Download
formative evaluation using student focus groups n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Formative Evaluation Using Student Focus Groups PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Formative Evaluation Using Student Focus Groups

Formative Evaluation Using Student Focus Groups

154 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Formative Evaluation Using Student Focus Groups

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Formative Evaluation UsingStudent Focus Groups Heidi M. Anderson, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy (UKCOP)

  2. Student Focus Groups • UKCOP uses student focus groups as part of the formative curricular evaluation process • Goals: • Systematic method to collect information about the curriculum • Assure confidential timely exchange between professors and students on their perceptions of course in progress

  3. How it Developed • D. Joseph Clark, Washington University • Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) • 5-step process • Conducted once mid-semester • Adapted a hybrid version of SGID • Student Liaison Committee (SLC)

  4. Who Participates in SLC? • 10 Students from each class for Fall/Spring • 9 members randomly selected from the 10 small groups • 1 member is the class Vice President • Facilitators from the Office of Education Innovation (OEI) • Assistant Dean • Assessment Coordinator • Recorder • Faculty observers periodically invited

  5. Obtaining the Participants • Beginning of Fall semester students receive 1st electronic correspondence, that: • Explains purpose of Student Liaison Committee (SLC) • Describes the random selection process • 2nd correspondence, is sent: • Those 10 selected members, informed of dates, training, etc. • Entire class announcing the 10 individuals

  6. Initial Training Meeting • Training on Providing Feedback • Purpose UKCOP process and assessment • Focus group methodology • Guidelines on offering constructive feedback • Relevant and Appropriate • Specific descriptions • Offer both positive and negative • Explain how to improve

  7. Meeting Process • After each set of block exams the Student Liaison Committee meets to review the learning in each course • Block Exams approximately every 3 wk period • Each course is given 10-12 minutes for discussion • PY1 (#7) PY2 (#5) PY3 (#3) • SLC members represent their entire class • Solicit feedback prior to meetings

  8. During the Meeting • Use a systematic 3-question format • Responses are discussed, consensus is reached and recorded • Data is organized into a report for the instructor • Report is sent electronically to the instructor and course coordinator 48 hours post meeting

  9. Feedback Questions • What elements in the course helped students learn the material in this course? • What elements in this course hindered the learning? • What specific suggestions do you have to improve the course?

  10. Post Meeting • The instructor takes a few minutes of subsequent class to respond to student feedback in the SLC report and to describe any changes that will occur to improve learning • Facilitator will arrange a follow-up session with the instructor ‘prn’

  11. Evaluation of SLC Process

  12. Evaluation of SLC • Spring 2005, conducted a survey to determine student perceptions about SLC • Purpose • Comfort providing input • Effectiveness of process • Accuracy of process • Benefits • Areas for improvement • Specific questions for the SLC members

  13. Survey Response Rate • All 3 classes combined = 85% • PY1 = 90 • PY2 = 80 • PY3 = 85

  14. I understand the purpose of the SLC Mean SD=1 D=2 A=3 SA=4

  15. I feel comfortable providing information to the SLC member(s) for discussion at the next SLC meeting Mean SD=1 D=2 A=3 SA=4

  16. The SLC is an effective way to communicate class perceptions to faculty and administration Mean SD=1 D=2 A=3 SA=4

  17. The SLC accurately reflects the perceptions of the entire class Mean SD=1 D=2 A=3 SA=4

  18. As a member of the SLC, the time required to participate was worthwhile Mean SD=1 D=2 A=3 SA=4

  19. As a member of the SLC, I understood what was expected of me. Mean SD=1 D=2 A=3 SA=4

  20. Benefits • Opportunity to voice class opinions to communicate concerns to faculty • The faculty response to the SLC feedback

  21. Areas for Improvement • Feedback gathered from students by their SLC members before the meetings • Concern about selecting their own members to the SLC • Feedback from SLC members about the meeting

  22. Suggestions • More effective methods to obtain student input before these meetings: • Email • Class announcement • Form • Summary of the meeting results to the class

  23. References • Clark, J and Redmond, M. Small Group Instructional Diagnosis Final Report. Settle: Department of Biology Education, University of Washington, 1982. (ED 217-954). • Coffman, SJ Improving Your teaching Through Small-Group Diagnosis. College Teaching, 1991, 39(2), 80-82. • Angelo, TA., and Cross, KP. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass, 1993. • Wimer, M. Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass, 1990.