A Faculty Development Workshop on “Developing Successful Workshops”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Although workshops are a common faculty development format, efforts to improve the design and delivery of this teaching format have not been described. In 1998, the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University sponsored a three-day workshop, “Developing Successful Workshops,” to assist teachers in planning, conducting and evaluating them. Description: This workshop was designed to give participants a framework for developing successful workshops and to take them through each of the planning steps.1 On the first day, workshop modules consisted of defining participant needs, setting appropriate objectives, matching content to objectives, and matching teaching methods to content. On the second day, participants had an opportunity to apply the steps discussed on the first day to a workshop they were planning to conduct in their own setting, and to review strategies for evaluating workshops. They worked in pairs to design (or refine) their workshop content, and then presented their plan to the larger group for feedback and discussion. The last day of the workshop emphasized facilitation skills for both interactive large-group presentations and small-group discussions, and each participant was asked to present a part of his or her own workshop to the group. Each workshop module was introduced by a brief plenary session that summarized the key issues for discussion and was supplemented by a detailed handout designed to guide workshop planning. However, most of the activities took place in small groups. Discussion: The immediate post-workshop evaluations indicated that all of the participants rated the workshop “very useful.” The participants valued the systematic approach to workshop planning, the checklist provided, the hands-on experience, and the opportunity to work on one of their own workshops, with feedback from their peers. All of the sessions were rated highly (i.e., “very useful”), with the exception of the module on evaluating workshops. Six months after the workshop was held, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to all of the participants. Sixteen of thej 18 participants responded to this questionnaire; and of these, 11 reported that they had conducted the workshops they had worked on, and three had given different workshops. The participants' workshops had varied from two hours to a full day and had been given to health care providers and patients at local and national meetings. Topics addressed included community-oriented primary care, teaching evidence-based medicine, research design, and stress management. The participants continued to rate the McGill workshop very helpful (with an overall rating of 4.6 on a five-point scale) and felt that the most useful sessions were matching teaching methods to content, conducting interactive large-group presentations, setting appropriate objectives, and matching content to objectives. In retrospect, they particularly valued the structured framework provided during the workshop, the emphasis placed on careful planning, and the opportunity to see a workshop in action. The results of this follow-up evaluation confirmed the usefulness of a faculty development workshop on developing workshops, and demonstrated that a structured approach to the design and delivery of workshops can help to improve teaching and learning.
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 | 0,026 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,012 |
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 ».