Medical Teacher, Vol. 28, No. 8, 2006, pp. 675–679 TWELVE TIPS Twelve tips for recruiting and retaining facilitators in a problem-based learning programme MICHELLE MCLEAN 1 & JACQUELINE VAN WYK 2 1 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Medical Education, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, UAE; 2 School of Undergraduate Medical Education, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa ABSTRACT Successful curriculum reform requires considerable staff development. It is imperative for management to ensure that its academic staff members are committed to the change. This requires planning and negotiation. As facilitators form the ‘teaching’ backbone of a problem-based learning programme, faculty management must ensure mechanisms are in place to recruit facilitators, and that once recruited, the experience is sufficiently rewarding personally for their enthusiasm to be sustained. This article offers several solutions to difficulties which many medical schools encounter during the early years of an undergraduate PBL programme which replaces a traditional curriculum. The advice offered ranges from recruiting facilitators from the private sector to encouraging staff to become involved in other areas of curriculum development. Most importantly, however, is the reward and incentive system, which must be well advertised in advance of any programme implementation. The suggestions presented in this article will be useful to faculties planning to implement problem-based learning as well as those who already have a programme in place. Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL), in which students learn in small groups overseen by a tutor or facilitator, has been widely implemented in many different formats (e.g. undergraduate, graduate, hybrid). Much has been written about the tutor and facilitator in PBL, with debates revolving around the expert versus the non-expert facilitator and the impact of facilitator characteristics on group success (e.g. Silver & Wilkins, 1991; Schmidt & Moust, 1995; De Grave et al., 1998; Maudsley, 1999; Dolmans et al., 1999; Hay & Katsikitis, 2001; Dolmans et al., 2002). Research has been both quantitative, such as the causal modelling studies of Gisjelaers and Schmidt (1990), and qualitative, which, for Dolmans and colleagues (2002), is valuable in understanding what each facilitator brings to the learning environment and facilitators’ perceptions of their role in the small group setting. Irrespective of the research approach, the evidence is unequivocal – facilitators are critical to the success of a PBL programme. Once recruited and trained, facilitator experi- ences must be sufficiently enjoyable that they remain enthusiastic and motivated and continue to contribute to student learning. Failure to recognise and reward their valuable contribution will certainly compromise the sustainability of any PBL programme (Bland et al., 2000; Robins et al., 2000). The advice currently being offered emanates from two in-depth studies of facilitators in the early years of the implementation of a five-year undergraduate PBL programme which replaced a six-year traditional programme, as well as the authors’ experiences with facilitator training, evaluation and support. Cognisance is taken of the trend towards graduate entry PBL programmes, where the requirements may be somewhat different. As each year of our PBL curriculum was implemented, it became increasingly difficult to secure sufficient faculty members to meet facilitation needs, despite the positive predictions of a feasibility study which provided a phased approach to faculty involvement in the new programme. Although Sefton (1997) reported PBL to be no more demanding on resources than a conventional curriculum, our experiences with large student numbers (and other unforeseen factors, such as a directive from national government for increased research output and a restructuring of public health) has stretched our human resource capacity and impacted on facilitator recruitment. Some of the issues identified in this summary will not only provide valuable starting points for institutions considering implementing a PBL programme but may also be useful to those who have already implemented their curriculum but may be battling with sustainability. Also provided are suggestions for encouraging additional facilitators to supplement the often finite reserve of committed individuals who were recruited in the early years of a new programme, and who may be heading towards ‘burnout’. As staff development is widely recognised as one of the most critical elements to successful curriculum reform (Bland et al., 2000; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000), some of the points outlined may be incorporated into staff development programmes either before or following PBL implementation. Correspondence: Professor Michelle McLean, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Medical Education, United Arab Emirates University, PO Box 17666, Al Ain, UAE. Email: mcleanm@uaeu.ac.ae ISSN 0142–159X print/ISSN 1466–187X online/06/080675–5 ß 2006 Informa UK Ltd. 675 DOI: 10.1080/01421590601110033 Med Teach Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by National Medical Library on 02/06/11 For personal use only.