Perceptions of medical faculty on an e-learning module providing faculty development

Although medical educators participate in faculty development, they do not always find this education time well spent, or helpful for improving their practice. This mixed-methods randomized comparative study aimed to compare perceptions of two faculty development modalities by comparing a traditional method of learning (text-based PDF with information) with an online learning method (e-learning module).

In December of 2021, an instructionally designed e-learning module (experimental) and a text-only PDF with the same information (control) were randomly assigned to 48 faculty via Qualtrics randomizer feature, with no investigator involvement in the assignment, in four medical specialties at a medium-sized Midwest academic medical institution. Questionnaires were distributed to all faculty, pre-exercise, to gather demographics, previous faculty development experience, and responses to a practice exercise. Faculty were then provided with their randomly assigned faculty development task to complete and a post-exercise survey to discover which modality was assigned and gather their perceptions of the usefulness of the delivery method. Six (12.5%) volunteers offered to discuss the two modalities in a focus group. 29 (60.4%) of the 48 faculty completed the pre-survey, educational exercise, and post-survey. Quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated.

Independent samples t-tests of Likert-style survey results of faculty perceptions about the e-learning module versus the text-based PDF showed no significant difference. Thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses revealed a preference for the e-learning module when learning, and the text-based PDF for reference post-learning. Finally, a focus group revealed that providing tools through both the text-only PDF and the e-learning module was preferred over only providing one or the other.

While the purpose of the study was to determine which modality was more useful, the statistical comparisons were exploratory and underpowered. Still, results suggest that medical educators may find this approach beneficial for other types of education when designing online faculty development.