Design, development, outcomes, and impacts of faculty development for veterinary educators: a complex mixed methods program evaluation

Abstract

This three-article dissertation presents a comprehensive approach to enhancing veterinary education by advancing the training and development of veterinary educators, thereby providing a foundation for improved veterinary student training and, ultimately, better veterinary patient care. Through a three-pillar framework, this research lays the groundwork for establishing a Continuous Quality Improvement and Innovation (CQII) program for veterinary education. The first pillar identifies the professional development needs of veterinary educators through the development and validation of the Veterinary Educator Needs Assessment (VENA) survey. Using an exploratory sequential mixed methods design, the VENA survey was refined to capture educators' knowledge and skills and their perceived professional development needs. Exploratory factor analysis and evaluation of internal measure reliability affirmed content, response process, and internal structure of the VENA survey. A 14-item, four-factor model for knowledge and skill and an 18-item, six-factor solution for development needs explains 57.47% and 67.41% of the variance. Thus, the VENA is a valid and reliable tool for identifying the professional development needs of veterinary educators. The top two areas of perceived strength in teaching are "control of teaching session" and "establishing a positive learning environment" and "establishing a positive learning environment" and "evaluation" are the top two areas veterinary educators identified as valuable for developing and enhancing their teaching. The second pillar addresses the assessment of clinical teaching. This was accomplished through the development of a veterinary-specific evaluation instrument, the SFDP-Vet22, adapted from the Stanford Faculty Development Program 26 (SFDP-26). This instrument allows veterinary students to evaluate clinical educators in workplace-based settings. Validation processes, including exploratory factor analysis, affirmed content, response process, and internal structure, support its use in identifying strengths and faculty developmental needs to improve the teaching of clinical educators. A 22-item, six-factor solution explains 75% of the variance, indicating a robust model. Findings highlight stability in factors such as communication of goals and control of session. The third pillar focuses on establishing a structured, multi-institutional faculty development program designed to provide targeted training to improve knowledge and skills in identified areas of need and, thus, empower veterinary educators to enhance their teaching practices. The Consortium of West Region Colleges of Veterinary Medicine's Regional Teaching Academy (RTA) launched the Faculty Development Initiative (FDI), piloting the Veterinary Educator Teaching and Scholarship (VETS) program. A case study evaluation of the pilot VETS program demonstrated positive impacts on educator attitudes, knowledge, and teaching practices. Key factors contributing to program success included institutional support, the establishment of a community of practice among faculty, and tailored program development aligned with participant needs. Together, these studies create a foundation for sustained improvement and innovation in veterinary education through a continuous cycle of identifying faculty development needs, developing and delivering targeted faculty development, and longitudinal monitoring of teaching practices and performance. This continuous faculty development and quality enhancement model provides a robust foundational CQII program for improvement and evolutionary change to meet the evolving demands of veterinary practice and education.