Current status and challenges of faculty development in Korean medical education and strategies for advancement

Lee, Dong Hyeon; Dong Hyeon Lee

doi:10.3946/kjme.2024.314

Korean J Med Educ > Volume 36(4); 2024 > Article

Lee: Current status and challenges of faculty development in Korean medical education and strategies for advancement

Review Article

Korean J Med Educ 2024; 36(4): 415-427.

Published online: November 28, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2024.314

Current status and challenges of faculty development in Korean medical education and strategies for advancement

Dong Hyeon Lee^1,²

¹Department of Physiology, CHA University School of Medicine, Pocheon, Korea

²CHA Institute for Future Medicine, Medical Center Research Institute, Seongnam, Korea

Corresponding Author: Dong Hyeon Lee (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0511-6910) Department of Physiology, CHA University School of Medicine, 120 Haeryong-ro, Pocheon 11160, Korea Tel: +82.31.850.9323 Fax: +82.31.544.9274 email: leedh@cha.ac.kr

Received June 6, 2024 Revised July 7, 2024 Accepted August 8, 2024

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Medical school professors take on many roles, including teaching, research, service, and practice, and are expected to evolve through their work and activities both on and off campus. At the same time, they are expected to gradually develop essential competencies as educators through faculty development (FD). However, FD does not yet cover the entire spectrum of faculty roles and does not adequately address the diverse characteristics of medical school faculty. In light of the recent interest in FD in Korean medical schools and an increasing number of articles on FD, I here review the history of and recent articles about FD in Korea. I also suggest seven short- and long-term strategies to overcome the major challenges facing FD, with the aim of helping to revitalize and advance FD in Korean medical schools and FD institutions.

Keywords: Faculty development, Medical schools, Korea, Strategy, Competency-based frameworks

Introduction

Medical school professors take on many roles, including teaching, research, service, and practice. Most professors self-direct their development by participating in the activities of their departments, academic society meetings, conferences, and society in general. Although faculty development (FD) programs run by medical schools provide lectures and practice opportunities for professors, they typically account for only 3 to 5 hours per year, excluding new faculty workshop. The National Teacher Training Center (NTTC) for Health Personnel at Seoul National University College of Medicine, the Academy for Medical Education of the Korean Association of Medical Colleges (KAMC), and the Korean Society of Medical Education (KSME) also regularly present FD programs, and many professors from 40 medical schools have attended. Although professors in charge of or interested in medical education frequently attend FD workshops and seminars, most medical school professors are known to attend such programs for only the number of hours stipulated by their medical school’s regulations—i.e., at least 3 hours per year, which is the standard of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation (KIMEE). Recently, interest in FD in medical schools has been growing and publications about FD have been increasing. I therefore set out to review the history of, and recent literatures about, FD, with the aim of suggesting shortand long-term strategies to overcome the challenges facing FD in Korea.

The literature search was conducted using the Korea Citation Index, Research Information Sharing Service, and PubMed search tools to retrieve articles published in domestic and international journals using a combination of the keywords “faculty development,” “faculty development program,” and “competence” between April 21 and May 30, 2024.

History of FD in Korean medical education

FD for Korean medical school professors began about 50 years ago in the early 1970s. The Association of Korean Medical Education (today, KAMC) was founded in 1970, and its first medical education seminar, held in 1971, can be considered the first FD program [1]. Since the opening of the NTTC in 1975, an FD program has been in regular operation, with medical education seminars and workshops held 10 times a year in collaboration with the Association of Korean Medical Education; workshops for new professors have been held since 1981 [1-3]. Yonsei University has held medical education seminars since 1972, education for new faculty since 1976 [4], and “book reading” (the parent of the current FD program) since 1998 [5]. The Catholic University of Korea has held medical education seminars for all faculty members by position since 1988 and medical education training for new faculty members since 1989 [6].

With respect to universities, the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE) has been providing FD training programs for university professors and staff since 1986, which can be considered the beginning of FD in universities [7,8]. Under KCUE, the Higher Education Training Institute was established in 1995 to serve the faculty training programs, which led to the establishment of FD departments in center for teaching and learning (CTL). Of the university FD training programs run by the KCUE, the new faculty workshop and teaching methodology development became the model for the university’s FD programs. The first CTL was established in 1997, and that model quickly spread to universities, which operated programs mainly directed to improving teaching activities and then expanded to FD programs such as new-professor workshops. As mentioned earlier, FD in medical schools started about a decade earlier than in universities, based on the establishment of Regional Teacher Training Centers by the World Health Organization and the training of medical school professors with the aim of improving medical education, and on the active participation of Korean medical professors.

Progress in research on FD in Korea

In the 20 years following the initial academic report on FD, FD programs were operating, but no academic research had been published. However, since 2012, reports about FD programs have been published, and needs assessments and surveys for FD programs have been conducted. One publication about the development and operation of a curriculum at Yonsei University College of Medicine reported a need for FD programs to train faculty members in managing and evaluating medical professionalism education [5]; another said that a specialized FD program for faculty members in charge of training family medicine graduates was needed [9]. Reports about the domestic adaptation of an international FD program for simulation-based training [10] and the development of an FD program on bioethics for new faculty [11] were also published, as were reports about the need for FD programs to help professors fulfill their role as educators [12,13] and about the effectiveness of FD programs [14].

Subsequent to those studies on the needs, development, and operation of FD programs, Yoon et al. [15] published a study on international FD programs, including the needs, development, operation, and effectiveness of international FD programs. The significance of that study is that it was the first to analyze the FD programs from needs to effectiveness. Afterward, the application of the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) model for the evaluation and quality management of FD programs was presented [16]. In addition, an analysis of professors’ readiness to switch to online education because of the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis was reported [17], as were analyses comparing online FD programs with face-to-face programs [18] evaluating factors that affect the operation and effectiveness of non-face-to-face FD programs [19]. Those studies will be useful in the near future, when e-learning FD programs become common.

Thirty years after the introduction of FD programs in medicine, one of the studies on FD and support for faculty [20] reported the status of FD programs in medical education [21]. In addition, the career development of medical professors [22], burnout of medical professors [23], and work–life balance of clinical professors [24] were reported. Moreover, the FD programs in Korean medical schools were compared with those in the medical schools of Singapore, Japan, and Indonesia [25], and the current status of FD programs operated by medical schools was presented together with the programs operated by FD institutions [21]. Based on several reviews of the literature, suggestions for improving the FD of medical professors were then published [26].

Recently, the KAMC Faculty Committee published a report titled “Development of competency improvement programs for each career stage of medical school professors” [27], which analyzed the current status of FD programs in which medical school professors participated or that had been offered by FD officers, and the needs of those professors and officers for FD programs. Based on the results, an in-depth gap analysis was published [28], which suggested that the roles of research, administration, service, and self-development, plus that of educator created sufficiently large needs, whose details varied depending on the characteristics of the individual professors. Thus, with FD research topics being diverse and the number of FD studies in medical schools having increased in the 2020s, more researchers are likely to be interested in this field, with research likely to expand in the near future.

Research on FD in universities during the same period reveals a somewhat different trend. Coinciding with the introduction of CTL, cases of US CTL and domestic CTL operations and strategies were analyzed [7,29-33]. Studies of the effects of lifelong learning [7], mentoring [34], peer assessment [35], action learning [36], and e-learning programs [37] on FD have been conducted or proposed. Notably, those research topics have not been explored in medical school FD. Some authors have found that applying these FD approaches to clinical professors who are in charge of most medical education is difficult [21], but meetings or gatherings for course management might represent a possible entry point for those into medical schools.

A survey of perceptions about FD and needs for FD programs has been analyzed [38]. That analysis suggested diversifying the program schedule and topics, and operating on a smaller scale, taking into account faculty characteristics. That study is significant in the sense that FD programs should reflect the roles, needs, and characteristics of professors as demanders, and it has led to several studies on FD program needs. Park et al. [39] reflected on the roles and careers of professors in FD programs and developed a life-stage faculty academy program based on the “Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate” model and the role of professors. Subsequently, an evaluation tool was developed based on the CIPP evaluation model [40]. This approach of developing programs according to career stages, operating FD programs, and using evaluation tools to manage program quality will be helpful for medical schools [16]. FD programs have also been reported to be effective in curriculum development and academic performance [41], as well as in improving specific subjects [42].

Key challenges to FD

A systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of FD programs for the role of educators found that FD was reported in most studies to be effective in improving the quality of medical education by creating positive change in faculty perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors [43]. Effective FD programs were characterized by experiential learning, feedback, effective peer and collegial relationships, well-designed programs, and the use of a variety of teaching methods. Yet despite the known benefits and characteristics of effective FD programs, participation by medical school faculty remains low, and perceptions are somewhat negative. Low participation in FD has been attributed to weak institutional support, lack of time, underestimation of the benefits of FD programs and the usefulness of educational technology, and misconceptions concerning training not being related to teaching excellence [44]. Faculty perceived the importance of preparing, teaching, and assessing lessons, but actual performance was low, suggesting the need for FD programs based on those gaps and needs [12].

Shin and Kim [26] observed that the focus of FD is shifting from individual faculty members’ teaching competency and activities to the fulfillment of institutional visions and goals by faculty members, and to their personal and professional development as educators, clinicians, researchers, academic members, and administrators. Although FD for the role of teaching is a necessity this is not enough; moreover, it fails to accommodate the diverse needs of professors. In particular, FD should be expanded to the fields of research competence, leadership, and career development, and the content and level of FD programs should be diversified such that they can be applied to each career stage [39]. A recent review of the FD literature [26] discussed six major topics, and studies concerning the current status of FD programs in Korea [21,25,28] and their needs [28] demonstrated the challenges in FD and made various suggestions for addressing them.

First, FD programs in medical schools have been limited to the teaching role, and the range of topics has been relatively narrow. The program topics should be broadened to include research competence, leadership and management, career development, academic advancement, practice, and service [21,25,26,45,46], and educational programs should be designed and managed to reflect the role of faculty and their FD needs [28]. Second, the content and level of FD programs should be diversified to match various career stages and levels, positions, and faculty groups [21,26,28,39]. Third, diversification of FD approaches and the use of simulation-based learning, interactive theater, peer observation, mentoring, online learning, longitudinal programs, communities of practice, and learning on the job have all been suggested [18, 20,26,28,45-48]. Fourth, a framework for competencybased FD programs should be developed and applied [21,26,45,49]; Im et al. [28] proposed a framework for FD programs based on educators’ roles and competencies.

The low participation rate in FD programs by faculty members has been because of conflicts with other roles such as practice and research; motivation to participate is often involuntary, and finding ways to increase voluntary participation is therefore necessary [20,25,44]. Although professors have many duties, including practice, research, teaching, and administration, FD program topics tend to focus on teaching, whereas the weight and importance of the teaching role are relatively low for professors, which might contribute to low intrinsic motivation. Some professors who are highly interested in teaching tend to repeatedly participate in FD programs. Supporting the professional identity of these individuals as educators is necessary [26,45,47,50], and framing FD in terms of organizational development and change has been suggested [26,48]. Research and scholarship on FD must be encouraged [25,26,45]; programs related to assessment and evaluation as a teaching method improvement program should be developed [46]; and a standardized program evaluation model has been proposed [21]. Im et al. [28] proposed customized FD programs and an FD program system applicable to forty medical schools; they also suggested a cooperative role for medical schools and FD institutions.

Given that the 2026 KIMEE standards require all medical schools to run their own FD programs [51], including new faculty workshops, time has therefore come to improve each school’s FD capacity. To that end, they should consider establishing a department that takes charge of FD, hiring experts, organizing on-campus lecturers, and exchanging lecturers with other medical schools. Given that research and consensus on the competencies of professors in medical schools are still lacking, competencies will need to be defined to reflect the philosophy and vision of the medical school with respect to the roles that professors play.

Strategies for FD

Based on the challenges and suggestions outlined so for, seven major strategies for the development of FD in Korean medical schools are presented in the subsections that follow (Table 1, Fig. 1).

1. Framework for key competencies of medical school professors

For a competency-based FD program framework to be usable, the core competencies from among the broad range of competencies required to perform the roles, positions, and jobs of medical school faculty must be identified. Previous research articles identified roles and competencies for professors, primarily educators, but also service providers, administrators, and researchers, that can be used to organize the primary competencies of medical school professors [7,12,13,16,26,39,52-70]. As a starting point, Table 2 presents a medical professor’s competencies by extracting the common or main competencies from relevant published articles. A solid base of more refined competencies that reflect the characteristics of medical professors will have to be derived by FD experts in medical schools, based on the extensive literature available, the Delphi method, and surveys.

2. Framework for competency-based FD programs

After the framework of competencies has been created, FD programs to enhance the competencies of medical school professors should be designed by considering the roles, career stages, and characteristics of professors. As part of this detailed design process, Table 3 presents a reorganization of the related educator competency development programs, researcher competency development programs, and leadership competency development programs proposed in the KAMC Faculty Committee 2024 study [27], based on the competencies of professors.

A recent study on the current status of FD programs limited to programs whose purpose was to improve faculty members’ competence in medical education [21]; the study classified FD program themes as curriculum development, teaching and learning, assessment methods, professor’s role, and curriculum themes. In contrast, Im et al. [28] developed a classification framework reflecting the role of professors, which classified FD programs into 10 areas: education in general, curriculum themes, curriculum development and evaluation, educational methods, student assessment, student guidance and counseling, postgraduate medical education, research, service, leadership and selfdevelopment, and uncategorized (Medical Education Evaluation Accreditation, and so forth). The main differences in the latter framework are the categorization of former assessment methods into student assessment, Medical Education Evaluation Accreditation, and educational program evaluation, and the role of professors. Considering the foregoing program categories, FD programs should be organized in alignment with competencies.

3. Medical school FD community

Since it will be somewhat difficult for each medical school to run all of these FD programs, it is proposed that experts from medical schools and FD institutions collaborate by forming a medical school FD community or initiatives not only to develop and share common content and facilitate the exchange of instructors to help run FD programs but also establish a framework for the key competencies of professors in Korean medical schools. An example might be a medical ethics FD program for new faculty that could be shared by other medical schools [11]. Online learning could be a practical way to share these common programs across medical schools [18,19,37].

4. FD organization at medical schools

Medical schools will have to establish an FD organization with a long-term perspective, allocate a budget, provide administrative support, and assign a director and an FD expert. The staff in charge of medical education are usually in charge of FD; however, even if the staff in charge vary depending on the medical school’s capacity, having a dedicated staff member is considered vital because of FD expertise, regular tasks, the workload when most faculty members are present, lack of facilitators, and the diversity of programs and needs [25]. In cases where the number of faculty members is relatively large, a separate department, sufficient budget, and adequate administrative support are essential. The capacity of each medical school varies in this regard; therefore, long-term planning and preparation are needed.

5. Programs tailored to each medical school

Medical schools have long had their own FD programs, whose necessity has been further emphasized by the FD standards of the Medical Education Evaluation Accreditation. However, few medical schools have designed FD programs that reflect the founding philosophy, vision, and mission of the university and medical school. FD topics and programs might vary from one medical school to another, and most are concerned with education and do not extend beyond that framework [28]. However, the program needs of the faculty members might be different and details might vary greatly; designing and operating programs that reflect the needs of the members and the medical school’s characteristics is therefore desirable [12,13,28,71]. A customized program that reflects the needs of the faculty members will be one of the intrinsic motivators to encourage participation in the FD programs [20]. In addition, although it may be difficult, providing customized programs that take into account career, major, role, and characteristics will help to increase the effectiveness of FD programs [16,38,39].

6. Diverse FD approaches

Approaches to FD other than workshops and seminars can be even more effective in changing faculty behavior. Examples include mentoring, peer assessment, action learning, and learning communities. Those approaches are still relatively new, and their application to FD may take some time. Studies on mentoring [34], peer assessment [35], action learning [36], and learning communities [72] in universities have already been published, and the effects of such FD programs in medical schools have been positive [73-76]. Although no studies in Korean medical schools are yet available, mentoring and learning communities can be supported by the CTL, and if the conferences and meetings concerning education course operation and improvement in each medical school are effective, the newer approaches would be worth trying in medical schools with well-run FD programs. Lifelong learning theory [7], e-learning programs [37], and non-face-toface online programs [18,19] could also be of practical help in running FD programs.

“Learning communities” in particular are an unfamiliar concept. According to Yoo [72], a university professor’s learning community is a group of faculty colleagues who informally study how to teach students well. The learning community wants to share knowledge or experiences related to a common purpose or topic of work. It is characterized by individuals who organize themselves, share knowledge or experiences during various forms of interaction, and create new knowledge. Universities might support such communities. A “community of practice” shares an interest or passion for what they do, and the individuals in community interact regularly to learn how to do things better. The community of practice is a higher-level concept than a learning community. Although communities of practice might be more appropriate because FD might not be limited to learning, the use of communities of practice for FD has not been reported in Korea to date. However, the characteristics of a community of practice resemble research or practice meetings of medical school professors, and the concept might therefore be easily adoptable. For clinician–educator examples of FD through communities of practice and factors that would be helpful in implementing a community of practice, see Bunin and Servey [76] and de Carvalho-Filho et al. [77].

7. Differentiated FD institutions and collaboration

The long-standing FD institutions have different programs and different audiences. The NTTC has been around the longest and has the most diverse programs— primarily for educators, but also for individuals with other roles. It targets not only professors at Seoul National University, but also health professors nationwide. KAMC is aimed primarily at professors in charge of medical school administration, medical education, and related staff; it covers topics that are difficult to address in medical schools, such as leadership, student selection, curriculum themes, curriculum development and evaluation, and staff training. KSME serves primarily professors, graduate students, and others interested in medical education; it covers general topics in medical education. Professors who participate in each FD institution require specific programs [28], and therefore the programs run by each institute vary. However, the themes covered by the three institutions are similar and focused mainly on the role of educators.

KAMC’s workshops are attended mainly by deans and professors in charge of administration; it therefore focuses its training for leader professors on organizational culture, leadership, visioning, development strategies, and current issues in medical school. KSME proposes to run a highly specialized program that will train and support interested professors in establishing their professional identity as medical education professionals. Based on its ample experience in domestic medical education and international FD in Asia, NTTC proposes a program to improve the basic competencies of researchers and service personnel [15,78-80]. In addition, the three institutions should collaborate on a mutual needs assessment to support advanced programs in topics that are difficult to run, rather than on the basic training programs that most medical schools can run. It would also be helpful if these institutions would conduct professional FD research to provide evidence that supports the foregoing strategies.

Although medical schools and FD institutions are responsible for major FD programs, discipline-specific academic societies and organizations will have to assume a more important role in deepening researcher and practitioner competencies, working together for FD in the long term.

Conclusions

Medical schools face numerous challenges today, but improving the competencies of faculty in line with their roles as key players in medical schools and teaching hospitals is among the most fundamental and urgent needs. That effort will require the involvement and collaboration of many stakeholders. Among the strategies mentioned in the foregoing review, the following are key: First, it is suggested that, rather than one or two researchers, FD expert initiatives involving experts from medical schools and FD institutions lead the research and establishment of faculty roles and competencies, specific competencies, and program frameworks for FD. Second, each medical school should create both short- and long-term planning in a strong effort to develop FD organization so that it can run an individualized FD program appropriate for the medical school and its faculty. Third, FD institutions should provide differentiated and specialized programs that develop not only medical school professors but also leaders, medical education professionals, and FD officer in each medical school; they should also collaborate to provide programs and instructors to ensure that each medical school runs a robust FD program.

Given the current focus on student education, FD might have a long road ahead, but it will be fundamental to the future of medical schools and medical education. The seven strategies discussed here constitute the most necessary elements of a systematic roadmap for the next 5 to 10 years or more.

Acknowledgments

The author thank Ji Hyun Im for advice on revising the manuscript.

Notes

Funding

No financial support was received for this study.

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, project administration, visualization, writing –original draft, writing–review & editing: DHL.

Fig. 1.

Faculty Development Program Based on the Competencies of Korean Medical School Professors

Table 1.

Strategies for FD in Korean Medical Schools

No.	Strategies
1	Framework for key competencies of medical school professors
2	Framework for competency-based FD programs
3	Medical school FD community
4	FD organization at medical schools
5	Programs tailored to each medical school
6	Diverse FD approaches
7	Differentiated FD institutions and collaboration

FD: Faculty development.

Table 2.

Medical Professor’s Competency (CORE LEAP)

Domain	Key competencies
Common competencies (CO)	- Belonging and pride
	- Professional ethics and moral values
	- Communication and collaboration
	- Continuous self-development
	- Global mindset
Researcher and professional competencies (R)	- Professionalism and problem solving
	- Research conduct skills
	- Dissemination of research results
	- Professorial responsibility and research ethics
	- Academic competencies
Educator competencies (E)	- Beliefs about education (educational philosophy)
	- Class design and management
	- Classroom engagement and facilitation
	- Teaching assessment and feedback
	- Student counseling and guidance
Leader and servant competencies (Lea)	- Visioning and sharing
	- Internal and external collaboration
	- Conflict and problem solving
	- Leadership and organizational management
	- Administrative skills
Practitioner competencies (P)	- Aligned to Korean doctor’s role (2020)
	- Patient care
	- Communication and collaboration
	- Social responsibility
	- Professionalism
	- Education and research

Table 3.

Examples of Faculty Development Programs in Medical Schools Based on Faculty Competencies

Domain	Programs or topics
Common competencies (CO)	- New faculty workshop
	- Mid-career faculty workshop
	- Organizational culture
	- Leadership
	- Meeting skills
	- Systems thinking
Researcher and professional competencies (R)	- Research ethics
	- Writing a research plan
	- Conducting research
	- Thesis writing
	- Research management
	- Patenting and entrepreneurship
Educator competencies (E)	- Educational philosophy and learning theory
	- Class design and curriculum design
	- Teaching and learning methods
	- Small group instruction
	- Student assessment and portfolios
	- Student counseling
Leader and servant competencies (Lea)	- Middle management program
	- Top management program
	- Conflict management and negotiation
	- Organizational culture analysis
	- Global service
	- Administration
Practitioner competencies (P)	- Medical ethics
Practitioner competencies (P)	- Preceptorship

References

1. Kim YI. History of medical faculty developmental program in Korea. Korean J Med Educ 1991;3(1):1-4.

2. Kim YI, Lee KH, Kim SI, Kim YK, Seo BS, Kwon EH. Effectiveness of short-term educational workshop programs for newly appointed medical school facuty members: analysis of 30 programs with 9-year experiences. Korean J Med Educ 1990;2(2):23-33.

3. Lee CS. Educational workshop programs for newly appointed faculty in national teacher training center. Korean J Med Educ 1991;3(1):10-11.

4. Chung IH. Education for newly appointed medical faculty in Yonsei Medical School. Korean J Med Educ 1991;3(1):5-7.

5. An S, Bu S. Reflection on the experience of medical professionalism education at Yonsei University College of Medicine. Korean Med Educ Rev 2012;14(1):25-36.

6. Maeng KH. Educational program for newly appointed medical faculty in Catholic Medical School. Korean J Med Educ 1991;3(1):8-9.

7. Lee YH. Analysis on major indices for professors development and expectancy of effects from application of lifelong education principles for professor development. Korean J Educ Res 2004;42(4):615-651.

8. Korean Council for University Education. 40 years of the Korean Council for University Education. Seoul: Korean Council for University Education; 2022.

9. Kim JH, Kim JY, Kwon KY, Lee CM, Jeon TH, Hyun SS. Satisfaction and difficulties of Korean family medicine resident training faculty. Korean J Fam Med 2013;34(5):357-363.

10. Chung HS, Issenberg SB, Phrampus P, et al. International collaborative faculty development program on simulationbased healthcare education: a report on its successes and challenges. Korean J Med Educ 2012;24(4):319-327.

11. Kim CJ, Oh SM, Kim PM. Biomedical ethics education as a faculty development program. Bioeth Policy Stud 2014;8(2):1-22.

12. Na BJ, Kang J, Kim JY, et al. What do faculties need most in a faculty development program? Korean J Med Educ 2014;26(2):137-141.

13. Si J. Needs assessment for developing teaching competencies of medical educators. Korean J Med Educ 2015;27(3):177-186.

14. Jun SK, Chun KH, Lee YH, Kim SY, Kim WK, Kim SY. Variation in professors’ teaching efficacy and their satisfaction with faculty development programs. Korean Med Educ Rev 2015;17(2):88-93.

15. Yoon HB, Shin JS, Lee SH, et al. Transnational collaboration for faculty development in health professions education in Mongolia. Korean J Med Educ 2016;28(4):381-390.

16. Chun KH, Park YS. A comprehensive approach to design and quality management of a faculty development program for medical teachers. J Korean Teach Educ 2020;37(1):255-277.

17. Si J, Kong HH, Lee SH. Exploring medical educators’ readiness and the priority of their educational needs for online teaching. Korean J Med Educ 2021;33(1):37-44.

18. Im JH, Kim JW, Park WB, et al. Is it feasible and effective to provide faculty development programs online for clinical teachers? Korean J Med Educ 2021;33(2):139-145.

19. Im JH, Shin JS, Lee SH. Factors influencing medical school professors’ perceptions of nonface-to-face education method and satisfaction with related faculty development programs. J Learn Cent Curric Instr 2024;24(4):255-265.

20. Kim Y. Faculty development and support. Korean Med Educ Rev 2023;25(1):1-2.

21. Park KH, Park KH. Current status and tasks of faculty development programs for medical education in Korea. Korean Med Educ Rev 2023;25(1):17-34.

22. Kim DH. Faculty development for medical faculty: importance and strategies. Korean Med Educ Rev 2023;25(1):3-16.

23. Yoo HH, Kim H. A review of burnout in medical school professors. Korean Med Educ Rev 2023;25(1):35-44.

24. Kim YR, Lee HH, Yune SJ. Differences in clinical professors’ work-life balance by position in medical schools. Korean Med Educ Rev 2023;25(1):45-54.

25. Samarasekera DD, Lee SS, Findyartini A, et al. Faculty development in medical education: an environmental scan in countries within the Asia pacific region. Korean J Med Educ 2020;32(2):119-130.

26. Shin H, Kim MJ. Faculty development: the need to ensure educational excellence and health care quality. Kosin Med J 2023;38(1):4-11.

27. Korean Association of Medical Colleges. Development of competency improvement programs for each career stage of medical school professors. Seoul, Korea: Korean Association of Medical Colleges; 2024.

28. Im JH, Kang WS, Lee SH, et al. Needs and gaps of faculty development for medical schools. Korean J Med Educ 2024;36(2):189-201.

29. Song SH, Kwon K. The role of center for teaching and learning for higher education: from cases of USA. J Educ Technol 2006;22(3):167-185.

30. Lee J. Strategies for a university-wide approach to faculty development. High Educ 2006;140:73-84.

31. Lee Y, Cho J. An ethnographic study on the management and organization of centers for teaching & learning in the U.S. universities. Korean J Comp Educ 2007;17(4):49-88.

32. Park E, Rhee ES, Yoo JA. A study on the analysis of factors that effect on the long run and short run CTL programs in the universities and the managing strategies for successful CTL programs. J Lifelong Learn Soc 2012;8(3):153-174.

33. Yoo JA. Case study of National University of Singapore CTL and faculty development program. Asian J Educ 2014;15(1):165-187.

34. Lee SY. A study on the effectiveness of instruction improvement through the mentoring program development in an industrial university. Korean J Educ Res 2006;44(2):57-81.

35. Shin JH. Study on formative peer review of teaching program in higher education. J Korean Teach Educ 2014;31(3):371-398.

36. Kim H, Eom W. A case study on action learning program for faculty development. J Educ Technol 2014;30(4):839-878.

37. Kim E, Byun H. Developing guidelines for training program to increase faculty e-learning competencies. J Korean Assoc Educ Inf Media 2015;21(4):573-599.

38. Min HR. Perception and need assessment of faculties on faculty development program: focusing on faculties of S University. J Korean Teach Educ 2012;29(3):195-219.

39. Park YS, Cha HJ, Song YM, Chun KH. Development of a life stage-based competencies empowerment program for the faculty members. J Korean Teach Educ 2015;32(3):137-162.

40. Park Y, Chun K, Song Y. Development of evaluation instrument for a life stage-based faculty development program based on CIPP model. Korean J Educ Res 2017;55(3):203-229.

41. Woo JW, Park Y, Ahn H, Kim KY. The effects of competency-based curriculum developed by faculty development program on undergraduates’ learning outcomes. J Learn Cent Curric Instr 2017;17(2):29-51.

42. Yeom M, Kim Y, Kim HJ. Analysis of the contents and effectiveness of a faculty development program for improving university writing courses: the case of Chonnam National University. Korean J Teach Educ 2009;25(3):30-51.

43. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME guide no. 8. Med Teach 2006;28(6):497-526.

44. Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Mygdal W, et al. Faculty development: a resource for clinical teachers. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12(Suppl 2):S56-S63.

45. Steinert Y. Faculty development in the new millennium: key challenges and future directions. Med Teach 2000;22(1):44-50.

46. Steinert Y. Faculty development: from rubies to oak. Med Teach 2020;42(4):429-435.

47. Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME guide no. 40. Med Teach 2016;38(8):769-786.

48. Sirianni G, Glover Takahashi S, Myers J. Taking stock of what is known about faculty development in competencybased medical education: a scoping review paper. Med Teach 2020;42(8):909-915.

49. Rosenthal SL, Stanberry LR. A framework for faculty development. J Pediatr 2011;158(5):693-694.

50. Cantillon P, Dornan T, De Grave W. Becoming a clinical teacher: identity formation in context. Acad Med 2019;94(10):1610-1618.

51. Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation. Accreditation standards of KIMEE 2026 https://kimee.or.kr/board/data/?uid=1739&mod=document&pageid=1. Published March 2024. Accessed May 19, 2024.

52. Yang EH, Chung J. Needs analysis for improving teaching competency. J Educ Technol 2010;26(2):25-52.

53. Song HD, Jang SY, Kim Y. An need assessment of faculty member's job competencies according to the level of teaching experience. Asian J Educ 2013;14(4):149-179.

54. Academy of Medical Educators. Professional standards for medical, dental and veterinary educators. https://www.medicaleducators.org/write/MediaManager/Documents/AoME_Professional_Standards_4th_edition_1.0_(web_full_single_page_spreads).pdf. Published 2021. Accessed May 19. 2024.

55. Lee SY. Study on roles and competence of the professors joining university administration. J Educ Res 2009;7(1):25-45.

56. Yoo JA. A study on explore of college administrative professors’ competence: using IPA and Q-methodology. J Korean Soc Sci Study Subj 2016;32:49-67.

57. Kim SK, Lee SJ. Development of evaluation criteria and key indicators of research competence in university professors. J Educ Adm 2012;30(2):233-252.

58. Gray C. Research competencies framework. London, UK: The Royal College of Surgeons of England, Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK); 2007.

59. Han J, Kim D, Kim C, Eo E, Myung S, Oh S. A study of Korean doctor’s role, 2020. Seoul, Korea: Research Institute for Healthcare Policy of Korea Medical Association; 2022.

60. Roh HL, Choi MN. The development of the teaching competency model for HRD (human resources development). J Vocat Educ Train 2004;7(2):1-28.

61. Lee HY, Kim YS, Heo HO. The development of a inventory for teaching competency in colleges of engineering. J Educ Technol 2012;28(3):439-469.

62. Han S, Lim KY. Teaching competency modeling for instructors in cyber university. Korean J Educ Methodol Stud 2012;24(4):837-862.

63. Kim JW, Lee YH. The development of teaching competencies and performance standards for community college faculty. J Agric Educ Hum Resour Dev 2009;41(1):111-138.

64. Lee H, Yang EB. A study on the characteristics of excellent lecturers in medical school. Korean J Med Educ 2013;25(1):47-53.

65. Yoo J. A study on the exploration of college administrative professors’ competence : apply on importance-performance analysis. J Yeolin Educ 2015;23(3):359-377.

66. Torres Delgado G, Hernández-Gress N. Research professors’ self-assessment of competencies. Future Internet 2021;13(2):41.

67. Thoma B, Karwowska A, Samson L, et al. Emerging concepts in the CanMEDS physician competency framework. Can Med Educ J 2023;14(1):4-12.

68. Lang M, Hazelton L, Chan TM, Chen R, Leslie K. Intrinsically important: rebranding faculty development as a unifying key concept for CanMEDS 2025. Can Med Educ J 2023;14(1):117-120.

69. Lee HK, Lee ES. A study on the common competency model and educational needs of university professors. Korean J Educ Res 2021;59(1):105-130.

70. Yang S, Kim IH. Perception analysis of the roles and qualifications of college administrative professors. J Educ Adm 2009;27(1):403-432.

71. Kang JC. Development of a support system according to the demand of teaching competency of university professors. J Holist Converg Educ 2021;25(4):181-209.

72. Yoo JA. Survey of awareness about faculty learning community program on teaching improvement. Korean J Teach Educ 2009;25(4):72-92.

73. Das S. Faculty development/mentoring evolution of mentorship in academic medicine. J Investig Med 2020;68(3):721-723.

74. Kitto S, Danilovich N, Rowland P, et al. Teaching observation as a faculty development tool in medical education: a scoping review. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2023;Jul. 18. [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000523.

75. McAndrew M. Use of an action learning model to create a dental faculty development program. J Dent Educ 2010;74(5):517-523.

76. Bunin JL, Servey JT. Meeting the needs of clinicianeducators: an innovative faculty development community of practice. Clin Teach 2022;19(5):e13517.

77. de Carvalho-Filho MA, Tio RA, Steinert Y. Twelve tips for implementing a community of practice for faculty development. Med Teach 2020;42(2):143-149.

78. Kim DH, Yoon HB, Sung M, et al. Evaluation of an international faculty development program for developing countries in Asia: the Seoul Intensive Course for Medical Educators. BMC Med Educ 2015;15:224.

79. Kim DH, Lee JH, Park J, Shin JS. Process-oriented evaluation of an international faculty development program for Asian developing countries: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ 2017;17(1):260.

80. Kim DH, Hwang J, Lee S, Shin JS. Institutional factors affecting participation in national faculty development programs: a nation-wide investigation of medical schools. BMC Med Educ 2017;17(1):48.