
==== Front
J Educ Health Promot
J Educ Health Promot
JEHP
J Edu Health Promot
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
2277-9531
2319-6440
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow India

JEHP-13-232
10.4103/jehp.jehp_766_23
Original Article
Revision of task description of educational development centers and educational development offices: Toward performance improvement
Shaterjalali Maria
Yamani Nikoo 1
Mohammadi Aeen 2
Department of Medical Science, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran
1 Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of E-Learning in Medical Education, Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
Address for correspondence: Dr. Nikoo Yamani, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezarjarib Street, Isfahan, Iran. E-mail: nikooyamani@gmail.com
2024
11 7 2024
13 23231 5 2023
31 7 2023
Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Education and Health Promotion
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
BACKGROUND:

In recent years, educational development centers (EDCs) have evolved among universities from a marginal to a strategic aspect. The present study aimed to achieve an applicable task description at two levels of basic and quality improvement for EDCs and educational development offices (EDOs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This research used the triangulation method. Initially, the current condition of EDCs across the country was evaluated with an electronic questionnaire in 2019. In the second phase, the modified Delphi method was used in two rounds with purposive sampling and a researcher-made questionnaire. The research participants were from all of the country. In the RAND technique, an electronic questionnaire was sent to 14 experts in medical education. After the analysis, the results were discussed, and the questions were answered again. We determined frequency and used content analysis.

RESULTS:

The task descriptions containing basic and quality improvement have been developed in three main sections: Organizational communication of EDCs and EDOs for policymaking; organizational structures, organizational charts, and the budget of EDCs and EDOs; and developmental roles of EDCs and EDOs (curriculum policies, curriculum development, blended learning, community-oriented), faculty development, evaluation (student assessment, faculty evaluation, program evaluation, accreditation), research (educational research, educational scholarship, innovative educational designs, events), and students (student committee, talented students).

CONCLUSION:

The task description guidelines have been prepared with 68 articles in basic and quality improvement and three main sections, including organizational communication of the EDCs and EDOs, organizational structures, the budget of the EDCs and EDOs, and their development roles.

Educational development center
educational development office
educational development unit
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

EDCs were established for education improvement, teaching, and learning in universities due to growing interest in improving educational quality.[1] In the definition of education development, it is considered a functional and scholarly field that includes all developmental support methods for teaching and learning at universities such as the growth and development of courses, programs, and faculty development, as well as online development, and face-to-face and administrative role in the teaching and learning environment. Therefore, the presented definition of education development is an indication of its complexity.[2]

In recent years, EDCs have evolved from a marginal aspect to a key and strategic aspect in universities. This transition has changed their duties from the primary supportive teaching and learning role to beyond.[3] EDCs have been promoted in response to several factors: changing expectations of society, the necessity of accountability, and faculty development and their expertise.[4] According to the studies conducted in European, the United States, and Australian universities, Knapper states that although fundamental changes are challenging to implement, all kinds of change are feasible.[5]

The EDCs in Iranian Medical Sciences Universities were established with the aim of promoting the quality of education. The tasks of the EDCs are categorized into five areas: educational planning, faculty development, educational research, standardization of exams, program evaluation, and continuing medical education. In recent years, with the widespread education in both inpatient and outpatient settings, these tasks have been expanded. Put simply, the EDCs require more responsibilities other than the five mentioned areas, including direction, coordination, and supervision of educational programs, evaluation, assessment methods and exam analysis, faculty evaluation, supervisory activities regarding talented students, supporting and growing the numbers of educational research and conducting scholarship, e-learning, as well as coordination and supervision of EDOs of faculties and hospitals.[6] In a study concerning “the evaluation of EDCs and its challenges based on the experts’ opinions in Iran,” several challenges were identified, which are as follows: Integration of education and service delivery in the Ministry of Health and medical education, policymaking and restrictions of authorities in the EDCs, poor organizational structure, skilled human resources shortage in the EDCs, inappropriate workflow, as well as improper interactions within university regarding the area of education and research, and poor knowledge translation.[7]

In fact, the EDCs and EDOs of universities and faculties of medical sciences vary in terms of a number of factors, such as facilities, academic policies, and cultural-geographical aspects. Evolving challenges and needs of the academic community result in evolving expectations of EDCs which also requires a comprehensive approach to develop a task description regulation. Moreover, some other factors, including moving toward third-and-fourth-generation universities, the importance of innovation in education, the necessity of knowledge translation, and the delegation of authority such as educational policymaking in universities along with the programs announced by the Ministry of Health to EDCs lead to changing expectations of EDCs. On the other hand, EDCs are in charge of providing educational strategies, policies, and solutions, conducting educational research, and their implementation is in line with the promotion of universities. Therefore, a profound understanding is required in order to achieve the optimal applicable task description for every EDC considering the mentioned varieties and differences of medical sciences universities and faculties, and then extending the acquired tasks to a wider scope becomes necessary. As a result, we found ourselves obligated to revise the task descriptions in EDCs and EDOs of nationwide and then provide a task description in two levels of basic and quality improvement.

Materials and Methods

Study design and settings

The present research was conducted with the aim of regulating optimal and applicable task descriptions for the EDCs and EDOs across the country. It is mixed-method research using a concurrent triangulation method,[8] descriptive research with a survey, and consensus methods, including the modified Delphi technique,[9] and RAND technique[1011] over 3 years [Figure 1].

Figure 1 Study process

Study participants and sampling

The participants of the first phase were EDCs and EDOs managers across the country in order to assess the current situation. The participants of the second phase in both rounds were as follows: EDC managers and EDO managers among faculties including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing and midwifery, para-medicine, public health, Advanced Technologies in Medicine, rehabilitation, Persian medicine, and health management and information science. The research is also comprised of a focus group consisting of educational hospital offices managers, as well as, 32 chancellors and vice-chancellors of education of medical sciences universities and faculties among 10 regions across the country, and some former managers of EDC of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education were also in the research. The third phase of the research consisted of 14 experts in this field from 10 regions across the country.

Data collection tool and technique

First Phase: The ongoing activities and the current situation of EDCs and EDOs were evaluated using an electronic questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire was in the form of a self-report with closed-ended and open-ended questions, sent to the EDCs and EDOs across the country. The sections of the questionnaire included the instructions issued by the Ministry of Health in terms of medical sciences education, faculty development, curriculum planning, teaching and learning methods, educational research, developmental-and-innovative plans, educational scholarship, educational events, and conferences, student activities related to the development of medical education and education organization, and management of the development of medical sciences education.

Second Phase: The modified Delphi method was used concurrently in the first phase with the aim of compiling optimal tasks for the EDCs and EDOs. The first round was carried out in order to make a draft of task descriptions using conventional content analysis,[1213] with purposive sampling and the maximum variation.[14] The data were collected from participants all over the country: Nine focus groups of EDC managers, ten focus groups of EDO managers of faculties including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing and midwifery, para-medicine, public health, Advanced Technologies in Medicine, rehabilitation, Persian medicine, and health management and information science. There was also one focus group consisting of the EDO managers of hospitals. In order to complete the data, face-to-face and phone call interviews were carried out with 32 chancellors and vice-chancellors of education of medical sciences universities and faculties among 10 regions across the country, and some former managers of EDCs of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The main questions were related to the possible challenges in the current task descriptions, the necessity to revise the current task descriptions, task descriptions of the EDCs and EDOs from their own perspective, and follow-up questions. Interviewing continued until data saturation.[1516] To measure the trustworthiness of the data, we used four components of credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability.[17] In the second round of Delphi, the task description of the EDCs and EDOs with 72 items was prepared and sent as the optimal task draft to EDCs and EDOs on a scale of four with an electronic questionnaire. The draft of the task description was prepared using the results of the first phase, and the first round of the second phase (content analysis). The prepared draft consisted of two main sections: Ways of compiling the tasks with 15 items, and task descriptions with 72 items. The task description was also divided into 6 sections, including organizational tasks, micro-and-macro interactions, curriculum planning, teaching and learning methods, faculty development, evaluation (faculty evaluation, student assessment, and program evaluation), educational research, educational scholarship, and developmental-and-innovative plans. The amount of 70% was considered an agreement criterion. The validity and internal consistency of the questionnaire were examined using CVI and CVR, and Cronbach’s alpha (0.93), respectively.

Third Phase: In the third phase, the results obtained from the two previous phases and the literature review were compared, and an electronic questionnaire was sent to a number of experts. The 9-point Likert electronic questionnaire included two sections: General questions related to the structure and task description of the EDCs and EDOs, and developmental roles and task description of the EDCs and EDOs. Once the frequency of the questionnaire items in the first stage of RAND was determined, the agreement rate of 70% or higher for the 7–9 point Likert scale was considered a basic task, and the agreement rate of 40–69% was considered a quality improvement task. The validity of the questionnaire was evaluated using CVI and CVR, and its reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. In the second phase of RAND, a questionnaire corresponding to the questionnaire of the first phase was developed; it consisted of one frequency column of the results from the previous phase, a yes/no scale, and a description column. Initially, the experts discussed the questionnaire in a meeting, and they all answered it separately. After receiving the results of this phase in the form of frequency and content analysis of the description column, the task description was developed as a practical guideline. Then, the optimal task description was designed for the EDCs and EDOs across the country.

Ethical consideration

The present research has been approved by the National Center for Medical Education Research of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (NASR) with ethical code 982325. The anonymity and confidentially of the participants were preserved in every phase. The participants were made fully aware of the nature and purpose of the research, an informed consent form was obtained, and the interviews were recorded.

Results

First phase

In the first phase of this research, the areas of educational research and developmental-and-innovative plans received the lowest response of 28, and the area of instructions issued by the Ministry of Health in terms of education received the highest response of 49.

According to the responses, the greatest limitation was related to research and issued instructions, however, the most frequent activities were related to curriculum planning, faculty evaluation, and student assessment. The results are presented as follows: Regarding the issued instructions of the Ministry of Health in the field of medical sciences, EDCs stated that in 54% of cases, the improvement programs were implemented solely or in cooperation with other sections in universities, and the EDCs’ most significant activity was also in regard to improving the assessment system and medical sciences exams.

The results showed that more than 70% of EDCs have a specific plan for faculty development. Moreover, the university or the Ministry of Health and Medical Education had taken actions including needs assessment regarding priorities of faculty development, setting priorities based on surveys, assessment of the existing problems regarding education performance, and development based on documents and instructions issued.

The third area under investigation was evaluation (faculty evaluation, student assessment, and program evaluation). In all the responding EDCs, the results showed that the quality of the educational performance of faculty members was checked (100%) using the opinion of the learners (100%), the opinion of the managers and superiors (87.5%), and the opinion of colleagues (75%). The activities related to student assessment in most EDCs were improving methods and providing standardized exams in faculties, providing consultants regarding exam design and assessment guidance, monitoring and supervising the conduct of exams, and participating with the faculties. In relation to the program evaluation, 42.5% of EDCs and EDOs evaluate their educational courses less than 25%, and only 27.7% of EDCs and EDOs evaluate the mentioned courses more than 75%. In 50% of the responding universities, the course plan has been developed over 75%. In addition, 81.25% of the EDCs and EDOs have come up with a systematic way of compiling, consulting, updating and supervising the course plans. In 60% of universities, at least in one field-level, actions have been taken toward implementing competency-based education (CBE). The fifth area was teaching-learning methods. The results showed that the most interactive teaching methods used in universities before the COVID-19 pandemic included interactive lectures (question and answer, quizzes, group discussion, etc.), case-based learning, peer teaching, simulations, problem-based learning (PBL), team-based learning (TBL), and flipped classroom. In the area of educational research, and developmental-and-innovative plans, the EDCs identified the priorities for educational research (77.8%) and the priorities for developmental-and-innovative plans (60.42%).

In more than two-thirds of the universities, there were mechanisms for registration and revision, financial sponsorship (grant), support for educational research proposal, and support for developmental-and-innovative plans. In the field of educational scholarship, the results showed the establishment of educational scholarship committees in 93.75% of the medical sciences universities nationwide. Additionally, in more than 80% of universities, necessary promotional actions for the expansion of educational scholarship were taken by the EDCs including raising awareness and faculty development, familiarizing faculty members with the relevant clauses related to educational scholarship in the promotion regulations, and providing consultation to faculty members in relation to developing a report on an educational scholarship process. In the field of festivals and educational events, the results have shown that the universities were responsible for holding the Marty Motahari in universities, however, 75% of universities did not hold any medical education-related conferences in the year before data collection. The ninth area included the activities of the student committee in educational development. The results indicated the formation of a student committee for educational development (100%) and its establishment (94%) in responding universities.

The last area was the organization and management of medical science education development. The results showed that the EDCs (80%) had an approved organizational structure and members of the faculty and staff (74%) had undergone short or long-term courses in medical education.

Second phase

The participants of the second phase in the first round were all the managers of the EDCs (69 individuals), all the managers of the EDOs (members of eight panels from universities all around the country), as well as 32 chancellors and vice-chancellors in medical sciences universities and faculties across the country.

Delphi’s second round questionnaires were completed by the participants of the first round. Regarding the optimal task descriptions of the EDCs, the results of the content analysis were divided into 17 themes and 45 sub-themes. The mentioned themes encompass task description, policymaking, macro policy formulation, organizational arrangements, interactions, faculty members, faculty development, curriculum planning, teaching and learning methods, virtual education, faculty evaluation, student assessment, program evaluation and accreditation, research, martyr Motahari educational festival, student improvement, and magazines. Also the optimal task description of EDOs was divided into 11 themes and 40 sub-themes.

The second round questionnaire contained 87 items in two main sections. In the section “compiling tasks,” the participants agreed on “having an organizational chart” in accordance with the task description in every university/faculty more than any other suggestions (92.75%). In the sub-section of organizational tasks and micro-and-macro interactions, cases like membership in educational policymaking meetings (91%) were suggested as a basic task; and participation with the right to vote in the students and research councils of university/faculty (67%) was proposed as a quality improvement task.

In the sub-section of curriculum planning, cases like designing outlines for lesson plans and course plans (88.75%), and providing consultation in relation to curriculum planning (86.5%) were suggested as basic tasks. Planning for continuity and quality improvement and development of virtual education (88%), and collaboration in order to implement and supervise the use of active learning (87%) were among the suggestions in the sub-section of teaching and learning methods. In the sub-section of the faculty development, a basic task was proposed which is presented as follows: planning and designing courses for faculty development that are in line with their task descriptions (92%). Designing and implementing a faculty evaluation system (90%) and designing and providing student assessment guidelines (88%) were among the proposed basic tasks in the area of evaluation (faculty evaluation, student assessment, and program evaluation).

In the sub-section of research, education scholarship and innovative educational plans such as the evaluation of innovative educational programs (91%) was among the proposed basic task.

Third phase

The participants’ careers in the third stage of the research were as follows: universities chancellor, universities vice-chancellor of education, faculties’ chancellor, faculties’ vice-chancellor of education, chairs of EDC of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, managers of EDCs of the universities, EDOs managers of faculties, and EDOs managers of the educational hospitals. Moreover, 36.4% of the participants had 6 to 10 years of executive work experience, 9.1% of them had 11 to 15 years of executive work experience, and 54.5% had more than 16 years of experience. On the whole, the ultimate results of all three phases of this research have been presented in the Tables 1-7 as a task description guideline. The results are provided in three main sections at two levels of basic and quality improvement.

Table 1 Organizational communication of EDCs and EDOs for policymaking

Task description	Task level	
The presence of the EDC manager with voting rights in the educational council of the university	Basic	
Defining the communication methods of the EDC with the higher authorities of the university, such as the educational council of the university, in the process of the EDC’s policymaking	Basic	
Presence of the EDC manager in the university council (depending on the university’s conditions)	Quality improvement	
Presence of the EDC manager with voting rights in the students and research council deputies of the university	Quality improvement	
Management and leadership to implement and execute the approved educational policies at universities by the EDC	Basic	
collaboration of EDC manager with the university’s faculty recruitment and auditing committees upon request	Quality improvement	
Presence of the EDO manager of faculty/hospital with voting rights in the educational council of the faculty/hospital	Basic	
Presence of the faculty EDO manager in the faculty research and students council	Quality improvement	

Table 2 Organizational structures, organizational chart, and budget of the EDCs and EDOs

Task description	Task level	
Accountability of the EDC and presenting performance reports to the deputy of education	Basic	
Launching operational units for EDC, that are in accordance with the issued task descriptions and the conditions of the university	Basic	
Take on tasks outside of the task description for the EDC, and EDO only if approved by the university/faculty educational council, also only if it is not interfering with the already approved tasks	Basic	
Presence of faculty members and full-time staffs in the EDC according to the conditions of the university and the task description of the EDC	Basic	
Estimating the required number of medical education faculty members, annually and then presenting it to the deputy of education	Basic	
Budget allocation aside from the budget from the deputy of education, as well as the delegation of financial authority to the EDC	Quality improvement	
The collaboration and communication of the EDC, with other centers that are in accordance with the conditions of the university; including the Clinical Skills Center, Virtual Education Center, Medical Education Department, Continuing Medical Education Center, Professional Skills Training of the university, Talented students Office and Medical Education Research Center (if any of the centers are present)	Basic	
The EDC is accountable for the supervision and leadership of the faculty/hospital EDO (according to the structure of the university)	Basic	
The faculty/hospital EDO is held accountable and needs to answer to the chancellor or educational vice-chancellor of the faculty/hospital, and EDC (depending on the university structure); as well as present performance report	Basic	
Launching operational units in the faculty/hospital EDO in accordance with the issued task descriptions and the condition of the faculty/hospital under the supervision of the EDC	Basic	
Presence of full-time staffs in the faculty/hospital EDO according to the conditions of the faculty, as well as the task descriptions	Basic	

Table 3 Developmental roles of EDCs and EDOs - educational planning

Developmental role	Area	Task description	Task level	
Educational Planning	Developing Curriculum Policies	Establishing policy in relation to curriculum planning, teaching and learning methods, and community-based learning by EDC	Basic	
Establishing policy by the EDC based on education requirements, social accountability in accordance with upstream documents, and the policy of national decision-making authorities	Basic	
Developing a Quality Curriculum	Designing a curriculum management system for ongoing programs (basic and clinical) and community-based programs, as well as legislating the mentioned systems and programs in the educational council of the university by the EDC	Basic	
	collaboration with the EDO of the faculty by the EDC in developing guidelines for proper implementation of curriculum management in various educational settings	Basic	
	Monitoring and supervision of the proper implementation of the curriculum management guidelines by the faculty/hospital EDO through the EDC	Basic	
	Providing feedback related to the evaluation of implemented programs to the faculty/hospital EDO by EDC	Basic	
	Cooperation of the EDC with the EDO of the faculty in order to compile and revise the curriculum, also supervision the process	Basic	
	Design and establishment of a system for lesson plans, as well as course plans by the EDC (depending on the conditions of the university). It can be delegated to the EDO and collaboration and providing consultants to the EDO of the faculty.	Basic	
	Providing consultancy, as well as supervising the launch of a new course and interdisciplinary field by the EDC	Basic	
	Collaboration of the EDC regarding education development projects assigned by the Ministry of Health. it can be delegated to the EDO of the faculty	Basic	
	Developing Blended Learning	EDC’s support for the continuation and improvement of the quality, and development of virtual education (according to the university structure). It can be delegated to the EDO of the faculty	Basic	
	EDC’s support and facilitation for applying simulators in education (in the Clinical Skills Center). It can be delegated to the EDO	Basic	
	Community-Based and Social Accountability Learning Development	Establishment of community base, social accountability, and community-oriented medical education in accordance with the country’s guidelines; and approving the mentioned program in the educational council of the university by the EDC	Basic	
	Collaboration of the EDC with the EDO of the faculty in promoting community base, social accountability, and community-oriented medical education	Basic	

Table 4 Developmental roles of the EDCs and EDOs faculty development

Developmental role	Task description	Task type	
Faculty Development	Developing an educational faculty development system by the EDC	Basic	
Approving an faculty development system in the educational council of the university by the EDC	Basic	
	Needs assessment of the contents related to faculty development by the EDC. It can be delegated to EDO of faculty/hospital	Basic	
	Designing and implementing faculty development courses by the EDC for faculty members, instructors (non-faculty members), and education department managers. The first two groups can be delegated to the faculty EDO	Basic	
	Presenting faculty development consultation by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty/hospital	Basic	
	Training competent instructors by the EDC for the purpose of teaching in faculty development workshops. It can be delegated to the EDO of the university (quality improvement)	Basic	
	Cooperation of the EDC in designing, and planning and collaboration in implement development courses for postgraduate students and new assistants with the relevant faculty. It can be delegated to the EDO of the faculty.	Basic	
	The collaboration of the EDC with in-service education service in order to design and implement development courses for non-faculty members	Quality improvement	
	Educational talent of the Student Committee of Education Development by the EDC. It can be delegated to EDOs of faculty	Basic	
	Implementing educational talent of the Student Committee of Education Development by the EDO of the hospital	Quality improvement	
	Publishing medical-related journals or educational media by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty/hospital (quality improvement)	Basic	

Table 5 Developmental roles of the EDCs and EDOs evaluation

Developmental role	Area	Task description	Task level	
Evaluation	Student Assessment	Designing a comprehensive student assessment system for all educational settings by the EDC	Basic	
	Presenting consultation by the EDC to the EDO of faculty/hospital in order to develop a guideline for student assessment	Basic	
	Supervising and providing feedback to the EDO of faculty/hospital regarding the student assessment system (implementation of the guidelines), and continuous improvement and support by the EDC to evaluate whether the student assessment system is properly functioning	Basic	
	Providing consultation and cooperation by the EDC with the EDO of faculty (basic)/hospital (quality improvement) in order to design assessment tools such as portfolios and logbooks (physical and virtual)	Basic	
	Faculty Evaluation	Designing and approving the policies (those that are required to be implemented) related to faculty evaluation in the educational council of the university	Basic	
	Designing a faculty evaluation system by the EDC	Basic	
	Implementation of faculty evaluation by the EDO of the faculty. Regarding to the clinical faculty member and other instructors, It can be delegated to EDO of hospital (based on the conditions of the university) (quality improvement) Announcing faculty evaluation results regarding Clinical faculty members and other instructors by EDO of hospital to EDO of faculty (basic)	Basic	
	Sending feedback on faculty evaluation results to the vice-chancellor of the faculty, the EDC, and the relevant faculty member by the EDO	Basic	
	Supervising and tracking the impacts of faculty evaluation on education performance improvement of the faculty members by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty/hospital	Basic	
	Compiling guidelines on using the results of the faculty evaluation for faculty members’ promotion and tracking by the EDC	Basic	
	Program Evaluation	Developing a comprehensive system of program evaluation by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO	Basic	
	Cooperation and providing consultants regarding educational (departments) program evaluation by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty (quality improvement)	Basic	
	collaboration of the EDO of faculty regarding departments’ program evaluation and supervising the evaluation implementation by educational departments	Basic	
	Accreditation	collaboration and consultation by the EDC regarding the process of accreditation (program and institute)	Basic	
	Implementing the accreditation process of EDC by itself	Basic	
	Collaboration and providing consultants by the EDC regarding the process of accreditation of educational hospitals. It can be delegated to the EDO of the hospital (depending on the university’s conditions) (quality improvement)/It can be delegated to the EDO of the faculty, if there is no EDO of the hospital (quality improvement)	Basic	

Table 6 Developmental roles of the EDCs and EDOs research

Developmental role	Area	Task description	Task level	
Research	Educational Research, Educational Scholarship, and Developmental-and-Innovative Plans	Policy establishment regarding educational research, educational scholarship, and developmental-and-innovative designs by the EDC	Basic	
	Responsible for establishing developmental and research in education projects by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty (basic)/hospital (quality improvement)	Basic	
	Compiling a guideline for development plans, innovative educational activities, educational research, and its implementation by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty (quality improvement)	Basic	
	Planning for the development of scholarly activities and educational research at faculties and its implementation by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty (basic)/hospital (quality improvement)	Basic	
	Management of the educational research projects by the EDC (In universities with educational research center)	Basic	
	Festival	Collaboration in holding Martyr Motahari Educational Festival by the EDC	Basic	

Table 7 Developmental roles of the EDCs and EDOs students

Developmental role	Area	Task description	Task type	
Students	Student Committee of Education Development	Providing resources and facilities for the establishment of the student committee of education development with seeking support from related structures at universities, in accordance with the national statutes by the EDC	Basic	
	Setting up, supporting, and supervising student committee of education development of university or faculty in accordance with the national statutes by the EDC. It can be delegated to the EDO of faculty (basic)/hospital (quality improvement)	Basic	
	Talented students	Collaboration and facilitating the activities of the talented students’ office by the EDC. The mentioned task could be delegated to the other departments of education at the discretion of the university	Basic	

Discussion

In Iran, the first EDC was established by the World Health Organization in 1972 at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Then, the establishment of EDCs was put on the agenda of medical universities in 1989 after setting up the EDC in the Ministry of Health and medical Education. Task descriptions of EDCs and EDOs went through several revisions. In the present research, the task descriptions of the EDCs and EDOs being compiled at both levels of basic and quality improvement using different methods, including utilizing the stakeholders’ point of view in the field of education development of medical sciences universities, conducting a survey on experts, taking into account the current situation, changing expectation of society, and subsequently, changing approach of medical sciences universities.

The first section of the task description was related to organizational communication in regulating policies by the EDC and EDO. EDC’s task descriptions were designed which was in relation to communication methods with higher authorities and university vice-chancellors, and participating in the educational council of the university, university council, the students and research council deputies of the university, faculty recruitment and auditing committees, and implementation of educational policies. Haghdoost et al., in the study regarding “Evaluation of Education Development Centers,” stated that the process of policymaking and limited authority were among the challenges of EDCs.[7] In addition, Dehnavieh et al. introduced changing policies and poor management as challenges of the EDCs.[18] In another study, the areas of management and leadership and the sub-areas like strategic planning and independent management were mentioned as standards of the EDCs.[6] Developing a framework in the present research regarding ways of interaction with higher authorities of the university could facilitate the implementation of EDCs’ policies.

The second section of the task description includes the organizational structure, organizational chart, and budget. In this section, the tasks in the area of organizational structure and EDCs’ accountability, EDCs’ human resources (such as faculty members, staff, and required experts), required budget, and connection of the EDC with other units (such as the clinical skills center, virtual education, talented student office, and EDOs) were compiled clearly and in detail. According to other studies, human resource shortage and adequate budget were the challenges of the EDCs.[718] In the present research, we attempted to compile the tasks explicitly.

The third section included the developmental roles of the EDCs and EDOs with five sub-sections: educational planning, faculty development, evaluation, research, and student. Haghdoost et al. selected five areas for the standards of the EDCs: management and leadership, educational planning, faculty development, test evaluation, and educational research.[6] The study by Changiz et al. showed that the expectations of faculty members from the EDCs were educational roles and faculty development, evaluation (faculty evaluation, student assessment), and science production.[19] Increasing the development roles of the EDCs and EDOs in the present research is inevitable, following the changing needs of society.

In the sub-section of educational planning, the task descriptions were developed explicitly and in detail. It includes developing curriculum policies, developing a quality curriculum such as designing curriculum management, developing implementation guidelines and providing feedback, designing lesson plans and curriculum revision, developing blended learning such as facilitating the application of simulators in education, Community base, community-oriented and social accountability. A study on the “accreditation of the EDCs” in Iran showed that social accountability, resources, and various curriculums had been achieved in less than 70% of the EDCs.[6] Another study regarding the activity of the EDO showed a high average in relation to educational planning.[20] Indeed, developing policies in accordance with every university’s conditions will lead to the feasibility and proper implementation of the program.

In the sub-section of faculty development, the task description was developed in detail regarding developing and approving a comprehensive system, design and implementation of faculty development, instructors who are not a member of the faculty senate, education managers, and presenting consultation to them, training competent instructors, collaboration with the in-service education system; and educational development of the student’s committee of education development. In the study conducted by Haghdoost et al., the design of an applicable development system for instructors as a standard was pointed out.[6] In this research, the task description of the EDCs and EDOs, regarding educational faculty development has been developed with more clarity than the previous task description.

In the sub-section of the evaluation, the task description was compiled in detail in the areas of student assessment, faculty evaluation, program evaluation, and accreditation. The student assessments include: designing a comprehensive student assessment system, presenting consultation in order to develop implementation guidelines, supervising and providing feedback, and consultation in order to design assessment tools. Regarding the area of faculty evaluation, the following tasks have been developed: designing policies and faculty evaluation system and tracking the impacts of faculty evaluation on their performance and promotion. In addition, the tasks in relation to the program evaluation include developing an evaluation system for educational programs and providing consultants to education department. Collaboration and consultation regarding the process of accreditation (program, institute, hospital), and implementing the accreditation process of the EDC were the tasks assigned to the accreditation category. In a study, using new methods of student assessment and collaboration with the educational department in the evaluation area were mentioned as the standards of the EDCs.[6] The study conducted by Dehnavieh et al. mentioned deficiency in the faculty evaluation system as a challenge for the EDCs.[18] In regard to this sub-section, we also compiled an applicable task description in broad dimensions based on the findings of the research.

In the sub-section of research, the tasks are as follows: educational research, educational scholarship, innovative plans, and festivals. Policy formulation regarding educational research, developing the priorities of educational development-and-innovative plans, planning for the development of related activities at faculties, and holding the Martyr Motahari Educational Festival are among the stated task descriptions. In another study, having appropriate strategies to specify priorities of educational research was considered a standard of the EDCs.[6] In another study, poor knowledge translation was mentioned as a challenge for the EDCs, and as a solution, the faculties were encouraged to make the equivalence of “education development activities” instead of “research activities.”[7] It is obvious that like other developmental roles of the EDCs and EDOs, approving related policies and developing guidelines in accordance with the condition of the university could assist in its better implementation.

In the “students” sub-section, the EDCs’ task descriptions have been compiled in the areas of the student committee of education development and talented students. Also the tasks descriptions of the mentioned area comprise providing resources, setting up and supporting the student committee of educational development, and facilitating the activities of the talented student office. Medical sciences universities are responsible for the promotion and education of the students in every aspect, and they are required to focus on the tasks that achieve the mentioned main goals.

Limitation and recommendation

The breadth of the research population, having participants fully occupied with work, and the COVID-19 pandemic during the implementation were considered as limitations of the present study. Researchers came up with the idea of electronic questionnaires and phone call interviews to overcome the barriers. In addition, the breadth of the research population and the investigation of the topic from the stakeholders’ perspective, considering the current situation and different conditions of medical sciences universities are considered a strength of this study. To better implement the compiled task descriptions, it is suggested to revise and improve the accreditation standards of the EDCs of the medical sciences universities and EDOs of faculties in accordance with these tasks.

Conclusion

The task description guideline was developed with 68 articles in basic and quality improvement levels and three main sections including organizational communication of the EDCs and EDOs for policymaking, organizational structures, organizational charts, and the budget of the EDCs and EDOs, and developmental roles. This guideline can provide a clear interpretation of the task description and levels for the EDCs of universities and EDOs of faculties/hospitals. Basic tasks are defined as “the minimum” that all the EDCs and EDOs are obliged to follow and implement. However, the quality improvement tasks are those that should be implemented by the EDCs and EDOs. It is apparent that the participation of chancellors and vice-chancellors of the university is essential more than ever in order to fully implement the compiled task descriptions. An impeccable implementation of the compiled guidelines requires several factors including the collaboration of all managers, providing the infrastructure for creating a structure, providing budgets and human resources, motivating faculty members in order to encourage cooperation with EDCs, and empowering the EDCs and EDOs by appointing motivated, and knowledgeable staff in the field of education.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgement

Our special thanks to the committed experts in medical sciences universities, especially the EDCs of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education that collaborated with the present study for 3 years and without whom this study would not have been possible. We would also like to express our deep appreciation to the following for their guidance and contribution to the study: Dr. Azim Mirzazadeh, Dr. Farangis Shoghi, Dr. Farahnaz Kamali, Dr. Mitra Amini, Dr. Maryam Alizadeh, Dr. Sedigheh Najafipour, Dr. Yadollah Zarezade, and Dr. Aram Feyzi, and Dr. Somayeh Noori Hekmat.
==== Refs
References

1. Jerez Yàñez Ó Aranda Càceres R Corvalán Canessa F González Rojas L Ramos Torres A A teaching accompaniment and development model: possibilities and challenges for teaching and learning centers Int J Acad Dev 2019 24 204 8
2. Wilson M Kwong-See S Nocente N Campus-based educational development in Alberta Post-secondary Institutions. A Report for the Centre for Teaching and Learning University of Alberta 2015
3. Fernández I Márquez MD Educational development units in Spain: Current status and emerging trends Int J Acad Dev 2017 22 343 59
4. Davis MH Karunathilake I Harden RM AMEE Education Guide no. 28: The development and role of departments of medical education Med Teach 2005 27 665 75 16451885
5. Knapper C Does educational development matter? Int J Acad Dev 2016 21 105 15
6. Haghdoost A Momtazmanesh N Shoghi F Mohagheghi M Mehrolhassani M Accreditation the education development centers of medical-sciences universities: Another step toward quality improvement in education Iran J Public Health 2013 42 Supple1 134 40
7. Haghdoost AA Emami M Dehnavieh R Nader Momtazmanesh Shoghi Shafagh Aria F Mehrolhassani MH Evaluation of education development centers for medical sciences: Challenges and strategies Stride Dev Med Educ 2015 11 407 19
8. Creswell JW Plano Clark VL Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research 1st California Sage 2007
9. Keeney S Hasson F McKenna H The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research Wiley Blackwell 1st 2011
10. Humphrey-Murto S Varpio L Wood TJ Gonsalves C Ufholz LA Mascioli K The use of the Delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: A review Acad Med 2017 92 1491 8 28678098
11. Fitch K Bernstein SJ Aguilar MS Burnand B LaCalle J Lazaro P The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual Santa Monica RAND 2001 Monograph Reports. 2012
12. Zhang Y Wildemuth BM Qualitative Analysis of Content Available from: https://www.drghazi.net/media/drghazi/documentary8.pdf#page=329 [Last accessed on 2023 May 31]
13. Graneheim UH Lundman B Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness Nurse Educ Today 2004 24 105 12 14769454
14. Cronin P CM Smith V Understanding nursing and healthcare research 1st Sage 2014
15. Braun V Clark V Successful Qualitative Research a practical guide for beginners 1st sage 2013
16. Grove SK Burns N Gray J The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence Elsevier Health Sciences 2015
17. Rebar CR Macnee CL Understanding nursing research Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2011
18. Dehnavieh R Hosseini S Noori Hekmat S Mehrolhassani MH Pourdamghan N Haghdoost AA Kalantari AR Challenges of medical education development centers: A content analysis of authorities’ views Stride Dev Med Educ 2019 16 e85677
19. Changiz T Shater Jalali M Yamani N Exploring the faculty members’ expectations from educational development centers in medical universities: A qualitative research Iran J Med Educ 2013 12 947 64
20. Heidari S Arjmand R Eslami K Tahmasebioldaji F Internal evaluation of Educational Development Offices (EDO) of faculties and teaching hospitals of Ahvaz Jundishapur University Educ Dev Judishapur 2021 12 309 18
