Investigating teaching performance in seminars; a questionnaire study with a multi-level approach

BMC Medical Education

Debbie Jaarsma¹  Peter van Beukelen²  Albert Scherpbier⁴  Ineke Wolfhagen⁴  Jimmie Leppink⁴  Annemarie Spruijt³ 

[1]University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

[2]Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

[3]Quality Improvement in Veterinary Education, Yalelaan 1, PO Box 80.163, 3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands

[4]Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands

关键词: Student preparation;    Seminar teaching performance;    Interactive learning;    Group size;    Group interaction;   

Others  :  1091031
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-203

 received in 2014-05-01, accepted in 2014-09-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Teachers play an important role in seminars as facilitators and content experts. However, contextual factors like students’ preparation, group size, group interaction, and content appear to influence their performance. Understanding the impact of these contextual factors on students’ perception of teaching performance may help to further understand seminar teaching. Besides that, it may help curriculum organisers and teachers to get more insight in how to optimise their versatile role in seminars. The aim of this study is to investigate how students’ perception of teaching performance in seminars is explained by students’ extent of preparation, seminar group size, group interaction, and content.

Methods

The Utrecht Seminar Evaluation (USEME) questionnaire was used to collect information on teaching performance and the aforementioned explanatory variables. To account for intra-student, intra-seminar, and intra-teacher correlation in the data, multilevel regression was used to analyse 988 completed questionnaires in 80 seminars with 36 different teachers.

Results

Group interaction and seminar content had large (B = 0.418) and medium (B = 0.212) positive effects on perceived teaching performance scores, whereas the effects of students’ preparation (B = -0.055) and group size (B = -0.130) were small and negative.

Conclusions

This study provides curriculum organisers and teachers indications on how to optimise variables that influence perceived teaching performance in seminars. It is suggested that teachers should search for the most appropriate combination of motivating and challenging content and facilitation method within seminars to optimise discussion opportunities between students.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Spruijt et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Shatzer JH: Instructional methods. Acad Med 1998, 73(9):S38-S45.
• [2]Dennick R: Theories of Learning: Constructive Experience. In An Introduction to the Study of Education. 3rd edition. Edited by Matheson D. UK, London: Routledge; 2008:50-52.
• [3]Exley K, Dennick R: Small Group Teaching: Tutorials, Seminars and Beyond. UK, London: Routledge; 2004.
• [4]Jaarsma ADC, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AMM, Scherpbier AJJA, van Beukelen P: Perceptions of learning as a function of seminar group factors. Med Educ 2008, 42(12):1178-1184.
• [5]Dennick RG, Spencer J: Teaching and Learning in Small Groups. In Medical Education Theory and Practice. Edited by Dornan T, Mann K, Scherpbier A, Spencer J. UK, Edinburgh: Elsevier Ltd; 2011:131-156.
• [6]Marton F, Saljo R: On qualitative differences in learning – I. Outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol 1976, 46:4-11.
• [7]Novak JD: Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Sci Educ 2002, 86(4):548-571.
• [8]Kalyuga S: Knowledge elaboration: a cognitive load perspective. Learn Instr 2009, 19(5):402-410.
• [9]Crosby J, Hesketli E: Developing the teaching instinct. Med Teach 2004, 26(1):16-19.
• [10]Spruijt A, Jaarsma A, Wolfhagen H, van Beukelen P, Scherpbier A: Students’ perceptions of aspects affecting seminar learning. Med Teach 2012, 34(2):e129-e135.
• [11]Spruijt A, Wolfhagen I, Bok H, Schuurmans E, Scherpbier A, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma D: Teachers’ perceptions of aspects affecting seminar learning: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ 2013, 13(1):22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Darling-Hammond L, Snyder J: Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teach Teach Educ 2000, 16(5):523-545.
• [13]Steinert Y: Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Med Educ 2004, 38(3):286-293.
• [14]Schmidt HG: Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Med Educ 1983, 17:11-16.
• [15]Dolmans D, Gijselaers WH, Moust JH, Grave WSD, Wolfhagen H, Vleuten C: Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Med Teach 2002, 24(2):173-180.
• [16]Dolmans D, Wolfhagen H, Scherpbier A, Van Der Vleuten C: Development of an instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers in guiding small groups. High Educ 2003, 46(4):431-446.
• [17]Gijselaers WH: Effects of contextual factors on tutor behavior. Teach Learn Med 1997, 9(2):116-124.
• [18]Dolmans D, Wolfhagen H, Scherpbier A, Van Der Vleuten C: Relationship of tutors’ group-dynamic skills to their performance ratings in problem-based learning. Acad Med 2001, 76(5):473-476.
• [19]Ramsden P: A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Stud High Educ 1991, 16(2):129-150.
• [20]Ramsden P, Entwistle NJ: Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. Br J Educ Psychol 1981, 51:368-383.
• [21]Entwistle NJ, Tait H: Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. High Educ 1990, 19:169-194.
• [22]Ramsden P, Martin E, Bowden J: School environment and sixth form pupils approaches to learning. Br J Educ Psychol 1989, 59:129-142.
• [23]Webb NM, Sullivan Palincsar A: Group Processes in the Classroom. In Handbook of Educational Psychology. Edited by Berliner DC, Calfee RC. USA, New York: Simon & Schuster Mac Millan; 1996:841-873.
• [24]Van Boxtel C, Roelofs E: Investigating the quality of student discourse: What constitutes a productive student discourse? J Classr Interact 2001, 36(2):55-62.
• [25]Aalbers MW, Hommes J, Rethans J, Imbos T, Muijtjens AM, Verwijnen MG: Why should I prepare? A mixed method study exploring the motives of medical undergraduate students to prepare for clinical skills training sessions. BMC Med Educ 2013, 13(1):1-9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, McMahon KK: Team-Based Learning for Health Professions Education: A Guide to Using Small Groups for Improving Learning. USA, Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2008.
• [27]Svinicki MD, McKeachie WJ: McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. USA, Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2011.
• [28]McCrorie P: Teaching and Leading Small Groups. In Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. Edited by Swanwick T. Oxford: Wiley Online Library; 2010:124-138.
• [29]Edmunds S, Brown G: Effective small group learning: AMEE Guide No. 48. Med Teach 2010, 32:715-726.
• [30]Berk RA: Using the 360 multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism. Med Teach 2009, 31(12):1073-1080.