Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Student focus groups have often been used for undergraduate curriculum planning and evaluation. They have not, however, been used in the design or delivery of faculty development. The goal of this initiative was to use the results of student focus groups in planning a faculty development workshop for small-group tutors. Description: Small-group teaching sessions were introduced into our undergraduate medical curriculum in a systematic way in 1994. In 1998, we began using student focus groups, designed to assess students' perceptions of effective small-group teaching, to plan a faculty development workshop and to give feedback to small-group tutors. To date, ten focus groups have been held with 86 students, representing the four years of the undergraduate curriculum. During each focus-group session, student representatives were asked to identify the characteristics of effective small groups, to highlight the positive attributes of small-group tutors, to describe the ingredients of effective cases, and to discuss strategies for student evaluation in the small-group setting. Student feedback highlighted the value of certain tutor characteristics, a nonthreatening group atmosphere, clinical relevance, and the use of pedagogic materials that encourage independent thinking and problem solving. Based on the results of the focus-group discussions, we developed the content of a faculty development workshop designed to improve small-group teaching and created appropriate teaching materials for small-group tutors (e.g., overheads and handouts). Discussion: Faculty members' reactions to the students' feedback and suggestions were very positive. The workshop participants were intrigued by the students' insight, and many asked for copies of the workshop overheads, based on student feedback, to be distributed to colleagues who did not attend. In addition, a number of the workshop participants requested assistance in conducting focus groups with their own students. As faculty developers, we were impressed by the attention workshop participants gave to the students' comments and suggestions, which were remarkably consistent with the literature.1 The value of student feedback in this format was also demonstrated during our planning of a refresher course on effective lecturing, when several members of the planning committee suggested that we once again canvass student opinion by using focus groups. The results of this preliminary experience suggest that focus groups with students can be valuable in designing faculty development activities, that faculty members are responsive to student concerns, and that this method can be adapted to diverse settings. We would now like to conduct similar focus groups with residents and CME participants, and use this method to evaluate the success of some of our faculty development activities designed to improve small-group teaching.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,066 | 0,109 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».