185 Summary 7 framework are described more precisely in the new framework, adding to its descriptive power. The new framework sharpens the boundary between teachingcentred and learning-centred belief orientations. This is significant because it makes clear that the transition from a teaching-centred to a learning-centred belief orientation involves a profound shift in which eight out of the nine beliefs would be required to change (see Chapter 2, Table 2.1). We additionally comment on the surprising finding that a substantial number of the educators displayed a teaching-centred belief orientation. This confirms that in medical schools with a learning-centred curriculum, even educators who are deeply involved in teaching do not automatically adopt learning-centred beliefs. This finding supports the importance of targeted faculty development interventions to help educators make this transition. The new framework can be used as an instrument for reflection and discussion, with the newly uncovered extensions in the framework being particularly relevant to the context of learning-centred medical education. Based on our findings, we recommend helping educators reflect on which knowledge is relevant to be acquired, and on the importance of creating a positive learning environment, supporting students’ professional development, and fostering students’ intrinsic motivation. In addition to practical applications, the new framework can be used in medical education research as an instrument for determining beliefs about teaching and learning. During the initial interviews, we also explored medical educators’ perspectives on being a teacher; the outcome of this study is described in Chapter 3. We developed a model of educator ‘phenotypes’ by identifying and characterising profiles of educators with similar perspectives on being a teacher. The six levels of the Korthagen model, which can be viewed as themes, were used to analyse and categorise the data deductively. Subsequently, subthemes were developed inductively. To gain insight into the variety of perspectives we then qualitatively clustered the participants into educator phenotypes, according to the themes. The theme that each participant emphasised as most relevant was leading for the clustering. To better understand each of the phenotypes we carried out a quantitative study of the differences between educator phenotypes regarding subthemes, contextual and personal factors, and analysed statistical significance using Fisher’s exact- and Student’s t-tests for categorical and continuous data, respectively.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw