140 likes | 334 Views
Students work in small groups (2-3) Distinct roles to be negotiated within groupTwo groups per specimen each day Specimen assignments change daily, establishing a collective resource. The anatomy lab as a setting for developing teamwork skills. Professional but relaxed atmosphereWork at their own pace on daily assignmentsSmall groups require constant interaction with peers
E N D
1. Leslie K Sprunger, DVM, PhDDept of Vet & Comp Anat, Pharm, & Physiology Encouraging collaboration and communication in the gross anatomy laboratory
2. Students work in small groups (2-3)
Distinct roles to be negotiated within group
Two groups per specimen each day
Specimen assignments change daily, establishing a collective resource The anatomy lab as a setting for developing teamwork skills
3. Professional but relaxed atmosphere
Work at their own pace on daily assignments
Small groups require constant interaction with peers & faculty The anatomy lab as a setting for developing communication skills
4. Two groups share one specimen
Section 1 carries out assigned dissection (2.5 hrs)
Section 2 studies dissected material completed by section 1 (1.5 hrs)
Transition Review = link between section 1 and section 2 The anatomy lab as a setting for developing communication skills
5. One student from each section 1 team gives an overview of the days’ work to an incoming section 2 team
Purpose: briefly introduce material, orient next group, identify any problems encountered
6-7 reviews per student per semester, each to a different audience Transition Reviews
6. Initial Evaluation Rubric
7. Evaluation Rubric – short form
8. Questions
Participation and engagement?
Awareness of professional communication as a process?
Quality of evaluations?
Receptivity to feedback from peers?
Methods
Data from evaluation forms completed in class
Online end-of-course evaluation Peer- and self-evaluation
9. Participation & Engagement
10. Student Awareness
11. Quality of Evaluations Peer evaluations were indiscriminately favorable – usually all 4’s or all 5’s
Self-evaluations typically 0.4 - 0.8 pts lower than peer evaluations; range of daily average differences: 0.5 - 1.5
12. Receptivity to feedback Only ~20% asked to receive peer feedback
Reasons for low receptivity unclear - less than full buy-in on value of feedback, fear?
Suggests opportunities for further education in professionalism, critical thinking, value of high quality feedback
13. Red Flags? Failure to complete a self-evaluation
N =16
mean class rank = 64/99, median class rank = 70/99
Lower performance on transition reviews: mean score = 2.9 ± 0.17 vs overall mean of 4.3 ± 0.04 (p < 3E-18)
Opting out of an exercise presented as required but without grading consequences correlated with reduced communications skills in particular and lower academic performance
14. Importance of integrating relevant communications skills practice early and throughout the curriculum
Laboratory courses can provide useful opportunities for practice in communication
Students will benefit from training in the value & effective delivery of feedback Summary
15. Participating Faculty & Instructional Support Staff Gil Burns
Cesario Zamora
Marc Ratzlaff
Patrick Wilson Briedi Gillespie
Steve Lampa
Paul Johnson
Sandra Bellinger