CLOSING
THE GAP: OPPORTUNITies TO ACTIVELY IMPLEMENT FEEDBACK reduce the
difference in ratings for overall effectiveness between novice and
experienced small group leaders
Marieke Kruidering-Hall, Ph.D.1*, Tracy
Boswell Fulton, Ph.D2, Katherine Hyland, Ph.D.2, Departments of (1)
Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology and (2) Biochemistry and Biophysics,
School of Medicine, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143-0450
Since the launch of UCSF’s new curriculum in 2001,
we have trained postdocs in the UCSF Postdoctoral Teaching Fellowship
program to lead small groups in the first year of medical school. Teaching
fellows (TFs) (along with faculty) lead three or four 2-hour discussions
with groups of fifteen students, after undergoing training both in content
and pedagogical skills. Our previous poster (
New Orleans
, 2004) demonstrated that TFs are effective small group leaders, based on
overall evaluation scores, which did not differ significantly between
postdocs and faculty. The ratings of returning faculty did increase over
consecutive years, suggesting that increased experience and the
opportunity to actively use feedback yields improved teaching. Because TFs
are often new to small group teaching, we created multiple new
opportunities to give structured feedback, so that it could be utilized
early on in the program. In this study we assess the impact of these
innovations on the overall teaching effectiveness of the TFs. The first
innovation was a practice teaching session, held prior to the first actual
small group discussion. In this session, TFs led a group of second-year
students in a discussion of a sample problem. Immediately after the
discussion, students provided verbal and written feedback to the TFs using
a standardized form. The students and faculty assigned a 1-5 score for
overall effectiveness on the written form. Afterwards, program directors
provided closure in a one-on-one meeting. The second innovation was that
program directors observed part of each actual teaching session and
provided structured feedback to the TF after every session. The average
ratings for overall effectiveness collected during the practice session
were compared to ratings given by actual students on-line at the end of
the course. Our results show that the average ratings for overall
effectiveness are higher at the end of the program than at the beginning
of the program. (3.8 ±
0.9 at practice versus 4.3 ±
0.1 at end of course (n=5)). In addition, for the first time, the average
ratings of the TFs are equal to those of the more experienced faculty. The
increase in teaching effectiveness reflects the positive impact of the
innovations to the program. We conclude that providing feedback while
there is still opportunity to implement it directly improves confidence
and teaching effectiveness of novice small group leaders.
Table 1. Evaluations of teaching fellows in practice
session, compared to evaluations from E-value at completion of course. (On
a 5-pt scale with 5=best)
|
Course: Prologue 04
|
Practice Session Score Overall Effectiveness
|
Prologue Evaluation
Overall Effectiveness
|
|
Fellow 1
|
3.8 std 0.3
|
4.3 std 0.7
|
|
Fellow2
|
4.3 std 0.5
|
4.6 std 0.5
|
|
Fellow 3
|
3.4 std 0.5
|
4.3 std 0.7
|
|
Fellow 4
|
2.7 std 0.5
|
4.2 std 0.7
|
|
Fellow 5
|
4.6 std 0.4
|
4.3 std 0.7
|
Conclusion: The practice teaching session we have
described is a valuable tool for assessing improvement in teaching. The
data collected demonstrates that providing feedback while there is still
opportunity to implement it improves confidence and teaching effectiveness
home
