Pylman, Stacey

AI skill development is essential in health professions education (HPE), yet this type of faculty development is complex to design and implement. While competency frameworks and AI education programs are emerging, many faculty developers are themselves still building AI literacy and confidence, and practical guidance for how to design a faculty development program on AI that is accessible, skill-oriented, and responsive to rapid technological change remains limited. Although webinars and workshops can only do so much, a well-planned faculty development program can provide a great introduction to AI, alleviate fears, and inspire participants to keep growing and learning. Drawing on our experience designing and hosting the AAMC GEA AI Skill-Building Webinar Series and the current literature in AI, this article offers twelve practical tips for faculty developers who are creating AI-focused learning opportunities for everyone involved in HPE. These tips will help readers create robust AI skill-building sessions that move participants beyond awareness of AI and shift their perspectives toward applied, reflective, and responsible use of AI in HPE.

Abstract The demand for high-quality faculty development in medical education is more acute than ever. Faculty developers’ responsibilities are growing exponentially as they are called upon to help medical faculty maintain expertise in an evolving array of content domains, curricular and assessment strategies, education technologies, and active learning methods. Faculty development has a long history of supporting medical education colleagues in times of change. More recently expectations for faculty developers are expanding due to (1) increasing enrollment of learners, (2) emphasis on learner-centered teaching practices and competency-based assessment methods, and (3) heightened accreditation standards for training faculty. Yet, faculty development in medical education lacks the conventional structures of a profession, such as an adopted set of competencies. In 2023, a series of sessions at regional, national, and international medical education conferences were held to generate ideas and collect examples of faculty developer competencies from over 100 stakeholders. More than 500 responses were gathered from prompts such as “What are the competencies faculty developers need?” and “What is one of the most valuable faculty developer competencies today?” This perspective offers both a rationale for establishing faculty development in medical education as a profession and a path forward through the provision and broad promotion of clearly defined core competencies. The competencies outlined are intended to help inform those entering or currently working in the profession, recruiters of faculty developers, medical education leaders, institutional partners, those conducting performance appraisals of faculty developers, and the broader medical education community. The aim of this work is to generate discussion among vested medical education and faculty development stakeholders who seek to provide structure, clarify roles, and further define medical education faculty development as a profession.

Abstract Purpose Clinician educators are essential to the academic medicine workforce, yet understanding how they assess their own teaching competencies is limited. The Clinical Educator Milestones (CEMs) guide growth across key educator domains, but their use and perceived relevance remain underexplored. This study aims to (1) evaluate clinician educators’ self-reported performance on the CEMs; (2) examine differences by career level, specialty, and experience; and (3) inform faculty development efforts through a clearer understanding of educators’ perceived strengths and gaps. Method Clinician educators from 9 US academic institutions completed a self-assessment rating their performance across 4 universal pillars and 11 educational theory and practice competencies on a 1- (novice) to 5- (expert) point scale in 0.5-point increments from August to November 2024. Descriptive statistics and mean difference tests were used to analyze variation across demographic and professional characteristics. Results A total of 484 responses to at least 1 CEM were received. Respondents rated themselves highest in commitment to professional responsibilities (mean [SD], 4.30 [0.68]), teaching and facilitating learning (mean [SD], 3.96 [0.74]), and professionalism (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.73]) and lowest in medical education scholarship (mean [SD], 3.11 [1.15]), program evaluation (mean [SD], 3.33 [1.03]), and the science of learning (mean [SD], 3.43 [1.10]). Statistically significant group differences were found by years of posttraining clinical experience (F2,413 = 16.87, P < .001, η2 = .076), years of teaching experience (F2,433 = 20.87, P < .001, η2 = .088), and academic rank (F2,403 = 13.96, P < .001, η2 = .065). Conclusions This study identifies key trends in self-perceived strengths and needs among clinician educators and highlights the limited awareness of the CEM framework. As institutions aim to build effective educator development systems, the CEMs can serve as a useful structure for tailoring support to individuals and identifying institutional needs.