How feedback can foster professional growth of teachers in the clinical workplace:A review of the literature

Student ratings of teaching have received much attention in both higher and medical education research. Paramount has been the attention to the robustness of the instruments used to capture these ratings as a source of feedback for teachers. However evidence is scarce with regard to what happens after ratings are fed back to the teachers. This paper will focus on feedback facilitation strategies needed for medical teachers in the workplace setting to improve their teaching. First, the attributes of clinical teaching will be introduced, followed by a disquisition on feedback uptake, and finally reflection as a tool to improve teaching. Second, several recently published strategies aimed at improving clinical teaching through the facilitation of feedback are discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

How feedback can foster professional growth of teachers in the clinical workplace: A review of the literature

Student ratings of teaching have received much attention in both higher and medical education research. Paramount has been the attention to the robustness of the instruments used to capture these ratings as a source of feedback for teachers. However evidence is scarce with regard to what happens after ratings are fed back to the teachers. This paper will focus on feedback facilitation strategies needed for medical teachers in the workplace setting to improve their teaching. First, the attributes of clinical teaching will be introduced, followed by a disquisition on feedback uptake, and finally reflection as a tool to improve teaching. Second, several recently published strategies aimed at improving clinical teaching through the facilitation of feedback are discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserve

Evaluating clinical teachers with the Maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire:How much 'teacher' is in student ratings?

Background: Students are a popular source of data to evaluate the performance of clinical teachers. Instruments to obtain student evaluations must have proven validity. One aspect of validity that often remains underexposed is the possibility of effects of between-student differences and teacher and student characteristics not directly related to teaching performance. Aim: The authors examined the occurrence of such effects, using multilevel analysis to analyse data from the Maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire (MCTQ), a validated evaluation instrument, in a veterinary curriculum. Methods: The 15-item MCTQ covers five domains. The authors used multilevel analysis to divide the variance in the domain scores in components related to, respectively, teachers and students. They estimated subsequent models to explore how the MCTQ scores are dependent on teacher and student characteristics. Results: Significant amounts of variance in student ratings were due to between-teacher differences, particularly for learning climate, modelling and coaching. The effects of teacher and student characteristics were mostly non-significant or small. Conclusion: Large portions of variance in MCTQ scores were due to differences between teachers, while the contribution of student and teacher characteristics was negligible. The results support the validity of student ratings obtained with the MCTQ for evaluating teacher performance

Students' and teachers' perceived and actual verbal interactions in seminar groups

This study set out to examine how much time students and teachers devote to different learning-oriented interactions during seminar sessions and students' and teachers' perceptions about the occurrence and desirability of these interactions. Students and teachers participating in eight seminar group sessions in Year 4 of an undergraduate veterinary curriculum completed an 11-item questionnaire which asked them to rate, on a 5-point Likert scale, the frequency of occurrence and level of desirability of three learning-oriented types of interaction: exploratory questioning; cumulative reasoning, and handling of conflict about knowledge. The questionnaire also invited positive and negative responses to aspects of group interactions and an overall mark (1-10) for the seminars and group interactions. Four group sessions were video-recorded and analysed using a coding scheme. The amount of time devoted to the different interactions was calculated. Both students and teachers gave scores of 3.0-3.5 for frequency of occurrence of exploratory questioning and cumulative reasoning and <3.0 for occurrence of handling of conflict about knowledge. The desired occurrences of all interaction types were significantly higher than the actual occurrences according to students and teachers. Teachers were responsible for the majority of the interactions (93%). The percentages of session time devoted to teacher-centred cumulative reasoning, exploratory questioning and handling of conflict about knowledge were 65.8%, 15.6% and 3.1%, respectively. Group interactions in seminar groups are dominated by the posing of questions by teachers to students. The moderate occurrence of group interactions as perceived by students and teachers may be explained by the inadequate preparation of teachers and students to stimulate group interactions