Putting Med Ed Training in the Hands of Busy Clinician Educators: A Pilot Study of the Med Ed Minis Program

Putting Med Ed Training in the Hands of Busy Clinician Educators: A Pilot Study of the Med Ed Minis Program | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Putting Med Ed Training in the Hands of Busy Clinician Educators: A Pilot Study of the Med Ed Minis Program Marie K. Norman, Sarah Merriam, Melissa McNeil, Doris M. Rubio, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9013677/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Introduction: The roles of clinician-educators (CEs) have expanded dramatically over recent decades, highlighting the need for robust, continuing teacher training for CEs at every career stage. However, formal training programs require a time commitment that is not feasible for many busy clinicians while informal training options may not address the skills and topics that CEs need when they need them. We initiated the Med Ed Faculty Development Program (Med Ed Minis) with the goal of making robust, teacher-focused CME training more flexible, personalized, and accessible to CEs across their career trajectories. Methods In response to a needs assessment revealing a strong desire for online CE training (n = 87), we developed the Med Ed Minis: six instructor-led, 4-week, synchronous modules focused on high-priority skill areas. The full module sequence was offered annually. We then assessed the program’s effectiveness using enrollment data and module surveys over three years. Results Thirty-seven surveys were returned. Results (n = 37) showed that participants found the modules valuable and cited concrete ways they were able to apply module content to their work. Ninety-seven percent of participants said they would recommend the Minis to a colleague. However, despite the positive response, enrollment numbers (37 unique individuals over the three years) were not commensurate with needs assessment results. Discussion Our results show that high-quality CE training can indeed be offered online. However, synchronous training elements continued to pose a significant barrier to participation. Conclusion To meet the needs of busy CEs, efforts should be made to offer high-quality, interactive content through even more flexible, asynchronous formats. Background Teacher training for clinician-educators (CEs) is generally offered through two channels: formal degree and certificate programs in medical or health professions education and professional development seminars and workshops. Both these options have shortcomings. Degree and certificate programs require a commitment of time and resources that is simply not feasible for most busy clinicians. Seminars and workshops, for their part, may not address the skills and topics that CEs need when they need them. Scholars have called for more flexible and easily accessed faculty development training options to help CEs build essential teaching skills. 1 , 2 We set out to provide such training by developing the online Med Ed Faculty Development Program, or Med Ed Minis. Our goal was to provide online medical education training that is accessible to busy CE faculty while still fostering deep and meaningful learning. The roles of clinician-educators have expanded and shifted dramatically over the last several decades, 3 highlighting the need for robust faculty development. 4 , 5 Training for CEs is needed in a number of areas, including leadership and scholarship, 4, 6 but the central domain in CE faculty development is learning to teach effectively. 7 Learning to teach is rarely part of a clinician’s formal training, 8, 9 yet teaching responsibilities are only growing. Moreover, with the advent of new clinical priorities and technologies, the development of new teaching skills (e.g., teaching remotely, teaching via simulation, teaching communication skills) is more important than ever. 4 , 10 Helping CEs develop strong and adaptive knowledge and skills for teaching is critical, not only for effectively training the next generation of physicians 11 but also for contributing to the professional identity formation and sense of purpose that motivate and sustain CEs in the field. 12 However, the teacher training available to CEs is generally offered either through formal degree and certificate programs in medical or health professions education or through professional development seminars and workshops. 5 The first of these options provides the most robust form of training via coursework, instructor feedback, and (in the case of a degree) a research project and thesis defense. However, degree and certificate programs present serious obstacles to participation. The time required for coursework can pose an impossible hurdle for busy clinicians. Tuition presents an added barrier. And a limited number of institutions even offer such programs. Seminars and workshops, on the other hand, are generally free of cost and easier (at least hypothetically) to incorporate within busy clinical schedules. However, seminars and workshops are typically offered sporadically, or in the context of professional meetings, and may not dovetail with the real-time skillset or area of focus that best serves the CE. Moreover, such offerings tend to only scratch the surface of a given topic. While workshops may be a bit longer in duration, most seminars last approximately an hour and may not provide deep opportunities for CEs to apply and receive feedback on the skills they are learning. Our goal in developing the Med Ed Minis was to provide an alternative (not a replacement) form of teacher training for CEs, one that is more flexible and affordable than degree and certificate programs yet more robust and hands-on than workshops and seminars. This work was conducted at a large, public university under the auspices of an institute dedicated to supporting clinical research and health professions education. Methods In keeping with best practices in curriculum development, 13, 14 we began by conducting a needs assessment of faculty clinicians via a survey questionnaire we developed ourselves (see Appendix A) . We were interested in learning if CEs felt a need and desire for new forms of medical education training and, if so, what topics they would be interested in learning more about, and in what training formats. The request for participation in the needs assessment was distributed via email to faculty members of all ranks in the School of Medicine, along with a survey link. We began the survey by asking respondents if they taught medical learners as part of their professional responsibilities. Those who responded “no” were thanked for their time, and the survey concluded. Respondents who answered in the affirmative were asked a series of 5-point Likert scale queries to gauge their level of agreement with statements such as “Training in medical education would help me be a better teacher,” “I wish I had more faculty development in the field of medical education,” and “I would be interested in taking online modules on medical education topics.” Respondents were then asked about prior training in medical education, the level of learners they teach (e.g., medical students, residents, fellows, faculty, Allied Health Professions, graduate students), leadership roles they hold or have held (e.g., course director, clerkship director, division chief), and barriers they had encountered to pursuing faculty development in medical education. We then provided respondents with a list of 36 possible module topics and asked them to indicate 1) degree of confidence in knowledge and skill and 2) the degree to which they desire more training, with the goal of identifying topics of greatest interest. These skill areas were grouped into categories, informed by the domains of CE competencies outlined by Van Melle et al (2019): 15 Education Theory, Teaching Skills, Assessment, Curriculum Development, Communication, Leadership, Scholarship, and Others. We also collected demographic information about age, gender, academic rank, and primary department. As the survey was conducted for program development and evaluation purposes, with no identifying information or risk to participants, IRB approval was waived by the University of Pittsburgh’s Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) and consent was not required. Eighty-seven respondents (n = 87) completed the needs assessment. Participants came from a variety of departments/divisions, with Medicine (18%), Pediatrics (14%), and Surgery (14%) most strongly represented. Respondents were a median age of 49 years, and 48% were female, 43% were male, and gender was not specified for the remainder. Nearly a third (31%) were associate professors, while 22% were assistant professors, and 26% were full professors. Medical students (83%) and residents (83%) were the most common learner populations taught, with 86% of participants selecting more than one population. Seventy percent indicated that they had completed at least one prior training in medical education, with local professional development seminars being the most common form of training accessed (45%). Most participants indicated that they currently were program directors (54%) or had been in the past, with 56% of participants selecting more than one leadership role. Respondents showed a clear desire for training in medical education, indicating agreement or strong agreement with the statements: “Training in medical education is important for developing skills as an educator” (4.62/5), “Training in medical education would help me be a better teacher” (4.56/5), and “I would be interested in taking online modules on medical education topics” (4.26/5). These perspectives were shared by faculty at all career stages. In response to questions about skill areas in which training was needed, participants expressed the highest interest in topics in the Assessment and Teaching Skills categories and lowest interest in topics in the Communication and Scholarship categories. Topics rated highest included “Giving effective feedback,” “Identification and remediation of knowledge deficit,” “Teaching for retention,” and “Being an effective mentor.” Topics rated lowest included “Understanding the structure and rules of undergraduate medical education,” “Poster development and presentation,” “Grant writing,” and “Incorporating medical humanities into your teaching.” Program Development The program leaders (CS, SM, MN)—all experienced educators—drew on four theoretical frameworks for the design of the program: Backward Design 16 : An approach to course design that begins by identifying measurable outcomes and building backwards to develop well-aligned instruction. We employed backward design in the development of learning objectives, assignments, and content for the modules. Community of Inquiry Framework (CoIF) 17 : A theoretical framework focused on deliberately building social, cognitive, and instructor “presence” to promote connection and accountability in online courses. We incorporated frequent check-ins with learners, regular instructor and peer feedback, and technology tools to promote asynchronous engagement. Adult Learning Theory: 18 An approach to teaching adult learners that (among other things) prioritizes cultivating practical skills with immediate application to learners’ own work. Module topics were chosen for their practical relevance and assignments encouraged learners to apply key concepts in their own work contexts. Multimedia Design Principles: 19 Twelve principles to guide the design of online and hybrid instruction with the goal of reducing extraneous cognitive load and directing cognitive resources toward learning. Instructional and graphic design support were enlisted to create attractive, easy-to-navigate module interfaces to focus learner attention and eliminate confusion. Modules were four weeks long, a length designed to be substantial vis-à-vis learning, yet manageable around clinical schedules. Weekly synchronous sessions were set for times when CEs tend to have greater flexibility in their schedules (e.g., late afternoon, early evening). Each module comprised weekly instructor-led class sessions and asynchronous assignments. Modules included short readings, videos, podcasts, and assignments tailored to learners’ own teaching contexts. Several modules integrated additional educational technology tools (e.g., Padlet, 20 Perusall 21 ) to promote learner engagement. The modules were built in the Moodle 22 learning management system. In response to topic areas the needs assessment indicated were high value, the modules chosen for initial development were as follows (see Table 1 ), with a plan to add additional modules over time. Table 1 Med Ed Minis Module Titles Curriculum Development in Medical Education Remediating Medical Knowledge Deficits Teaching Diagnostic Reasoning Effective Feedback Teaching for Retention Effective Mentoring [Table 1 ] Instructors were chosen carefully. All were graduates of the University of Pittsburgh’s master’s program in Medical Education with reputations as outstanding teachers. In preparation for developing the Minis, each received eight hours of training in online module design from the university’s Innovative Design for Education and Assessment (IDEA) Lab that included the development of one segment of the course. They then developed the remainder of the module using course design templates provided by the IDEA Lab, with guidance from program leaders (MM, CS, and MN). Instructors were compensated for the initial development of the module as well as for each instance teaching it. Program Implementation The Med Ed Minis were delivered through Moodle, 22 an open-source learning management system that accommodates enrollments from beyond the university. Learners could take modules individually or as a set, earning a badge for each module completed and a certificate for completing all six. Modules cost $ 400 each, the cost typically covered by departments or professional discretionary funds. We promoted the program widely across the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences using multiple methods, including email, presentations at department meetings, digital signage in hospital and academic buildings, social media, and posters. One of our senior medical education experts (MM) who was teaching at another university during the program’s second year promoted it there as well. The six modules were offered in succession annually over the course of three years. Synchronous sessions were held once a week on weekdays in the late afternoon/early evening to make scheduling easier. Program Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the Med Ed Minis, we developed a standard module evaluation and embedded it in each module (see Appendix B) . These evaluations asked learners to indicate their level of agreement with a set of statements about the appropriateness of the length, pace, workload, and content of the module, using a 5-point Likert scale (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). Learners were then asked to use the same scale to indicate agreement with these statements: “The course instructor was effective at teaching this content” and “I would recommend this module to a colleague.” Using the same scale, learners were asked their level of agreement with statements about the effectiveness of various module components (readings, videos, discussion boards, synchronous meetings, and assignments). Finally, they were asked three open-ended questions about what they found valuable about the module, what they would change, and how they planned to use what they learned in their future teaching. The University of Pittsburgh’s HRPO waived the need for ethics approval and consenting for these surveys on the grounds that they constituted program evaluation and not human subjects research. Program Evaluation Results Thirty-four individuals enrolled in one or more of the six modules over three years. An average of five learners enrolled in each module, and two completed all six modules, earning a certificate. A total of thirty-seven evaluations were completed (n = 37) with several participants completing more than one evaluation. Participants’ agreement with statements about the appropriateness of pace, length, workload, content, as well as their assessment of instructor quality are described in Table 2 . Table 2 Median and Mean Likert-Scale Ratings of Agreement with Statements About Module Appropriateness, Instructor Effectiveness, and Likelihood of Recommending Module to a Colleague Indicate your level of agreement where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree n Min Max Median Mean St. Dev. The pace of the module was appropriate 36 2 5 5 4.56 0.64 The length of the module was appropriate 37 4 5 5 4.62 0.48 The module workload was appropriate 37 3 5 5 4.54 0.55 The module instructor was effective at teaching this content 37 2 5 5 4.68 0.66 The module content was appropriate to my needs 37 4 5 5 4.65 0.48 I would recommend this module to a colleague 37 3 5 5 4.73 0.50 [Table 2 ] On 5-point Likert scale questions about the effectiveness of different module components (1 = not very effective and 5 = very effective), participants gave high ratings on assignments (4.51/5), readings (4.46/5), synchronous meetings (4.75/5), and videos (4.51/5). Discussion boards were slightly lower at 4.32/5. Responses to open-ended questions were also largely positive, highlighting the value of the skills learned, the quality of the instructors, and the opportunity that synchronous sessions offered interactions with colleagues and instructors. For example: This course was one of the best I have taken. It was focused and helped to identify key items that I could take back to my program. The instructor created a really great learning environment where people were able to discuss challenges and successes they've had with mentoring. It was probably one of the most useful courses I have attended ever. Perhaps more importantly, respondents provided specific examples of how they planned to apply or were already applying the module content. For example: This has already impacted how I approach teaching rounds. It has also helped me work with someone who is currently struggling. The ideas and motivation from this course pervade nearly all my professional work, including mentorship. I will be incorporating the framework of illness scripts into board review sessions I do for renal fellows. Suggestions for improvement included providing optional videos, papers, or reference lists; spacing sessions and due dates farther apart; and incorporating role plays. See representative quotes in Table 3 . Table 3 Representative Learner Responses to Open-Ended Questions Question Representative Comments What was most valuable to you about the course? • This course was one of the best I have taken. It was focused and helped to identify key items that I could take back to my program. The readings were insightful, and the discussions were also focused. I appreciated the feedback given on assignments. • I have really needed a structured way to approach my learners who are struggling. This course helped me to identify why they might be struggling so that I can respond appropriately. It also gave me tools to help me improve my teaching for those who are doing well. • Online and asynchronous discussions helped me better understand curriculum development. Great to learn together with colleagues who have similar issues and passions. • The instructor created a really great learning environment where people were able to discuss challenges and successes they've had with mentoring. I thought that the mentoring contract was a particularly useful concept. • It was probably one of the most useful courses I have attended ever. What would you change about the course? • It might be great if the course can provide optional videos (or papers) based on topics each week. Maybe 1 per week. • I would have liked to have more time in between sessions to put some of the tools into practice but overall, I really enjoyed this course. • If there is a list of references available at the end of each course, it would be helpful to deepen my learning. • I probably would have preferred if the after-class work was due by the next class (rather than before it). This would have allowed more clinical time to actually try to utilize the tools. • More practice of skills perhaps with simulated scenarios, role-play, etc. How do you plan to use the information you learned in the course? • This has already impacted how I approach teaching rounds. It has also helped me work with someone who is currently struggling. • Hard to say one thing here, the ideas and motivation from this course pervades nearly all of my professional work including mentorship specifically. • I will be incorporating the framework of illness scripts into board review sessions I do for renal fellows. • I plan to redo and improve our MK enhancement process following this course. • I do plan to incorporate the tools and consider ways to be a more effective teacher. Thinking about retention of information from different aspects was very informative. I learned techniques to help students gain long term memory of concepts that I will use when teaching fellows and students. [Table 3] Discussion As demonstrated by our needs assessment, CE interest in online teacher training was high, including among mid-career and senior faculty. Participating CEs found the modules effective, moreover, giving high ratings to the pace, length, workload, content, and instructor quality. Additionally, open-ended survey responses strongly indicated that participants planned to or were already applying concepts and strategies they learned in their work—suggesting that the learning experience was not only satisfying but also prompted changes in behavior. Behavior is the third of four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model, a four-level framework commonly used to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions 23 . These results indicate to us that online teacher training for CEs can go beyond learner satisfaction to making an impact on practice. Conversely and despite the high levels of interest indicated in our needs assessment, enrollment in the Minis was low and ultimately insufficient to cover program costs. Why was this the case? One possibility is that expense was a barrier. However, since costs were usually borne by the school or department rather than individual CEs, this seems unlikely. Another is that the module topics did not attract potential learners. However, the included topics were identified as high priority in the earlier needs assessment, making this unlikely as well. It’s also possible that CEs were unaware of the program, but given the extensive dissemination efforts, we doubt this as well. Our working hypothesis is that weekly synchronous meetings, while highly rated, served as a barrier to participation, perhaps due to interference with clinical work or because they cut into personal time. We concluded that the synchronous Minis did deliver high value training but did not significantly improve access to medical education training for busy CE faculty. This mixed result remains important because it points to other potential solutions. Limitations We recognize limitations in our study design. Because our plans to conduct more rigorous longitudinal evaluation were thwarted by enrollment issues, our data was limited to learner satisfaction ratings and self-report 23 , 24 However, the limitations of these data are mitigated somewhat by information from open-ended questions indicating specific ways in which program participants were currently using or planned to use what they learned. A second limitation is that we do not have definitive data on the factors that affected enrollment, only educated guesses. Next Steps To address the potential barrier to participation posed by synchronous sessions, we have been exploring even more flexible online training modalities. Our goal for the next stage of research is to test whether asynchronous, self-paced formats make it possible for more CEs to participate in medical education skills training. Our reasoning is that asynchronous training (a) allows CEs to fit training around busy, unpredictable schedules and (b) makes training available precisely when CEs need it, for example, just before teaching a course or beginning a preceptorship. Well-designed self-paced, asynchronous training would have the additional benefit of scaling training to a broader audience than instructor-led modules can accommodate. Recognizing that self-paced learning would also eliminate one of the elements of the Med Ed Minis that participants found most compelling—the synchronous sessions—we have focused on finding compensatory ways to build social connection and practical relevance. To this end, we have begun by translating one of the Med Ed Minis (Teaching Diagnostic Reasoning) into an asynchronous module, using a format we developed for our Stackable Microcredentials in Clinical Research program. 1 To enhance interactivity and engagement, we took a story-based approach, using an evolving case study featuring a protagonist facing common teaching dilemmas. We also developed interactive branching scenarios focused on key decision points and common mistakes, combining these elements with accessible didactic content, examples and models, and knowledge-check questions to promote maximal engagement and deep learning in the absence of social interactions. We used the authoring tool, Rise 360, which allows for built-in interactivity and offers a clean, aesthetically appealing presentation that leverages multimedia principles and reduces cognitive load. Our plan is to pilot test this module with clinician educators and—if it provides a viable alternative to the original Med Ed Minis—translate the rest of the into self-paced modules and disseminate them for broader use. Conclusion Existing forms of teacher training for clinician educators are insufficient to meet training needs, and more flexible formats are needed to provide both access and robust learning experiences. This study showed that CEs want to hone their teaching skills, are open to online training, and see real benefits from the training they receive. However, it also suggested that synchronous training may be insufficiently flexible to accommodate the schedules of busy faculty members. Asynchronous online training may prove to be the missing piece of the medical education skills training puzzle and an important tool for ensuring that busy CEs can access the faculty development they want and need. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: This research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. The University of Pittsburgh’s Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) waived the need for ethics approval and consenting on the grounds that the research fell under the category of program evaluation, not human subjects research. HRPO did not assign a number but have provided a letter testifying to that fact. Consent for publication: Not applicable Availability of data and materials: Data is available upon request Competing interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare Funding: This research was conducted without grant funding Authors' contributions: All authors contributed to the conceptualization and implementation of the program, as well as the design of the evaluation and data analysis. MN wrote the first draft of the manuscript and her co-authors reviewed, revised, and approved. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Eliana Bonifacino and Neha Etherington, skilled subject matter and pedagogical experts in the development of our asynchronous module: Teaching Clinical Reasoning . We would also like to thank Pearl Nielson, for her expert help with editing. References Norman MK, Radomski TR, Mayowski CA, Zimmerman-Cooney M, Crevasse I, Rubio DM. Expanding pathways to clinical and translational research training with stackable microcredentials: A pilot study. J Clin Translational Sci. 2024;8(1):e138. Anees A, Noronha C, Friedman KA, et al. E 2 DUCATE: A blueprint for institutions and societies to elevate faculty development for clinician educators. Am J Med. 2025;138(12):1746–51. Leslie K, Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Esdaile M, Reeves S. Advancing Faculty Development in Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Acad Med. 2013;88(7):1038–45. Merriam SB, Vanderberg R, McNeil MA, Nikiforova T, Spagnoletti CL. A Robust Faculty Development Program for Medical Educators: A Decade of Experience. South Med J. 2020;113(6):275–80. Alpert CM, Sinha SS, Cullen MW. Teaching Tomorrow’s Teachers: An Innovative Model of Clinician-Educator Development for Fellows-in-Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;7(22):2900–3. Levinson W, Rubenstein A. Integrating Clinician-Educators into Academic Medical Centers. Acad Med. 2000;75(9):906–12. Mandel J. Career Development Strategies for the Clinical Educator. ATS Scholar. 2020;1(2):101–9. Molodysky E, Sekelja N, Lee C. Identifying and training effective clinical teachers: new directions in clinical teacher training. Aus Fam Physician. 2006;35(1–2):53–5. Bahar RC, O’Shea AW, Li ES, Swallow MA, Allocco AA, Spak JM, Hafler JP. The pipeline starts in medical school: characterizing clinician-educator training programs for U.S. medical students. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2096841–2096841. Adamson R, Goodman RB, Kritek P, Luks AM, Tonelli MR, Benditt J. Training the Teachers. The Clinician-Educator Track of the University of Washington Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Program. Annals Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(4):480–5. Ma T, Costello JA, Dong T, Durning SJ, Maggio LA. Physician educators’ perceptions of experiences contributing to teaching. Clin Teacher Clin Teacher. 2024;21(5):e13768. -n/a . Triemstra JD, Iyer MS, Hurtubise L, Poeppelman RS, Turner TL, Dewey C, Karani R, Fromme HB. Influences on and Characteristics of the Professional Identity Formation of Clinician Educators: A Qualitative Analysis. Acad Med. 2021;96(4):585–91. Thomas PAE. Curriculum Development for Medical Education : A Six-Step Approach. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University; 2022. Davis MSS, Kinnear B, Jordan J, Gottlieb M, Artino AR Jr.. A Practical Guide to Writing Effective Needs Assessments in Graduate Medical Education. J Grad Med Educ. 2025;17(3):266–70. Van Melle E, Frank JR, Holmboe ES, Dagnone D, Stockley D, Sherbino J. A Core Components Framework for Evaluating Implementation of Competency-Based Medical Education Programs. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1002–9. Wiggins G, McTighe J. Backward Design. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2005. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010;13(1). Knowles MS, Andragogy. Adult Learning Theory in Perspective. Community Coll Rev. 1978;5(3):9–20. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am Psychol. 2008;63(8):760–9. Padlet. (webtool). San Francisco, CA and Singapore: Nitesh Goel and Pranav Piyush. Perusall (software) Austin, editor. Texas: Perusall LLC. Moodle LMS (software), editor. Version. West Perth. Western Australia: Moodle Pty Ltd; 2025. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Transferring learning to behavior : using the four levels to improve performance (1st edition). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 2006. Shrivastava S, Shrivastava P. Ensuring quality assurance of the faculty development programs in medical education using the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation. Med J Babylon. 2021;18(4):439–40. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixAMedEdMinisNeedsAssessment.docx AppendixBMedEdMiniModuleEvalSurvey.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9013677","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":607731570,"identity":"b3f3d200-ba3b-485e-9fc0-ce8454025cb8","order_by":0,"name":"Marie K. Norman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pittsburgh","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marie","middleName":"K.","lastName":"Norman","suffix":""},{"id":607731571,"identity":"c10d3df4-8b07-47fa-b39d-573cce6687dd","order_by":1,"name":"Sarah Merriam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pittsburgh","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Merriam","suffix":""},{"id":607731572,"identity":"f0860b07-3ca7-4806-a9e3-d2d547718055","order_by":2,"name":"Melissa McNeil","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brown University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melissa","middleName":"","lastName":"McNeil","suffix":""},{"id":607731573,"identity":"e08eb6d4-5235-48b8-b332-1004f1d54706","order_by":3,"name":"Doris M. Rubio","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pittsburgh","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Doris","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Rubio","suffix":""},{"id":607731574,"identity":"409ac53a-3f5f-47e8-a530-4ea23cb87bcb","order_by":4,"name":"Carla L. Spagnoletti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Pittsburgh","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carla","middleName":"L.","lastName":"Spagnoletti","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-02 20:53:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9013677/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9013677/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108414133,"identity":"658e338e-e5c5-4ab3-9825-af6a54fc5d9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-04 10:55:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":242439,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9013677/v1/0f170d5a-fe4d-46e0-8180-0c131344bb2d.pdf"},{"id":104918407,"identity":"5076e5ec-bbbb-4bb7-905a-a8753cd6ef52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 16:48:27","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":32110,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixAMedEdMinisNeedsAssessment.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9013677/v1/6527bd798b84d2bc09eca0fd.docx"},{"id":105034438,"identity":"14bd59c9-eb66-4af1-80a3-dc91aeaddc0b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:23:18","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15851,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixBMedEdMiniModuleEvalSurvey.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9013677/v1/43189830852b574ac297f16a.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Putting Med Ed Training in the Hands of Busy Clinician Educators: A Pilot Study of the Med Ed Minis Program","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher training for clinician-educators (CEs) is generally offered through two channels: formal degree and certificate programs in medical or health professions education and professional development seminars and workshops. Both these options have shortcomings. Degree and certificate programs require a commitment of time and resources that is simply not feasible for most busy clinicians. Seminars and workshops, for their part, may not address the skills and topics that CEs need when they need them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScholars have called for more flexible and easily accessed faculty development training options to help CEs build essential teaching skills.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e We set out to provide such training by developing the online Med Ed Faculty Development Program, or Med Ed Minis. Our goal was to \u003cem\u003eprovide online medical education training that is accessible to busy CE faculty while still fostering deep and meaningful learning.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe roles of clinician-educators have expanded and shifted dramatically over the last several decades,\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e highlighting the need for robust faculty development.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Training for CEs is needed in a number of areas, including leadership and scholarship,\u003csup\u003e4, 6\u003c/sup\u003e but the central domain in CE faculty development is learning to teach effectively.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Learning to teach is rarely part of a clinician\u0026rsquo;s formal training,\u003csup\u003e8, 9\u003c/sup\u003e yet teaching responsibilities are only growing. Moreover, with the advent of new clinical priorities and technologies, the development of new teaching skills (e.g., teaching remotely, teaching via simulation, teaching communication skills) is more important than ever.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHelping CEs develop strong and adaptive knowledge and skills for teaching is critical, not only for effectively training the next generation of physicians\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e but also for contributing to the professional identity formation and sense of purpose that motivate and sustain CEs in the field.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e However, the teacher training available to CEs is generally offered either through formal degree and certificate programs in medical or health professions education or through professional development seminars and workshops.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The first of these options provides the most robust form of training via coursework, instructor feedback, and (in the case of a degree) a research project and thesis defense. However, degree and certificate programs present serious obstacles to participation. The time required for coursework can pose an impossible hurdle for busy clinicians. Tuition presents an added barrier. And a limited number of institutions even offer such programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeminars and workshops, on the other hand, are generally free of cost and easier (at least hypothetically) to incorporate within busy clinical schedules. However, seminars and workshops are typically offered sporadically, or in the context of professional meetings, and may not dovetail with the real-time skillset or area of focus that best serves the CE. Moreover, such offerings tend to only scratch the surface of a given topic. While workshops may be a bit longer in duration, most seminars last approximately an hour and may not provide deep opportunities for CEs to apply and receive feedback on the skills they are learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur goal in developing the Med Ed Minis was to provide an alternative (not a replacement) form of teacher training for CEs, one that is more flexible and affordable than degree and certificate programs yet more robust and hands-on than workshops and seminars. This work was conducted at a large, public university under the auspices of an institute dedicated to supporting clinical research and health professions education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn keeping with best practices in curriculum development,\u003csup\u003e13, 14\u003c/sup\u003e we began by conducting a needs assessment of faculty clinicians via a survey questionnaire we developed ourselves \u003cb\u003e(see Appendix A)\u003c/b\u003e. We were interested in learning if CEs felt a need and desire for new forms of medical education training and, if so, what topics they would be interested in learning more about, and in what training formats. The request for participation in the needs assessment was distributed via email to faculty members of all ranks in the School of Medicine, along with a survey link.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe began the survey by asking respondents if they taught medical learners as part of their professional responsibilities. Those who responded \u0026ldquo;no\u0026rdquo; were thanked for their time, and the survey concluded. Respondents who answered in the affirmative were asked a series of 5-point Likert scale queries to gauge their level of agreement with statements such as \u0026ldquo;Training in medical education would help me be a better teacher,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;I wish I had more faculty development in the field of medical education,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I would be interested in taking online modules on medical education topics.\u0026rdquo; Respondents were then asked about prior training in medical education, the level of learners they teach (e.g., medical students, residents, fellows, faculty, Allied Health Professions, graduate students), leadership roles they hold or have held (e.g., course director, clerkship director, division chief), and barriers they had encountered to pursuing faculty development in medical education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe then provided respondents with a list of 36 possible module topics and asked them to indicate 1) degree of confidence in knowledge and skill and 2) the degree to which they desire more training, with the goal of identifying topics of greatest interest. These skill areas were grouped into categories, informed by the domains of CE competencies outlined by Van Melle et al (2019):\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e Education Theory, Teaching Skills, Assessment, Curriculum Development, Communication, Leadership, Scholarship, and Others. We also collected demographic information about age, gender, academic rank, and primary department. As the survey was conducted for program development and evaluation purposes, with no identifying information or risk to participants, IRB approval was waived by the University of Pittsburgh\u0026rsquo;s Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) and consent was not required.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEighty-seven respondents (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;87) completed the needs assessment. Participants came from a variety of departments/divisions, with Medicine (18%), Pediatrics (14%), and Surgery (14%) most strongly represented. Respondents were a median age of 49 years, and 48% were female, 43% were male, and gender was not specified for the remainder. Nearly a third (31%) were associate professors, while 22% were assistant professors, and 26% were full professors. Medical students (83%) and residents (83%) were the most common learner populations taught, with 86% of participants selecting more than one population. Seventy percent indicated that they had completed at least one prior training in medical education, with local professional development seminars being the most common form of training accessed (45%). Most participants indicated that they currently were program directors (54%) or had been in the past, with 56% of participants selecting more than one leadership role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondents showed a clear desire for training in medical education, indicating agreement or strong agreement with the statements: \u0026ldquo;Training in medical education is important for developing skills as an educator\u0026rdquo; (4.62/5), \u0026ldquo;Training in medical education would help me be a better teacher\u0026rdquo; (4.56/5), and \u0026ldquo;I would be interested in taking online modules on medical education topics\u0026rdquo; (4.26/5). These perspectives were shared by faculty at all career stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In response to questions about skill areas in which training was needed, participants expressed the highest interest in topics in the Assessment and Teaching Skills categories and lowest interest in topics in the Communication and Scholarship categories. Topics rated highest included \u0026ldquo;Giving effective feedback,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Identification and remediation of knowledge deficit,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Teaching for retention,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Being an effective mentor.\u0026rdquo; Topics rated lowest included \u0026ldquo;Understanding the structure and rules of undergraduate medical education,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Poster development and presentation,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Grant writing,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Incorporating medical humanities into your teaching.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProgram Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe program leaders (CS, SM, MN)\u0026mdash;all experienced educators\u0026mdash;drew on four theoretical frameworks for the design of the program:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBackward Design\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: An approach to course design that begins by identifying measurable outcomes and building backwards to develop well-aligned instruction. We employed backward design in the development of learning objectives, assignments, and content for the modules.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity of Inquiry Framework (CoIF)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: A theoretical framework focused on deliberately building social, cognitive, and instructor \u0026ldquo;presence\u0026rdquo; to promote connection and accountability in online courses. \u003cem\u003eWe incorporated frequent check-ins with learners, regular instructor and peer feedback, and technology tools to promote asynchronous engagement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdult Learning Theory:\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e An approach to teaching adult learners that (among other things) prioritizes cultivating practical skills with immediate application to learners\u0026rsquo; own work. \u003cem\u003eModule topics were chosen for their practical relevance and assignments encouraged learners to apply key concepts in their own work contexts.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultimedia Design Principles:\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e Twelve principles to guide the design of online and hybrid instruction with the goal of reducing extraneous cognitive load and directing cognitive resources toward learning. \u003cem\u003eInstructional and graphic design support were enlisted to create attractive, easy-to-navigate module interfaces to focus learner attention and eliminate confusion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModules were four weeks long, a length designed to be substantial vis-\u0026agrave;-vis learning, yet manageable around clinical schedules. Weekly synchronous sessions were set for times when CEs tend to have greater flexibility in their schedules (e.g., late afternoon, early evening). Each module comprised weekly instructor-led class sessions and asynchronous assignments. Modules included short readings, videos, podcasts, and assignments tailored to learners\u0026rsquo; own teaching contexts. Several modules integrated additional educational technology tools (e.g., Padlet,\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e Perusall\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) to promote learner engagement. The modules were built in the Moodle\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e learning management system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to topic areas the needs assessment indicated were high value, the modules chosen for initial development were as follows (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), with a plan to add additional modules over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMed Ed Minis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"1\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModule Titles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurriculum Development in Medical Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemediating Medical Knowledge Deficits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching Diagnostic Reasoning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective Feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching for Retention\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective Mentoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstructors were chosen carefully. All were graduates of the University of Pittsburgh\u0026rsquo;s master\u0026rsquo;s program in Medical Education with reputations as outstanding teachers. In preparation for developing the Minis, each received eight hours of training in online module design from the university\u0026rsquo;s Innovative Design for Education and Assessment (IDEA) Lab that included the development of one segment of the course. They then developed the remainder of the module using course design templates provided by the IDEA Lab, with guidance from program leaders (MM, CS, and MN). Instructors were compensated for the initial development of the module as well as for each instance teaching it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProgram Implementation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Med Ed Minis were delivered through Moodle,\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e an open-source learning management system that accommodates enrollments from beyond the university. Learners could take modules individually or as a set, earning a badge for each module completed and a certificate for completing all six. Modules cost \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e400 each, the cost typically covered by departments or professional discretionary funds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe promoted the program widely across the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences using multiple methods, including email, presentations at department meetings, digital signage in hospital and academic buildings, social media, and posters. One of our senior medical education experts (MM) who was teaching at another university during the program\u0026rsquo;s second year promoted it there as well.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe six modules were offered in succession annually over the course of three years. Synchronous sessions were held once a week on weekdays in the late afternoon/early evening to make scheduling easier.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProgram Evaluation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess the effectiveness of the Med Ed Minis, we developed a standard module evaluation and embedded it in each module \u003cb\u003e(see Appendix B)\u003c/b\u003e. These evaluations asked learners to indicate their level of agreement with a set of statements about the appropriateness of the length, pace, workload, and content of the module, using a 5-point Likert scale (\u0026ldquo;strongly agree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo;). Learners were then asked to use the same scale to indicate agreement with these statements: \u0026ldquo;The course instructor was effective at teaching this content\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I would recommend this module to a colleague.\u0026rdquo; Using the same scale, learners were asked their level of agreement with statements about the effectiveness of various module components (readings, videos, discussion boards, synchronous meetings, and assignments). Finally, they were asked three open-ended questions about what they found valuable about the module, what they would change, and how they planned to use what they learned in their future teaching. The University of Pittsburgh\u0026rsquo;s HRPO waived the need for ethics approval and consenting for these surveys on the grounds that they constituted program evaluation and not human subjects research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProgram Evaluation Results\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThirty-four individuals enrolled in one or more of the six modules over three years. An average of five learners enrolled in each module, and two completed all six modules, earning a certificate. A total of thirty-seven evaluations were completed (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37) with several participants completing more than one evaluation. Participants\u0026rsquo; agreement with statements about the appropriateness of pace, length, workload, content, as well as their assessment of instructor quality are described in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian and Mean Likert-Scale Ratings of Agreement with Statements About Module Appropriateness, Instructor Effectiveness, and Likelihood of Recommending Module to a Colleague\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicate your level of agreement where 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree and 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSt. Dev.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pace of the module was appropriate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe length of the module was appropriate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe module workload was appropriate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe module instructor was effective at teaching this content\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe module content was appropriate to my needs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI would recommend this module to a colleague\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn 5-point Likert scale questions about the effectiveness of different module components (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not very effective and 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very effective), participants gave high ratings on assignments (4.51/5), readings (4.46/5), synchronous meetings (4.75/5), and videos (4.51/5). Discussion boards were slightly lower at 4.32/5.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses to open-ended questions were also largely positive, highlighting the value of the skills learned, the quality of the instructors, and the opportunity that synchronous sessions offered interactions with colleagues and instructors. For example:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThis course was one of the best I have taken. It was focused and helped to identify key items that I could take back to my program.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe instructor created a really great learning environment where people were able to discuss challenges and successes they've had with mentoring.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt was probably one of the most useful courses I have attended ever.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerhaps more importantly, respondents provided specific examples of how they planned to apply or were already applying the module content. For example:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThis has already impacted how I approach teaching rounds. It has also helped me work with someone who is currently struggling.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe ideas and motivation from this course pervade nearly all my professional work, including mentorship.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI will be incorporating the framework of illness scripts into board review sessions I do for renal fellows.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuggestions for improvement included providing optional videos, papers, or reference lists; spacing sessions and due dates farther apart; and incorporating role plays. See representative quotes in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresentative Learner Responses to Open-Ended Questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepresentative Comments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat was most valuable to you about the course?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; This course was one of the best I have taken. It was focused and helped to identify key items that I could take back to my program. The readings were insightful, and the discussions were also focused. I appreciated the feedback given on assignments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; I have really needed a structured way to approach my learners who are struggling. This course helped me to identify why they might be struggling so that I can respond appropriately. It also gave me tools to help me improve my teaching for those who are doing well.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Online and asynchronous discussions helped me better understand curriculum development. Great to learn together with colleagues who have similar issues and passions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The instructor created a really great learning environment where people were able to discuss challenges and successes they've had with mentoring. I thought that the mentoring contract was a particularly useful concept.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; It was probably one of the most useful courses I have attended ever.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat would you change about the course?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; It might be great if the course can provide optional videos (or papers) based on topics each week. Maybe 1 per week.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; I would have liked to have more time in between sessions to put some of the tools into practice but overall, I really enjoyed this course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; If there is a list of references available at the end of each course, it would be helpful to deepen my learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; I probably would have preferred if the after-class work was due by the next class (rather than before it). This would have allowed more clinical time to actually try to utilize the tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; More practice of skills perhaps with simulated scenarios, role-play, etc.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do you plan to use the information you learned in the course?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; This has already impacted how I approach teaching rounds. It has also helped me work with someone who is currently struggling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Hard to say one thing here, the ideas and motivation from this course pervades nearly all of my professional work including mentorship specifically.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; I will be incorporating the framework of illness scripts into board review sessions I do for renal fellows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; I plan to redo and improve our MK enhancement process following this course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; I do plan to incorporate the tools and consider ways to be a more effective teacher. Thinking about retention of information from different aspects was very informative. I learned techniques to help students gain long term memory of concepts that I will use when teaching fellows and students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e[Table 3]\u003c/h3\u003e\n"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs demonstrated by our needs assessment, CE interest in online teacher training was high, including among mid-career and senior faculty. Participating CEs found the modules effective, moreover, giving high ratings to the pace, length, workload, content, and instructor quality. Additionally, open-ended survey responses strongly indicated that participants planned to or were already applying concepts and strategies they learned in their work\u0026mdash;suggesting that the learning experience was not only satisfying but also prompted changes in behavior. Behavior is the third of four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model, a four-level framework commonly used to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These results indicate to us that online teacher training for CEs can go beyond learner satisfaction to making an impact on practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely and despite the high levels of interest indicated in our needs assessment, enrollment in the Minis was low and ultimately insufficient to cover program costs. Why was this the case? One possibility is that expense was a barrier. However, since costs were usually borne by the school or department rather than individual CEs, this seems unlikely. Another is that the module topics did not attract potential learners. However, the included topics were identified as high priority in the earlier needs assessment, making this unlikely as well. It\u0026rsquo;s also possible that CEs were unaware of the program, but given the extensive dissemination efforts, we doubt this as well. Our working hypothesis is that weekly synchronous meetings, while highly rated, served as a barrier to participation, perhaps due to interference with clinical work or because they cut into personal time. We concluded that the synchronous Minis did deliver high value training but did \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e significantly improve access to medical education training for busy CE faculty. This mixed result remains important because it points to other potential solutions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe recognize limitations in our study design. Because our plans to conduct more rigorous longitudinal evaluation were thwarted by enrollment issues, our data was limited to learner satisfaction ratings and self-report\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e However, the limitations of these data are mitigated somewhat by information from open-ended questions indicating specific ways in which program participants were currently using or planned to use what they learned. A second limitation is that we do not have definitive data on the factors that affected enrollment, only educated guesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNext Steps\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the potential barrier to participation posed by synchronous sessions, we have been exploring even more flexible online training modalities. Our goal for the next stage of research is to test whether asynchronous, self-paced formats make it possible for more CEs to participate in medical education skills training. Our reasoning is that asynchronous training (a) allows CEs to fit training around busy, unpredictable schedules and (b) makes training available precisely when CEs need it, for example, just before teaching a course or beginning a preceptorship. Well-designed self-paced, asynchronous training would have the additional benefit of scaling training to a broader audience than instructor-led modules can accommodate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognizing that self-paced learning would also eliminate one of the elements of the Med Ed Minis that participants found most compelling\u0026mdash;the synchronous sessions\u0026mdash;we have focused on finding compensatory ways to build social connection and practical relevance. To this end, we have begun by translating one of the Med Ed Minis (Teaching Diagnostic Reasoning) into an asynchronous module, using a format we developed for our Stackable Microcredentials in Clinical Research program.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo enhance interactivity and engagement, we took a story-based approach, using an evolving case study featuring a protagonist facing common teaching dilemmas. We also developed interactive branching scenarios focused on key decision points and common mistakes, combining these elements with accessible didactic content, examples and models, and knowledge-check questions to promote maximal engagement and deep learning in the absence of social interactions. We used the authoring tool, Rise 360, which allows for built-in interactivity and offers a clean, aesthetically appealing presentation that leverages multimedia principles and reduces cognitive load. Our plan is to pilot test this module with clinician educators and\u0026mdash;if it provides a viable alternative to the original Med Ed Minis\u0026mdash;translate the rest of the into self-paced modules and disseminate them for broader use.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eExisting forms of teacher training for clinician educators are insufficient to meet training needs, and more flexible formats are needed to provide both access and robust learning experiences. This study showed that CEs want to hone their teaching skills, are open to online training, and see real benefits from the training they receive. However, it also suggested that synchronous training may be insufficiently flexible to accommodate the schedules of busy faculty members. Asynchronous online training may prove to be the missing piece of the medical education skills training puzzle and an important tool for ensuring that busy CEs can access the faculty development they want and need.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate: This research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. The University of Pittsburgh\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Human Research Protection Office (HRPO)\u0026nbsp;waived the need for ethics approval and consenting on the grounds that the research fell under the category of program evaluation, not human subjects research. HRPO did not assign a number but have provided a letter testifying to that fact.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConsent for publication: Not applicable\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAvailability of data and materials: Data is available upon request\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCompeting interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding: This research was conducted without grant funding\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions: All authors contributed to the conceptualization and implementation of the program, as well as the design of the evaluation and data analysis. MN wrote the first draft of the manuscript and her co-authors reviewed, revised, and approved.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;We would like to thank Eliana Bonifacino and Neha Etherington, skilled subject matter and pedagogical experts in the development of our asynchronous module: \u003cem\u003eTeaching Clinical Reasoning\u003c/em\u003e. We would also like to thank Pearl Nielson, for her expert help with editing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorman MK, Radomski TR, Mayowski CA, Zimmerman-Cooney M, Crevasse I, Rubio DM. Expanding pathways to clinical and translational research training with stackable microcredentials: A pilot study. J Clin Translational Sci. 2024;8(1):e138.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnees A, Noronha C, Friedman KA, et al. E\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003eDUCATE: A blueprint for institutions and societies to elevate faculty development for clinician educators. Am J Med. 2025;138(12):1746\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeslie K, Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Esdaile M, Reeves S. Advancing Faculty Development in Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Acad Med. 2013;88(7):1038\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerriam SB, Vanderberg R, McNeil MA, Nikiforova T, Spagnoletti CL. A Robust Faculty Development Program for Medical Educators: A Decade of Experience. South Med J. 2020;113(6):275\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlpert CM, Sinha SS, Cullen MW. Teaching Tomorrow\u0026rsquo;s Teachers: An Innovative Model of Clinician-Educator Development for Fellows-in-Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;7(22):2900\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevinson W, Rubenstein A. Integrating Clinician-Educators into Academic Medical Centers. Acad Med. 2000;75(9):906\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMandel J. Career Development Strategies for the Clinical Educator. ATS Scholar. 2020;1(2):101\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolodysky E, Sekelja N, Lee C. Identifying and training effective clinical teachers: new directions in clinical teacher training. Aus Fam Physician. 2006;35(1\u0026ndash;2):53\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBahar RC, O\u0026rsquo;Shea AW, Li ES, Swallow MA, Allocco AA, Spak JM, Hafler JP. The pipeline starts in medical school: characterizing clinician-educator training programs for U.S. medical students. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2096841\u0026ndash;2096841.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdamson R, Goodman RB, Kritek P, Luks AM, Tonelli MR, Benditt J. Training the Teachers. The Clinician-Educator Track of the University of Washington Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Program. Annals Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(4):480\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa T, Costello JA, Dong T, Durning SJ, Maggio LA. Physician educators\u0026rsquo; perceptions of experiences contributing to teaching. Clin Teacher Clin Teacher. 2024;21(5):e13768. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e-n/a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://-n/a\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTriemstra JD, Iyer MS, Hurtubise L, Poeppelman RS, Turner TL, Dewey C, Karani R, Fromme HB. Influences on and Characteristics of the Professional Identity Formation of Clinician Educators: A Qualitative Analysis. Acad Med. 2021;96(4):585\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThomas PAE. Curriculum Development for Medical Education : A Six-Step Approach. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University; 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis MSS, Kinnear B, Jordan J, Gottlieb M, Artino AR Jr.. A Practical Guide to Writing Effective Needs Assessments in Graduate Medical Education. J Grad Med Educ. 2025;17(3):266\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Melle E, Frank JR, Holmboe ES, Dagnone D, Stockley D, Sherbino J. A Core Components Framework for Evaluating Implementation of Competency-Based Medical Education Programs. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1002\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWiggins G, McTighe J. Backward Design. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision \u0026amp; Curriculum Development; 2005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010;13(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnowles MS, Andragogy. Adult Learning Theory in Perspective. Community Coll Rev. 1978;5(3):9\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayer RE. Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am Psychol. 2008;63(8):760\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePadlet. (webtool). San Francisco, CA and Singapore: Nitesh Goel and Pranav Piyush.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerusall (software) Austin, editor. Texas: Perusall LLC.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoodle LMS (software), editor. Version. West Perth. Western Australia: Moodle Pty Ltd; 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Transferring learning to behavior : using the four levels to improve performance (1st edition). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 2006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShrivastava S, Shrivastava P. Ensuring quality assurance of the faculty development programs in medical education using the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation. Med J Babylon. 2021;18(4):439\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9013677/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9013677/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eIntroduction:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe roles of clinician-educators (CEs) have expanded dramatically over recent decades, highlighting the need for robust, continuing teacher training for CEs at every career stage. However, formal training programs require a time commitment that is not feasible for many busy clinicians while informal training options may not address the skills and topics that CEs need when they need them. We initiated the Med Ed Faculty Development Program (Med Ed Minis) with the goal of making robust, teacher-focused CME training more flexible, personalized, and accessible to CEs across their career trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to a needs assessment revealing a strong desire for online CE training (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;87), we developed the Med Ed Minis: six instructor-led, 4-week, synchronous modules focused on high-priority skill areas. The full module sequence was offered annually. We then assessed the program\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness using enrollment data and module surveys over three years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirty-seven surveys were returned. Results (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37) showed that participants found the modules valuable and cited concrete ways they were able to apply module content to their work. Ninety-seven percent of participants said they would recommend the Minis to a colleague. However, despite the positive response, enrollment numbers (37 unique individuals over the three years) were not commensurate with needs assessment results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDiscussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results show that high-quality CE training can indeed be offered online. However, synchronous training elements continued to pose a significant barrier to participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo meet the needs of busy CEs, efforts should be made to offer high-quality, interactive content through even more flexible, asynchronous formats.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Putting Med Ed Training in the Hands of Busy Clinician Educators: A Pilot Study of the Med Ed Minis Program","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-18 16:48:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9013677/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ea04b420-2ae4-4873-9283-9fce450fbc3c","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-05-04T10:50:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T10:55:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-18 16:48:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9013677","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9013677","identity":"rs-9013677","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}