CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Innovations in Medical EducationReflective Practices in EducationCoaching Methods and Impact

Coaching the Coach: A Program for Development of Faculty Portfolio Coaches

Kopechek, Jack, Bardales, Cheryl, Lash, A. Todd, Walker, Curtis, Pfeil, Sheryl, Ledford, Cynthia H.·2017·Teaching and Learning in Medicine
DOI 10.1080/10401334.2016.1273781
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PROBLEM: Faculty coaching is recognized as an essential element for effective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education, yet best practices for training these coaches are uncertain. INTERVENTION: New portfolio coaches participated in a multifaceted training program that included orienting modules, a 7.5-hr training workshop featuring analysis of reflective writing, an Observed Structured Teaching Exercise (OSTE), and subsequent longitudinal coaches' meetings for timely task training. Four desired coaching skills were emphasized in the initial training: creating a safe environment, explicitly using performance data, asking questions that elicit reflection, and guiding the student to develop future goals and plans. We collected and analyzed several outcomes: (a) coaches' self-assessment at key intervals, (b) open-ended written responses to three coaching vignettes, (c) video recordings of the OSTE, and (d) subsequent student evaluation of the coach. In an attempt to capture learning from the workshop, both the responses to written vignettes and the video-recorded encounters were coded for presence or absence of the four desired skills. CONTEXT: Our portfolio and coaching program was instituted as part of a major undergraduate medical education reform. A new cohort of 25 coaches is enrolled with each matriculating student class, and each coach is assigned to work individually with 8-10 students, forming a coaching relationship that continues over 4 years. Coaches are compensated at 5% full-time equivalent. OUTCOME: On coach self-assessment, the majority of coaches reported significant improvement in their perceived ability to assess a student's level of reflection, enhance reflection, use performance data, and guide a student to develop goals and plans. After two semesters, coach perception of improved abilities persisted. Students rated coaches as excellent (82%), reporting that coaches created safe environments (99%), promoted insight (92%), and aided in goal setting (97%). Written responses to vignettes before the OSTE found that several coaches omitted desired behaviors; however, posttraining responses showed no discernable pattern of learning. Coding of the OSTE, in contrast, documented that all coaches demonstrated all four of the desired skills. LESSONS LEARNED: Although coaches reported learning related to key skills, learning was not apparent when responses to written vignettes were examined. In contrast, skills were demonstrated in the OSTE, perhaps due to the added structured tasks as well as anticipation of feedback. In conclusion, this portfolio coach training program achieved its desired aim of providing students with portfolio coaches who demonstrated the desired skills, as reported by both coaches and students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2016.1273781

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kopechek, J., Bardales, C., Lash, A. T., Walker, C., Pfeil, S., & Ledford, C. H.
Affiliations
  • Nationwide Children's Hospital (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kopechek, Jack
ORCID
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-03-02
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
326-336
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
DOI
10.1080/10401334.2016.1273781
OpenAlex
W2612198735
Cited by
28
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
Keywords
faculty coaching, coach education, reflective writing, undergraduate medical education, coaching skills, goal setting, reflective practice, performance data
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Faculty, Female, Humans, Male, Ohio, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schools, Medical, Self-Assessment, Staff Development, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review