What Remains After Faculty Development Ends

What Remains After Faculty Development Ends

Teaching better does not fully explain the outcomes of faculty development. Proposed indicators of successful faculty development include positive changes in workplace practice, participation in and formation of teaching and professional development communities, and the development of a professional identity as a clinical educator (Triemstra et al., 2021). Alongside what educators teach differently after faculty development, who they learn with and how they understand themselves as educators also form part of the outcome. This perspective broadens the focus from short courses to longitudinal programmes and from formal education to informal workplace learning. Collective learning environments and institutional support matter alongside individual learning (Steinert et al., 2016).

Clinical educators are both clinicians and educators, and sometimes researchers as well. The weight of each identity shifts across career stages. Some separate these roles, whereas others treat clinical care and teaching as inseparable activities. Teacher identity encompasses attachment to the educator role, the kind of teacher one aspires to be, and how one expresses oneself through action. In the view of Coldron and Smith (1999), identity is not a fixed attribute that a teacher possesses, but a framework used to make sense of practice. Those who integrate their clinician and educator identities give similar weight to both roles. They recognise that clinical expertise builds credibility as an educator and that a formal teaching role adds value to their professional life.

Yet some remain in a liminal space between the two identities. The effort and emotional investment required to become a clinician, along with the rewards and recognition from clinical work, can outweigh the educator role. This tendency grows stronger when employers prioritise clinical output. Without integrating these identities, clinicians struggle to sustain the educator role and hold a stable sense of themselves as educators. Proposals to build identity exploration, communities and networks, reflection, and mentorship into faculty development respond to this problem (Steinert, 2020). This study examines how clinical educators continue their practice in the workplace after completing a programme, and what university and health system support and cross-institutional peer relationships mean to them. By asking about experiences that either supported or unsettled educator identity, the research team sought to address an area with less empirical research than teaching skill improvement.

Longitudinal Programmes at Two Universities and an Interpretative Phenomenological Design

The study took place at two Australian universities. Since 2007, the University of Western Australia has offered four postgraduate programmes in health professions education: a graduate certificate, a graduate diploma, a master’s by coursework, and a master’s by research. These programmes aim to build clinicians’ teaching capability, academic leadership, and scholarly output. Since 2017, the University of Sydney has run a 1-year Clinical Teaching Fellowship and a 6-week interprofessional clinical teacher training programme. The research team emailed 364 alumni who completed these programmes between 2017 and 2021, and 21 participated in the study, with 12 and 9 from the two institutions. Of these, 16 completed a programme of 1 year or longer, including 4 who also completed the 6-week course. Participants came from various health professions, and their clinical experience ranged from 1 year to more than 20 years. All had sought out learning for their educator role on their own initiative and enrolled in the programmes.

Five researchers collected data over 4 months in 2022 through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Interviews lasted 20 to 60 minutes and took place in person, by telephone, or via Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Participants had completed their programmes 1 to 4 years earlier. They described their teaching experiences and practices since the programme and reflected on activities that shaped their educator identity. After the initial interviews, four researchers held a calibration meeting to review how questions were asked and how the interviews were conducted, and they continued to share interview experiences and adjust their approach during data collection. Field notes captured the interview context. Researchers not directly involved in running the programmes handled post-recruitment contact and consent procedures. Participants gave written consent before the interview and verbal consent at the start. The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia approved the study (2022/ET000695).

The analysis used interpretative phenomenological analysis. The research team interpreted participants’ experiences while also seeking to understand the contexts, beliefs, and values that shaped those experiences. After the recordings were transcribed and checked, researchers not directly involved in running the programmes de-identified the transcripts before other team members read them. Transcripts were assigned numerical codes and analysed in N-Vivo12. Analysis followed seven steps: reading and re-reading, initial noting, developing themes, searching for connections across themes, moving to the next case, looking for patterns across cases, and taking interpretations to deeper levels. Researchers at each institution completed the first five steps independently, using the three outcome indicators from Triemstra et al. (2021) as a conceptual lens. They then compiled sub-themes and data extracts, and three researchers defined the overarching themes before the full research team reviewed and confirmed them. Because all members of the research team worked in health professions education, they did not bracket out their own perspectives; instead, they surfaced and examined their diverse disciplinary backgrounds and field experiences to develop the interpretation.

Growth in Teaching Practice

All 21 participants reported that applying what they learned in the programme to their workplace changed how they designed and delivered teaching. Previously, they taught in an ad hoc manner as situations arose or focused on transmitting expert information. After the programme, they first defined what learners needed to achieve and structured sessions and assessments around those goals. Hands-on activities increased in sessions that had previously relied on explanation and lecturing. Participants checked learners’ understanding and gaps, choosing methods that supported learning rather than educator convenience. The changes they described combined structured teaching, a learner-centred approach, and practice grounded in hands-on performance and educational evidence.

Previously, I tended to explain a task rather than demonstrate it. I still explain it now, but I also get the therapists to do the task themselves. I am more aware now that this is also a teaching method. — Participant 4

The starting point for change varied with prior teaching experience. Those new to teaching established foundational practices for setting learning objectives and delivering content. Those with existing teaching experience shifted from transmitting information to acting as facilitators and guides, co-creating sessions so that learners participated actively. Encountering adult learning theory also prompted participants to reconsider how they had treated students as passive recipients lacking experience. Their own experience of juggling work, study, and assessment demands further helped them understand their learners. Both the course content and the difficulties of being a learner served as resources that reshaped their teaching practice.

I did not acknowledge that students each bring a certain amount of knowledge, life experience, and other things to the learning environment. — Participant 12

Growth in Educator Identity

Participants did not enter the programmes without an educator identity. They already occupied various positions along the continuum between clinician and educator, yet their basis for calling themselves educators often rested on job descriptions or how others addressed them. Some called themselves educators because they were hired for that role, or placed educator second to clinician because teaching formed only part of their duties. Others viewed clinical teaching as embedded in clinical care and found it hard to separate the two identities. After completing the programme, participants reflected on how to fold their new skills into their existing identity and what value they added as educators. Obtaining a formal teaching qualification provided proof of competence and affirmed their legitimacy to speak as educators in the workplace.

Having the qualification… people say, “Oh, that person has a qualification in that area. Now I should listen to them.” — Participant 10

This recognition built confidence to explain and defend educational judgements. Some participants described becoming change agents who articulated rationales from an educator’s perspective even when senior colleagues pushed back, and who reviewed organisational training against industry standards and evidence. Confidence did not appear suddenly upon graduation. It grew from working while studying, applying new learning immediately, and reviewing the results. Reflective activities built into the programmes also prompted participants to examine the values they prioritised as educators and the reasons behind their actions. Recognition from peers and managers, hands-on application, and value-clarifying reflection worked together to strengthen the basis for embracing the educator role.

I definitely have more confidence, and my colleagues and managers comment on that too. Knowledge is empowering, isn’t it? — Participant 5

Growth in Educational Perspective

Participants in the longer programmes also changed how they understood the educator role. An educator was not merely someone who explained clinical knowledge, but also a coach, facilitator, counsellor, and mentor. Learning alongside other health professions helped them understand the challenges and teaching contexts across disciplines and recognise the complexity of the educator role. At the same time, they shed the burden of having to know everything. Confidence as an educator came less from knowing the most and more from judging that one could help learners share their own knowledge and experience. Reflecting on their practice also clarified the kind of educator they wanted to become.

My focus has completely changed… I do not need to be the person who knows the most in the room; I just need to help people share what they have. My confidence has definitely grown. — Participant 8

Peer networks also contributed to this shift in perspective. Hearing from others who faced similar teaching problems confirmed that their struggles did not simply stem from personal inadequacy. Participants examined how they handled situations in light of fellow learners’ experiences and learned new approaches. They gained confidence that they could learn through practice even without being experts yet. Unlike clinical settings where interprofessional hierarchies are familiar, the programmes made participants feel that everyone’s experience received equal respect. Not everyone shared this sense of community, however. Those who completed their studies solely online and could not connect enough with other participants felt disappointed that they had not joined the clinical educator community they had hoped to find.

Not connecting with other people affected my experience of the programme… Being part of a wider community of clinical teachers was something I hoped for then and still hope for now. — Participant 20

The Authors’ Interpretation

The authors highlight as a key finding that the areas of growth participants described varied with programme duration. The 16 participants who completed programmes of 1 year or longer described growth across teaching practice, educator identity, and educational perspective, whereas reflections from graduates of the shorter course largely remained focused on teaching practice. The three areas were intertwined yet distinct. Prior work by Browne et al. (2018) describes turning points at which clinicians pursuing medical education careers consciously transition into a new identity as clinical educators. The authors link the shifts in identity and perspective among long-programme participants to this transition. They also connect these findings to calls for more empirical evidence on faculty development that supports professional identity formation. Within this context, the authors address the value of longitudinal faculty development that continually supports clinical educators’ growth and identity, as emphasised in the discussion by Sklar (2016).

Three key factors supported this growth: opportunities to apply assessment outputs directly in the workplace, peer networks and a sense of community, and reflective activities embedded throughout the programmes. Applying new learning, sharing experiences with peers, and reflecting on their meaning continued over an extended period. Participants’ initial intrinsic motivation also played an important role. Although they enrolled to gain additional tools and teaching strategies, enjoying learning itself strengthened their willingness to acquire and apply new knowledge and skills. The authors connect this pattern to a growth mindset. Beyond faculty development that focuses on filling skill deficits, this interpretation points to a basis for examining the belief that educators can continue to learn and grow. Even so, this study did not measure growth mindset as a separate outcome; rather, the authors use the concept to interpret the findings and frame future research.

The recruitment and data collection conditions set the scope for interpreting these findings. Although the programmes at the two universities varied in duration and focus and included diverse health professions, all participants were graduates who had enrolled voluntarily. The data may therefore reflect the experiences of educators with strong motivation to learn and grow. Another condition to consider is that two of the authors directed the programmes. Although researchers separated programme directors from interviewing and transcript de-identification, participants may still have described their experiences more positively. Indeed, even though interviews asked about experiences that either supported or unsettled educator identity, all participants reported that the programmes did not hinder their identity formation. Moreover, although the study examined longitudinal programmes, data collection occurred at a single time point after graduation rather than tracking trajectories of growth over time. The authors propose future studies that prospectively trace when and how growth unfolds across careers and compare educators who maintain clinical roles with those who do not. They also leave for future investigation whether growth mindset can serve as an analytic framework for faculty development outcomes.

Reading notes

That all 16 graduates of programmes lasting 1 year or longer described growth across all three areas supports the value of longitudinal programmes, yet differences in qualifications and activity structures between those programmes and the 6-week course limit isolating duration as the sole explanation. Because interviews took place 1 to 4 years after completion, the data speak less to the pace of growth than to the experiences participants still recall as meaningful over time. From an HRD learning transfer perspective, a strength of this paper lies in capturing both the experience of applying assessment tasks to the clinical workplace and the experience of colleagues listening more closely after participants earned a teaching qualification. In particular, the finding that earning a qualification built confidence to defend educational judgements shows that using new learning at work involves not only acquiring skills, but also being recognised as someone who holds those skills.

References

• Bartle, E., Evans, K., Burgess, A., Clark, T., Bansal, A., Hu, W., Matar, E., & Carr, S. E. (2025). Translating faculty development into practice and professional identity: The lived experience of clinical educators. Medical Teacher, 47(11), 1836-1845. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2503380
• Browne, J., Webb, K., & Bullock, A. (2018). Making the leap to medical education: A qualitative study of medical educators’ experiences. Medical Education, 52(2), 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13470
• Coldron, J., & Smith, R. (1999). Active location in teachers’ construction of their professional identities. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(6), 711-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799182954
• Sklar, D. P. (2016). Moving from faculty development to faculty identity, growth, and empowerment. Academic Medicine, 91(12), 1585-1587. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001447
• Steinert, Y. (2020). Faculty development: From rubies to oak. Medical Teacher, 42(4), 429-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1688769
• Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B. M., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., Prideaux, D., Spencer, J., Tullo, E., Viggiano, T., Ward, H., & Dolmans, D. (2016). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Medical Teacher, 38(8), 769-786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851
• Triemstra, J. D., Iyer, M. S., Hurtubise, L., Poeppelman, R. S., Turner, T. L., Dewey, C., Karani, R., & Fromme, H. B. (2021). Influences on and characteristics of the professional identity formation of clinician educators: A qualitative analysis. Academic Medicine, 96(4), 585-591. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003843