Exploring the Worth of an Advanced Degree Health Professions Education Program: The Student Perspective

• In Event: 28.041 - The Effectiveness of Health Professions Education Advanced Degree Programs: Exploring Scholarly Approaches to Program Evaluation

Abstract

Background:
In 2012, the University of Pennsylvania launched its Master’s in Medical Education Program (MSEd). Housed in the Graduate School of Education, the goal of the program is to prepare students to be leaders and scholars in medical education. To this end, the program is comprised of 4 academic blocks: learning and technology; educational research; leadership; and Master’s capstone. As part of process evaluation, MSEd leadership made many “mid-course modifications” (e.g., moved from rotating entrance to cohorts). When the program had reached a relatively “steady state”, MSEd leadership sought to explore the worth of program from the student perspective, an aspect of program value that varies according to local contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1980).

Approach:
As part of a longitudinal qualitative study on identity construction of physician-educators, the evaluation team (KC, DFB) conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12/29 students in the 2018 cohort at the start and midway through the 2-year program. Interview questions were informed by identity construction literature and included questions relevant to program impact. KC and DFB transcribed the interviews, applied inductively-created codes, identified conceptual categories, and organized categories into four main findings (Thomas, 2006). The findings were “member checked” with the 2018 MSEd cohort, and minor revisions were made.

Findings:
(a) The program was inspirational as well as practical. The program “advertised”, via its website, that students would gain and apply skills in the areas of theory, research, and leadership. Indeed, students reported obtaining “tools” necessary to enhance their current and anticipated future educational roles. While this practical benefit was prominent, perhaps more interesting was the program’s inspirational benefit. Students often expressed surprise and pleasure at finding and connecting deeply with like-minded colleagues, “finding my people”.
(b) The program developed confidence and created opportunities for growth. The former was evident in comments such as feeling “empowered” by newfound knowledge and skills, and having the “piece of paper” that legitimizes the knowledge; the latter in comments about the program’s capacity to “open doors”.
(c) The program stimulated self-reflection and inspired identity transformation. Students spoke of clarifying goals, strengths, and professional focus. Gaining clarity ultimately shifted self-perception in unexpected ways. The program expanded students’ vision of themselves and they began to self-identify as a leader and a qualified educator.
(d). The program created leaders poised to effect institutional and field-wise change. While students sought improve their professional acumen, many noted a larger opportunity than they had originally anticipated. They spoke of a desire to be a leader no matter their title, to become more involved in institutional change efforts, and to create meaningful impact in medical education.

Conclusion:
In this group of MSEd students, the program facilitated personal transformation and connection to a community of educators, in addition to applicable knowledge and skills. Evaluation of program worth goes beyond outcomes that meet external “gold standards” by addressing context-dependent outcomes (Lincoln & Guba, 1980). Considering identity construction and leadership development could be critical to the comprehensive evaluation of health profession education programs.

References included in symposium references

Authors

• Donald Boyer, University of Pennsylvania

• Kandi Weins, University of Pennsylvania

• Kelly Courts, University of Pennsylvania

• Dorene F. Balmer, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia