Qidwai, Waris

English

eCommons@AKU

eCommons@AKUDepartment of Family Medicine Medical College, PakistanJanuary 2004Structured feedback from students in tutorialteachingWaris QidwaiAga Khan University, waris.qidwai@aku.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.aku.edu/pakistan_fhs_mc_fam_medPart of the Family Medicine CommonsRecommended CitationQidwai, W. (2004). Structured feedback from students in tutorial teaching. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan,13(12), 726-727.Available at: http://ecommons.aku.edu/pakistan_fhs_mc_fam_med/153SHORT COMMUNICATION STRUCTURED FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS IN TUTORIAL TEACHING Waris Oidwai "Tutortal" ts an intensive course given by a tutor or professor to one or sev-eral students, mostly on a specific topic. 1 Medical education should be based on tutorial teaching and be student-centered rather than traditional teacher-centered academic teaching.2 Students expect a tutor to be a skilled group facilitator who would guide them in their learning, while helping to maintain a positive group climate. They do not w.ant the h1tor to teach the content as they percetve the task of learning to be their responsibility.4 Medical school teaching is predicted to undergo major changes wtth emphasis no longer on the "teaching aspect" at the center of attention but on the "leam.ing aspect.3 If tutorial teaching is to be student-centered then learner's feedback is important in teaching.5 Tutorial sessions are conducted for third year undergraduate medical students, in Famtly Medidne, at Aga Khan Universi-ty, Karachi. On an average, 12 students attend weekly tutorials, facilitated by the author, who is a Family Medicine faculty. A topic is covered with the first group of students in the ftrst week, and again with the second group in the second week. The cycle of tvvo weeks is repeated for each of the four topics in eight weeks, with the same 25 to 30 students. The topics covered included evaluation of a patient with chest pain, weight loss, dyspnoea and hematuria. All the sessions were facilitated by the author. A questionnaire was developed that incorporated ten salient tutorial feedback and evaluation questions. The students were required to rate them on scoring system with one being minfmum and 5 being maximum score. Table 1: Feedback/ evaluation questions and results. The students were requested to fill in the questionnaire at the end of the tutorial. Student feedback was taken after the initial session in the ftrst week. The feedback was incorporated into the tutorial session in the second week. Both the sessions evaluated by the stu-dents were compared to see whether feedback from the first sesst_on had any impact on the second session. Students atten-dance varied from 11 to 16 students per session. A close look at the data showed improvement in the evalua-tion scores, after feedback from the first tutorial was incorpo-rated tnto the second session. There was also a trend towards a gradual but steady improvement in scores as the sessions went by. This could be that the feedback with regard to most of the questions including those on tutorial objective, use of audio-vfsunl aids, eye contact and time management were of a general nature and had an impact on later sessions. The find-ings are lised in Table I. Since the same facilitator was taking the sessions und feedback from the students, a student bias towards a more favorable evaluation was antici_rated. Such a bias acted uniformly throughout all the sessiOns and, therefore, the study objective was not adversely affected. An earlier study has found that in students' opinion, the main characteristics for a good httorial as far as tutors are concerned, consist of allowing enough ti~ for discussion, accepting studenls as partners, refraining from interference and having expertise. 6 It was found that the stu-dents rate clarity of tutorial objective, time management, and tutor's control during the session better than his interaction with the stttdents, appropriate questioning and the use of audio-visual aids. Such information is useful for the tutor to make appropriate changes in the conduct of future tutorials. Student feedback after a session can be very useful for the tutor and the students. The tutor not only tries to improve his Feedback/evaluation question Tutorial "A" Tutorial "B" Tutorial '"C" Tutorial "o·· Score Score Pre· Post Pre· Feedback Feedback Feedback Tutorial objectiv.~_-? -~e!e clear 4:_3 ... 4.6 4.2 Tutorial ~~? interactive 3.4 ___ 4.1 3.9 Audio-visual aids were appropriat~IY_l!§_gd 3.2 4.1 37 Tutor used appropriate questioning 3.? 4.2 3.9 Tutor appeared in control 4:§ 4.5 __ 4.4 Tutor gen~rated irl!~rest ~.8 __ - 4.0 4.4 Appropri.?.!e ey~ __ qp_ntac;t was used 4.0 ~._0 42 Time was apprg_p_rl<:~tely utilized -~--- _4.8_ 4.5 Would recommend tutorial to other stud.?~ts_ 4.1 4.7 4.2 Overall ql!ality_Q!.Jb.§! tutorial 4.2 ---"-·~ 4.2 Number of students 12 16 11 • Minimum-1, Maximum 5 Department of Family Medicine, The Aga Khan Hospital, Karachi. Correspondence: Or. Waris Qidwai, Associate Profesor, Family Medicine, Aga Khan University Stadium Road P.O. Box 3500, Karachi- 74800. Pakistan. E-mail: waris@akunet.org Received September 8, 2003; accepted October 22, 2003. 726 Score Score Post Pre- Post Pre- Post Feedback Feedback Feedback Feedback Feedback 4.3 4.4 46 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.4 4.4 3."6""- 4.2 39 3.7 4.3 4.1_ 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.3 ]:_~-- 42 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.5 4_.5 4.3 4.2 4.4 __ '!:_4_ 4.6 _4:.1 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.6 47 4.5 4.1 4.5 '!:§_ 4.6 4._4_ 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 12 12 14 11 12 facilitation but also remains vigilant stnce his/her perfa! mance is under scrutiny. The student feels involved in th process of learning. It is strongly recommended and enco1.11 aged to use structured feedback from the students in conduct ing tutorial sessions on a regular basis. It is hoped that such •. luGents' feedback on tutorial teaching 'Xercise will improve the mechanics of the tutorial session and lltoring skills. Webster's new world college dictionary. 3rd ed. Mamzitftm; 1997. (Tutorial; p. 1443). Novarini A. The university and the needs of the society: what pro-fessional models? Rap· 1999;24:588-97. Mihatsch MJ_ Teaching pathology in the 21st Century. rerb tJ/sch Ges Pathof 2001 ;85:44-51. 4. Kaufman OM, Holmes DB. Tutoring in problem-based learning: perceptions of teachers and students. Med Educ 1 996;30:371-7. 5. Lin E, Szomstein S, Addasi T, Galati-Burke L, Turner JW. Tiszenkel HL Model for teaching laparoscopic colectomy to surgi-cal residents. A111} Surg 2003 ;186:45-8. 6. Ravens U, Nitsche I, Haag C, Dobrev D. What is a good tutorial from the student's point of view? Evaluation of tutorials in a newly established PBL block course "Basics of Drug Therapy". Narmy11 Schmiedebergs .-1rch Pharlllacof. 2002;366:69-76. ·····*····· SP 2003. VoL 13 (12):726-727 727 

Structured feedback from students in tutorial teaching

https://ecommons.aku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&amp;context=pakistan_fhs_mc_fam_med

Structured feedback from students in tutorial teaching

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@AKU