Lynn McNicoll, MD and Renee Shield, PhD
Alpert Medical School, Brown University
ENHANCING TEACHING SKILLS OF
GERIATRICS FACULTY
BACKGROUND
The need to care for an aging population is rapidly
expanding
 There are not enough healthcare professionals
trained in gerontology or geriatrics to care for an
aging population
 Geriatrics should ideally incorporate the training of
other healthcare providers in geriatric principles
and management
 Few geriatric/gerontology programs emphasize
developing master teachers in geriatrics

BACKGROUND
Successful faculty development programs require
a significant time commitment by Geriatric
Education Clinicians (GEC)
 Most universities have faculty development
programs that are minimally utilized by clinical
faculty
 As part of the Reynolds grant, the Alpert Medical
School Division of Geriatrics worked collaboratively
with the Brown Sheridan Center for Teaching and
Learning

SHERIDAN CENTER FOR TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and
Learning honors Brown University's long-standing
commitment to teaching
 The Center recognizes the diversity of learning
styles and encourages reflective, independent, lifelong learning
 Through its programs, services and publications,
the Sheridan Center explores a variety of
pedagogical approaches and offers support to all
members of Brown's teaching community

PURPOSE

In collaboration with the Sheridan Center, the
Division of Geriatrics developed a faculty
development program that provides ongoing
training, reflection, and opportunity for
improvement and is specific to geriatric
educator clinicians (GEC).
AIMS

1.
2.
The aims of this workshop are:
to describe a structured faculty development program
for GEC that accommodated the unique needs of
geriatrics faculty teaching various learners in unique
settings
To identify benefits of the program by:
1. Analyzing the aggregated feedback from GEC
participants regarding the program to determine
benefits of the program
2. Analyzing the Individual Teaching Consultation (ITC)
reports for unifying themes for faculty development
3. Quantifying the scholarly activity among GEC
participants and the impact of the Sheridan program.
METHODS

Year 1
 Sheridan Teaching Certification Level 1

Years 2 and 3
 New members – Sheridan Teaching
Certification Level 1
 Sheridan Teaching Certification Level 4
 Monthly Workshops
Self directed learning
SHERIDAN CERTIFICATION LEVEL 1
Seminars
1. Developing a reflective teaching practice
2. Defining your goals and objectives
3. Teaching to different learning styles
4. Grading and Evaluation
5. Teaching as persuasive communication
Examples:
Syllabus development
Goal development
Effective communication
Gauging the learner’s feedback and
assessment
SHERIDAN CERTIFICATION LEVEL 1
Workshops



Followed 1-2 weeks after each seminar
Facilitators- Geriatrician or Sheridan Center
faculty
Assignments:
e.g. a. Questions assigned following the
seminars
b. Syllabus development
SHERIDAN CERTIFICATION LEVEL 1
Microteaching Session
•
•
•
15-minute presentations to the whole group, with
immediate feedback from the group on content,
style, presentation
Encouraged participants to critically appraise
colleagues for improvement
Topics were medical or non-medical e.g., Hobbies
“I appreciated the feedback. And in addition, it
gave me a chance to provide feedback in a
constructive manner to my peers in a nonthreatening manner.”
SHERIDAN CERTIFICATION LEVEL 1
Individual Teaching Consultation (ITC)
•
•
•
Two Sheridan Center faculty educators attend a 1 hour
lecture given by participant and videotape session
Faculty review videotape and provide a written final
report
Participants and faculty meet to review consultation
results and discuss improvement strategies.
“Immensely helpful! … It was very useful to have expert
educators analyze my teaching style, mannerisms,
objectives, and evaluate to help enhance my teaching.”
YEARS 2&3 – NEW MEMBERS
2 junior faculty and 3 senior fellows
participated in level 1 certification in
subsequent years
 They participated in GEC monthly workshops
 They participated in writing the paper but did
not submit data

YEARS 2&3 – MONTHLY WORKSHOPS

Self-directed but collaborative learning
 Individual and group annual goals developed
collaboratively
 Curriculum development seminars
 Faculty development seminars
 Writing workshops by professional writers and
consultants
 Invited presentations e.g., IT powerpoint, wiki,
social media
 Support group for geriatric clinician educators
 Peer mentoring
YEARS 2&3

Projects that benefitted from the workshop
 Reynolds
projects
 Anatomy cadaver treasure hunt
 Mandatory internal medicine block rotation
 Mandatory family medicine rotation at affiliated
hospital
 Geriatric medicine fellowship program
 Nursing education programs
YEARS 2&3

Sheridan Teaching Certification Level 4
 Enhanced
training on critique and observation
 Participants become teaching consultants for
geriatric peers and other faculty
 Learning how to give constructive feedback teamed
up with an expert teacher
DATA COLLECTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
Evaluations of Certification Level 1 - Year 1
members only
Aggregated results of ITC reports – Year 1
members only
Evaluations of GEC faculty development program
- Years 2 and 3
Aggregated scholarly activities – Year 1 members
only
1.
Comparing baseline 2006-7 academic year to the
following 3 years
RESULTS 8/9 completed Certification level 1 (last
participant completed it in year 2)
 Overall, program improved

 Reflective
teaching ability
 Lecturing skills
 Self-confidence
RESULTS - GEC COMMENTS REGARDING
SHERIDAN PROGRAM
Reflective
Teaching
“…makes you a better communicator and generates
interest [and enthusiasm] in students o learn and
become competent in a topic.”
Lecturing Skills
“Before, I would place all my efforts on the content of a
lecture, my agenda, and my delivery. Once over, I would
feel relieved. Now, I take the time to reflect and
challenge myself to assess the needs of the learners
and evaluate whether I reached my teaching objectives.”
Self-Assessment “I have never felt confident nor ‘good’ at teaching,
and Confidence always thinking that I did not have the ‘stage presence’
to be effective. SC has given me the plan to know how to
prepare both content and my mental being to become
confident – now I just need to do it – and do it!”
RESULTS - GEC COMMENTS REGARDING
SHERIDAN PROGRAM
Microteaching “I appreciated the feedback. It gave me
Session
a chance to provide feedback in a
Comments
constructive manner to my peers in a
non-threatening manner.”
ITC
“Immensely helpful… to have expert
Comments
educators analyze my teaching style,
mannerisms, and objectives,”
“Observing myself on video was
extremely insightful for my non-verbal
communication.”
RESULTS – COMMON THEMES IN ITC
Logistics and
Handouts
Punctuality is appreciated
Distribute handouts at the beginning and not
during the talk (too distracting)
Use laser pointers judiciously
Avoid acronyms
Stand if possible and make sure to have eye
contact with all learners
Use movement to retain audience attention,
move closer to audience who ask questions.
Voice
Appropriate volume and pace for learners
Avoid reading directly from notes
Avoid ‘Ums’ and ‘Uhs’
Modify tone or emphasis when mentioning
important points.
RESULTS – COMMON THEMES IN ITC
Addressing the
Use tangible examples and pictures or tables
Needs of Different or graphs for visual learners
Learners
Use personal examples to make the topic real
for learners
Notice if learners are not as engaged and try
to change tactics in real time
leave enough time for response (5 seconds),
acknowledge response
Introduction
Provide audience with a plan
Use humor, a hook, or a clinical case to
engage the learner
Ask audience to introduce themselves or
assess their current level of knowledge.
RESULTS – COMMON THEMES IN ITC
Content
Use contextual examples – helps make
complicated theoretical concepts more
concrete
Align objectives, outline and sections of the talk
Have concluding or summarizing slides after
each major section.
Conclusion
Ending with a question is a nice summative
mechanism
Allow time for questions at the end and make
self available afterwards for learners who are
uncomfortable sharing with the group
Ask learners if content is appropriate for all
learners especially if learners have different
levels of training.
RESULTS – SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY
NH
Division
lecture of Ger
lectures
Local
Present
ations
Invited
Poster
Journal National
Present or Paper article or Comm
ations Abstract
book
Member
chapter
ship
Total
%
increase
from
baseline
MD
(n=3)
Baseline
2006-7
5
7
5
2
3
8
0
30
Year 1
2007-8
6
10
7
0
3
18
2
46
53
Year 2
2008-9
6
10
13
6
5
15
5
60
100
Year 3
2009-10
8
9
12
9
13
25
5
81
170
RESULTS – SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY
NH
Division
lecture of Ger
lectures
Local
Invited Poster
Journal
National Total
%
Present Presen or Paper article or
Comm
increase
ations tations Abstract
book
Members
from
chapter
hip
baseline
NP (n=5)
Baseline
2006-7
0
12
3
3
6
1
0
25
Year 1
2007-8
13
15
6
3
2
2
0
41
64
Year 2
2008-9
15
14
7
2
3
3
0
44
76
Year 3
2009-10
8
24
20
4
1
3
0
60
140
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical faculty are expected to be expert
clinicians as well as master educators
 GEC lack resources, dedicated time, and have
revenue expectations which limit their ability to
become master educators
 External faculty development programs are
highly valued but difficult for GEC to attend

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic review of faculty development
programs showed the following as key features
of a successful program
 Experiential
learning activities
 Timely and constructive feedback
 Collaborative relationships with colleagues
 Strategies based on proven educational principles
 Using a variety of educational methods to meet the
learning styles of different learners
CONCLUSIONS
We believe our program met all these criteria
 Also interdisciplinary composition of the group
was very beneficial
 Increase in scholarly activity is remarkable
(170% and 140% increase from baseline) for
physicians and nurse practitioners respectively
 Greatly increased odds of promotion
