Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMENTARY
DOI 10.1007/s40037-017-0363-z
Perspect Med Educ
Focus on what works and why it works: bridging the gap between
research knowledge and practical knowledge
Jan van Tartwijk1· Manon Kluijtmans2
© The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication.
In their contribution to Perspectives on Medical Education,
Ng, Baker, and Leslie provide a novel and clear perspec-
tive on faculty development in health profession education
(HPE) by conceptualizing it as a space for sharing research
and practical knowledge [1]. The process of sharing these
two types of knowledge implies that both are mobilized
during faculty development and, in the end, become re-
lated. Successful faculty development then empowers fac-
ulty by enriching their contextualized experiential knowl-
edge with research-based knowledge. According to Ng and
colleagues, this enables them to become agents of positive
change in their own system.
The key role that teacher involvement plays in the suc-
cess of educational change has been widely recognized in
the literature [2,3]. The impact that research knowledge,
i. e. evidence generated by systematic empirical research,
can have as fuel for innovation of education has also been
emphasized [4]. The million-dollar question that still needs
to be answered concerns how to close the proverbial gap
between research knowledge and practical knowledge [5]
within the space professional development provides. Clues
for its answer can be found in the literature on teacher pro-
fessional development.
In an extensive review of the literature on the effective-
ness of professional development in HPE, Steinert and her
colleagues [6] identify a number of ‘key features’ that make
professional development effective, including the role of ex-
Jan van Tartwijk
j.vantartwijk@uu.nl
1Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
2Center for Education and Training, University Medical Center
Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
periential learning and feedback. They also emphasize the
importance of working with peers. Similar reviews in the
field of research on teachers and teaching [7,8] found sim-
ilar features, also emphasizing the importance of a focus on
concrete issues related to instruction. Furthermore, models
for teacher learning are available that provide suggestions
for the utilization of research knowledge in teacher profes-
sional development [9,10]. In all these models, reflection
on application in practice is regarded as a key character-
istic of effective professional development. Such reflection
should not only focus on what works, but also on why it
works, using the knowledge provided by previous research
as a starting point.
Here, we want to advocate an approach for faculty de-
velopment that aims to stimulate faculty to enrich their
contextualized experiential knowledge with research-based
knowledge, by stimulating them to not only focus on what
works, but also on why it works.
Most faculty involved in medical education have been
trained as clinicians and many of them also as researchers.
Clinicians routinely exert evidence-based practice: integrat-
ing scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient
values. As researchers they are familiar with the routine of
formulating research questions that are grounded in theory,
systematically gathering data for analysis to answer these
questions, and reflecting on their findings by considering
how these findings match with existing knowledge based on
research of others. All of these routines can be used in fac-
ulty development. When faculty design education they can
use knowledge that is available in the research literature on
(medical) education, they can systematically gather data on
its success, and they can reflect on their evaluations together
with their peers. Many of the key features of effective pro-
fessional development are included in such approaches, and
they could contribute to the development of what is referred
J. Tartwijk, M. Kluijtmans
to in the literature as scholarship of teaching and learning
among faculty [11,12]. In such a professional development
space, research knowledge and practical knowledge would
not only be mobilized, but would merge, laying the foun-
dation for education in which research evidence is taken
seriously [5].
Of additional importance, faculty might experience a co-
alescence of clinical, research and teaching roles by taking
a scholarly approach to teaching, rather than experiencing
teaching as an isolated (or conflicting) task. This could fos-
ter a positive narrative on teaching, which might strengthen
teacher identity and motivation [13].
Conflict of interest J. van Tartwijk and M. Kluijtmans declare that
they have no competing interests.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
References
1. Ng SL, Baker LR, Leslie K. Re-positioning faculty development as
knowledge mobilization for health professions education. Perspect
Med Educ. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0362- 0.
2. Kelly B. Key themes and future directions for implementation sci-
ence and psychology in education. In: Kelly B, Perkins DF, editors.
Handbook of implementation sciencefor psychology in education.
New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012. pp. 461–4.
3. Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change, 4th ed. New
York: Teachers College; 2007.
4. Slavin RE. Evidence-based education policies: transforming educa-
tional practice and research. Educ Res. 2002;31:15–21.
5. van der Vleuten CPM, Driessen EW. What would happen to educa-
tion if we take education evidence seriously? Perspect Med Educ.
2014;3:222–32.
6. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, et al. A systematic review of fac-
ulty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effec-
tiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach.
2006;28:497–526.
7. van Driel J, Meirink J, Van Veen K, Zwart R. Current trends and
missing links in studies on teacher professional development in sci-
ence education: a review of design features and quality of research.
Stud Sci Educ. 2012;48:129–60.
8. Desimone LM, Porter AC, Garet MS, Yoon KS, Birman BF. Ef-
fects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: re-
sults from a three-year longitudinal study. Educ Eval Policy Anal.
2002;24:81–112.
9. Clarke D, Hollingsworth H. Elaborating a model of teacher profes-
sional growth. Teach Teach Educ. 2002;18:947–67.
10. Korthagen FAJ, Kessels J, Koster B, Lagerwerf B, Wubbels T. Link-
ing practice and theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.
11. Mårtensson K, Roxå T, Olsson T. Developing a quality culture
through the scholarship of teaching and learning. High Educ Res
Dev. 2011;30:51–62.
12. Trigwell K, Shale S. Student learning and the scholarship of univer-
sity teaching. Stud High Educ. 2004;29:523–36.
13. van Lankveld T, Schoonenboom J, Kusurkar RA, Volman M,
Beishuizen J, Croiset G. Integrating the teaching role into one’s
identity: a qualitative study of beginning undergraduate medical
teachers. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016; doi:10.1007/s10459- 016-
9694-5.
Jan van Tartwijk PhD, is a professor of Education at Utrecht Uni-
versity. He is the chair of Utrecht University’s Graduate School of
Teaching and the scientific manager of the educational development
and training group (O&T) of the faculty of Social and Behavioural
Sciences.
Manon Kluijtmans PhD, is an associate professor at the University
Medical Center Utrecht. She is the education director of the Utrecht
University’s master in Clinical Health Sciences which includes Phys-
iotherapy Science, Nursing Science and Clinical Speech and language
Sciences, as well as a premasters program Clinical Health Sciences.
