Apply for the Award
| Site: | AMEE ESME |
| Course: | ASPIRE submission home |
| Book: | Apply for the Award |
| Printed by: | Guest user |
| Date: | Sunday, 22 December 2024, 9:26 AM |
Description
Award Information
This section contains further detail about the ASPIRE 'Faculty Development' Award.
Please take the time to go through this content thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the application criteria and the expert panel involved in the process. Understanding these elements is crucial for a successful application.
At the end of the content, you will need to fill out the web form to generate the invoice. Completing this form is an essential step in your application process, as it will allow you to proceed with the payment for your selected award. Make sure to provide all the required information to ensure a smooth and efficient processing of your request.
To navigate, use the 'next' and 'back' arrows at the side of the page, or use the Table of Contents to jump to a specific page.
You can also download pdf versions of this guidance and a sample application form for reference.
About the Award
Faculty development refers to all activities health professionals pursue to improve their knowledge, skills and behaviours as teachers and educators, leaders and managers, and researchers and scholars. (Steinert Y. Faculty Development in the Health Professions: A Focus on Research and Practice. NY: Springer, 2014.). An institution that has achieved excellence in faculty development prepares faculty members for their various academic roles with a breadth of faculty development programs, which are evaluated for impact and which contribute to the scholarship of faculty development.
An applicant school may have a single centralized program or a decentralized series of programs of faculty development to enhance teaching/education, leadership and scholarship. These may include programs for: new faculty orientation; guidance for career advancement and academic promotion; mentoring and advising of the faculty; faculty member skill development as teachers and educators, leaders and managers, and researchers and scholars; and retirement planning. Applicants will describe the total array of the school’s faculty development programs in the application summary and will specify whether the application will describe the whole series of programs OR focus on the specific program that prepares teachers and educators, educational leaders and educational scholars. The program must include a focus on those who teach undergraduate students but may also include those who teach postgraduates and practicing clinicians. The school’s designated program(s) will constitute “the program of faculty development” for the ASPIRE program application and be assessed using the criteria for excellence.
Cultural, social, fiscal and other contextual issues may influence how faculty development is provided, which will vary from school to school. Excellence may be found in institutions with limited resources just as much as in wealthier institutions. The way in which institutions demonstrate cost effectiveness and context appropriateness will be taken into account by the panel when reviewing individual submissions.
Expert Panel
- Ardi Findyartini (Chair), Indonesia
- Peter Cantillon, Ireland
- Ugo Caramori, Brazil
- Francois Cilliers, South Africa
- Latika Nirula, Canada
- Madalina Elena Mandache, Romania
- Herma Roebertsen, The Netherlands
Prospective applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the panel chair for an informal discussion before beginning their application. The examples provided by the reviewers are shown below under the respective criteria. These examples are intended to be indicative and not exhaustive. You may have other evidence that would be equally important and which support your case for excellence.
Criterion 1
The school's Faculty Development program has clear goals that are aligned with organizational priorities, is systematically designed and evidence based, and improves educational practice, leadership and/or scholarship.
| Sub-Criteria | Examples of evidence |
|---|---|
| 1.1 The faculty development program has clear goals, is aligned with school goals and priorities, and/or influences organizational culture. | Narrative description of the program’s faculty development program goals, how the program facilitates targeted priorities of the school and/or if not aligned with school priorities then how it works to influence the educational culture/climate of the school. Appropriate web links should be provided. |
| 1.2 The program uses a systematic curriculum development model that is informed by a theoretical framework, values and best practices to design and implement faculty development offerings. | Narrative description of the curriculum development model, theoretical framework, values and evidence used to design faculty development offerings. Provide an example of how the model was applied to design and/or implement a faculty development offering. |
| 1.3 The program focuses on improving educational practice over time. Additionally, it could also improve leadership and/or scholarship. | Narrative description of how the program addresses educational practice in classroom and clinical settings, leadership, and/or scholarship. |
These examples are provided by reviewers and are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. You may have other evidence that would be equally important and which support your case for excellence.
Criterion 2
The faculty development program offers breadth, depth and diverse approaches with longitudinal progression of learning opportunities that creates a community of practice.
| Sub-Criteria | Examples of evidence |
|---|---|
| 2.1. The program provides a wide variety of content and approaches with longitudinal progression of offerings that are targeted toward individual and organizational priorities. | List offerings provided by the school in the last five years using the table below. In a brief narrative following the table, describe how the faculty is defined and what the total size of the faculty is. Describe how each program type builds on or is related to the others, and how it enables individuals and organizations to meet their goals. Appropriate web links should be provided. |
| 2.2. The program is inclusive, accessible and actively engages a large number of faculty members. | Provide a narrative description of how the program seeks to be welcoming, inclusive and accessible to all faculty members (e.g. regardless of background, ability status, financial support, location, etc.). Describe how the program creates a safe environment and makes learning opportunities and materials accessible to all. Using the data provided in 2a, describe trends in participation over the past 5 years. |
| 2.3 The program creates a community of practice for faculty members and faculty developers, positively impacting the organizational climate. | Provide a narrative description with examples of how the program creates a sense of community and a positive organizational climate or educational culture/climate of the school, especially for those who teach. |
These examples are provided by reviewers and are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. You may have other evidence that would be equally important and which support your case for excellence.
Criterion 3
The faculty development program has sufficient resources to achieve its mission, is conducted by faculty members with expertise in faculty development, and builds capacity by expanding the number of individuals skilled in offering faculty development.
| Sub-Criteria | Examples of evidence |
|---|---|
| 3.1. The school encourages and supports faculty development by providing resources needed to achieve goals and sustain activity. | Narrative description of how the school encourages participation in faculty development and supports the faculty development program. Describe the faculty development staffing and budget, including sources of revenue (e.g., school support, charges for services, grants, contracts, other), and adequacy of resources to achieve and sustain the mission of the program. Describe where the program and faculty development team fit within the school’s organizational structure and how this location enables the team to influence the organization. If there are other forms of support for faculty development, please describe. |
| 3.2. Faculty developers possess the requisite expertise to provide exemplary faculty development and receive support for their own professional and scholarly development. | Narrative description of the recruitment, selection and preparation of faculty developers for their role including alignment with values of the organization and how they are supported by the school to advance their own scholarly and professional development, including keeping up-to-date with developments in the field. |
| 3.3 The school has systematic strategies to include and develop a range of faculty developers from diverse backgrounds (full and/or part-time) | Narrative description with an example of how the school facilitates building capacity for faculty developers, and how it promotes the engagement of developers from diverse backgrounds. |
These examples are provided by reviewers and are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. You may have other evidence that would be equally important and which support your case for excellence.
Criterion 4
The faculty development program engages in ongoing program evaluation, and examines impact on individuals, organizations and, where possible, the wider community.
| Sub-Criteria | Examples of evidence |
|---|---|
| 4.1. The program engages in continuous and systematic evaluation of the process and impact of faculty development. | Narrative description of the evaluation system, including types and frequency of data collected and synthesized, and an example of how findings are reported. Narrative description of the impact on individuals, programs, organizations, and where possible, the wider community (e.g., affiliated hospitals and clinics), with quantitative and qualitative data (e.g. student ratings of teaching and/or student performance assessment; recruitment of faculty members; achievements of students and faculty members; new faculty behaviours, roles or responsibilities; list of educational publications and presentations). You may place this list of publications and presentations in an appendix if it exceeds the word count for Criterion 4. |
| 4.2 The program engages in reflective critique and quality improvement for faculty development. | Narrative description of how on-going program evaluation and review has been applied to improve program performance in the past five years. |
These examples are provided by reviewers and are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. You may have other evidence that would be equally important and which support your case for excellence.
Criterion 5
The faculty development program promotes educational innovation and scholarship in faculty development.
| Sub-Criteria | Examples of evidence |
|---|---|
| 5.1. The program promotes educational innovation in faculty development. | Narrative description of educational innovations in faculty development in the last five years. Include evaluation reports, publications and (if available) research in faculty development. |
| 5.2. The faculty developers (and where appropriate their learners) conduct research related to faculty development. | Evidence may include lists of scholarly presentations and/or publications related to faculty development in the past five years. You may place this list in an appendix if it exceeds the word count for criterion 5. |
| 5.3. The faculty developers advance faculty development nationally and internationally. | Evidence may include for the last 5 years lists of awards, invitations to faculty developers to speak and consult (e.g. to assist other institutions with faculty development) to advance faculty development and educational practices, leadership and scholarship locally, nationally and internationally. You may place this list in an appendix if it exceeds the word count for criterion 5. |
These examples are provided by reviewers and are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. You may have other evidence that would be equally important and which support your case for excellence.
Ready to apply?
Before deciding to submit an application, we recommend that you spend some time discussing the application criteria and required evidence with your team. If you have any questions, please reach out to us prior to submitting your application.
Pricing
The standard charge per submission is £2,500 for each Area of Excellence to be assessed. This is reduced to £2,000 per submission for two or more submissions in the same twelve-month period. The charge for institutions from emerging economies is £1,500 per submission, and £1,250 for two or more submissions in the same calendar year. View the list of emerging economies to see if your institution is eligible. Payment must be received before submissions are sent out for review. Resubmissions are accepted within three years of the original application, with a charge of £2,000 for a resubmission.
Standard Charge
£2,500
Emerging Economies Charge
£1,500
Multiple Standard Submissions
£2,000 per submission
for two or more submissions
in the same twelve-month period.
Multiple Emerging Economies Submissions
£1,250 per submission
for two or more submissions
in the same twelve-month period.
Ready to apply?
Complete the form below to request an invoice.