted in a list of 72 attributes of a good FD experience. The model was then developed after analyzing the themes emerging from the feedback.

The resulting model describes five stages marked with D each shedding focus on two subareas. Starting from the “Decide” stage, two decisions need to be made including the context of the training and the faculty target for the training segregating them into four groups based on awareness and motivation. The second is the “Define” stage where both institutional and individual training needs and thus objectives are defined. The third is the “Design” stage where the material used in training and the methods are both designed. The fourth is the “Direct” stage where the person responsible is requested to manage the training events in addition to the development of the community of practice. The last is the “Dissect” stage where all the processes and procedures are revisited and scrutinized making sure that the key performance indicators and the intended learning outcomes have been achieved. This model [Figure 1] adds greatly to the field of FD envisioning the process as a dynamic nonlinear process where every stage needs revisiting to the outcomes of the prior stage and a forecast into the plans for the next phase.
Figure 1: The 5x2 backward planning model

Click here to view


When this model was presented to educationists in this course of work, there was agreement regarding its flexibility and inclusiveness. The model positions faculty as stakeholders segregated into groups and not one group where needs are tested. The model described in this work was face validated as a first step toward implementation and further validation.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Ahmed S, Shehata M, Hassanien M. Emerging faculty needs for enhancing student engagement on a virtual platform. MedEdPublish 2020;9:75.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Shaye DA, Tollefson T, Shah I, Krishnan G, Matic D, Figari M, et al. Backward planning a craniomaxillofacial trauma curriculum for the surgical workforce in low-resource settings. World J Surg 2018;42:3514-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Neubauer BE, Witkop CT, Varpio L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect Med Educ 2019;8:90-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed598    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded63    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal