The Professional and Organizational Network group is comprised of faculty developers from around the world. POD is a very active group and they produce the journal To Improve the Academy. You might also want to check journals from organizations like International Society of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Scholarship of teaching and learning is a growing discipline field within Education that might prove rich with research on your topic.

Hi Annmarie Marlier

I appreciate your kind answer!

I try to follow (from the distance) the work of the POD network (as well as similar networks associations such as SEDA and HERDSA) and related journals.

It is because of this (or, in part because of this) that I am under the impression that there is little research up to this point making the connection that I mention in my first message. Or, at least, that I do not often come across with such research.

That is why I was looking for other fellow researchers who might be aware of such type of research. Somehow, I might be a little bit influenced by the ideas about the "age of evidence" that Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin and Rivard (2016) exposed not so far ago.

Thanks again for your response, Annmarie

In medicine and health sciences I recommend reading Academic Medicine, Medical Teacher, Medical Education, and BMC Medical Education. You will find a lot of research on staff development and training.

You could also read my publications on ResearchGate.

Hii! I sure find this an interesting research topic. I myself am into conducting Teacher Training programs and I always ask my teachers how are they going to convert this learning into their classroom teaching. Some of them have got back saying what a difference it has made to their teaching and the response of their students. Would love to collaborate and work further on this.

Thanks you for your kind answers, Samy Azer and Arpita Ghosh,

It is sure an interesting field. As Prof. Azer mentions, there is a lot of research on faculty/academic/staff/educational development in higher education in the field of the health sciences. Thanks for your insight.

Maybe I should clarify the reason for me to initiate this discussion (again, thanks to all of you). I try to follow the work of professional networks and associations (POD, SEDA, HERDSA, etc.) and try to keep updated in relation to journals and publications on the field (Medical journals, SoTL-related journals, HE-related journals, ...). By doing so, I came to the impression that most research is focused on how training programs develop, on the "impact" of these programs over the participants (learning, practice and so on), but, less usually, on how the program (its development, contents, the learning of its participants, etc.) connects to students' learning (being students those who end up learning from the participants of those programs).

[Excuse the long explanation].

So, being that my impression, I was interested in finding research doing that and in knowing the approach they take to connect FD programs with later students' learning.

I hope this clarifies a little bit my point.

Again, thanks for your insights and I wish you all good health.

Best wishes,

Gabriel

Dear Gabriel, you are right. There are several reasons for this phenomenon that you mentioned. I think one of the factors is that most high impact journals do not publish descriptive studies (how the program was developed etc.), they are more interested in the impact of these programs on teachers and doctors. Did the attendance of these training make a difference? What evidence do you have?

In medicine, we look at the impact of training on patient health. This is the most important we now concerned about. The question is if doctors knowledge has improved by attending this training, does this automatically the patient health will be improved. The answer not necessary. Many doctors, after training what they will remember maybe the jokes made by the speaker, the excellent food serviced and drinks, going out of the night. Perhaps some new knowledge, but will this will change their attitude on treating or prescribing. The evidence is saying not necessary. Therefore, the question is why we spend these millions of dollars on doctors training if there is little effect on the patient's health. Consequently, we are reviewing the whole staff straining in medicine and allied health. I was one of the speakers in the Congress of Continuing Medical Education, which was held in San Diego, and these issues were raised.

I think the same question can be raised about teachers training. Are we interested in assessing the training workshop and comments of participants? (level 1), or the impact of the instruction on the participants' knowledge and skills gained after the training? (Level 3), or more importantly, the impact of the training on students learning abilities? (level 3). Most of the studies cover level 1, the remaining level 2. None ask Question 3 or answer it. This is the shortage and limitation we face.

Gabriel Hervas I am interested in this discussion

Thanks Mohammed Habes for your interest, your insights on the topic are more than welcome.

And again., thanks for your detailed response, Samy Azer .

Your mention to the different levels is really significant. Thank you. Somehow, I guess it might be connected to Kirkpatrick’s model to evaluate training.

As you refer and for those interested, Kirkpatrick’s wrote about level 1 (assessment of reactions and impressions of the participants’ about the program), level 2 (assessment of learning in terms of knowledge/skills/attitudes, etc. of the participants), level 3 (assessment of participants’ performance/behavior using these new knowledge/skills/attitudes, etc.), level 4 (assessment of results according to the targeted outcomes of the training).

Somehow, my interest would be in relation to a side-level or, depending on how we formulate it, a level 4 research.

My initial comment/question has to do with the “impact” (in lack of a better word) of the training, not over the participants (whether it is their satisfaction, knowledge or performance), but over the students (their learning) of those participants.

So, if we were to consider that a targeted outcome of a training program is to be to improve the learning of the students of those who participate in the program, this could be (somehow) considered a level 4 type of assessment in the Kirkpatrick’s model. If not, it would be some kind of side/lateral type of assessment for training programs (I am sure someone has elaborated this idea better than I am doing it in here).

Analogously to what you wrote about doctors and the impact of their training on their patients' health, my interest applies to higher education faculty members (regardless of their discipline) and the impact of their training (as educators) on their students’ learning.

As you well mentioned, most research remains on the first two/three levels. But the connection with students’ (not participants) learning tends to be unattended, probably because of methodological and design difficulties. That’s the type of research I am looking for now.

Again, thank you all for your interest. I am looking forward for your thoughts on this discussion.

Best wishes

[By the way, Samy. I just recognized your name and realized that I cited one of your papers (from 2007 though) for a paper now under review.

For those of you interested, this is the reference of the study:

Azer, S. A., & Eizenberg, N. (2007). Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 29(2), 173–180. http://dox.doi.org/10.1007/s00276-007-0180-x ]