...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Current Surgery >Faculty evaluations: Diagnostic and therapeutic.
【24h】

Faculty evaluations: Diagnostic and therapeutic.

机译：教师评估：诊断和治疗。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

PURPOSE: An excellent teaching program is one that creates an atmosphere of mentorship, leadership, and professional development. The key to all of these may lie in the faculty evaluation. Currently, favorable faculty evaluations are often rewarded, whereas the more critical evaluations are downplayed and seldom used for faculty development. The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of the faculty evaluation as a diagnostic tool to objectively identify individual strengths and weaknesses. Can such a tool then be used as a therapeutic modality to improve and enhance the faculty as a whole? METHODS: Fourth- and fifth-year surgical residents from 1 residency program were asked to collaboratively define 9 characteristics that make a surgical role model. They then anonymously evaluated each of the 44 teaching attendings on each of the 9 criteria. The results of the evaluations, which consisted of the overall mean scores and SD for each of the 9 criteria, the attending's score and SDs above orbelow the mean, as well as whether the residents considered them to be a Role Model, were sent to each faculty member as an intervention. Six months after the intervention, the residents evaluated the attendings using the same 9 criteria. Evaluations were collected and analyzed following the same procedure as 6 months prior. T-tests and p-values were calculated to determine any significant differences between the 2 data sets. RESULTS: Based on the results of the pre-intervention evaluations, we were able to delineate faculty members into 3 groups based on their Role Model score. Of the 10 faculty members with the lowest scores (defined as >1 SD below average), 7 improved after the intervention, 3 of them were statistically significant (2 with p < 0.05 and 1 with p < 0.10). In the middle group of 26 faculty members, 1 showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05). Interestingly, this was the faculty member with the lowest score in this group. Six faculty originally in the middle group improved to a score greater than 1 SD above average, defining them as a Role Model. The remaining 8 faculty members originally designated as Role Models showed no statistically significant changes in their scores after the intervention. After the intervention, the average score improved for all of the 9 criteria that make a faculty Role Model. Statistically significant improvements were seen in the categories of Provides Feedback (p < 0.05) and Didactic Teaching, Attendance at Didactic activities, and Stimulates Critical Thinking with the Use of Literature (all p < 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Faculty evaluations are a diagnostic tool with the ability to select out Role Models from the lower scoring groups. (2) After the intervention, the overall average score improved for all of the 9 criteria that make a Role Model, showing improvement of the faculty as a whole. (3) The therapeutic benefits of faculty evaluations were best seen in the faculty with the lowest scores.
机译：目的：一项出色的教学计划可以营造一种指导，领导和专业发展的氛围。所有这些的关键可能在于教师评估。当前，通常会对教师的良好评价给予奖励，而对更为严格的评价却轻描淡写，很少用于教师发展。这项研究的目的是调查教师评估作为诊断工具客观地确定个人优点和缺点的功效。这样的工具可以用作整体改善和增强教师能力的治疗方法吗？方法：要求一项住院医师计划的四年级和五年级外科手术住院医师共同定义9个特征，从而成为外科手术的榜样。然后，他们根据9个标准中的每一个匿名评估了44个教学活动中的每一个。评估结果由每项9个标准的总体平均得分和SD，参与者的得分和高于或低于平均水平的SD以及居民是否认为它们是榜样组成教师作为干预。干预六个月后，居民使用相同的9条标准对参加者进行了评估。按照与6个月前相同的程序收集和分析评估结果。计算T检验和p值以确定2个数据集之间的任何显着差异。结果：基于干预前评估的结果，我们能够根据他们的榜样评分将教师分为3组。在得分最低（定义为低于平均水平> 1 SD）的10名教职员工中，有7名在干预后有所改善，其中3名具有统计学显着性（2名p <0.05，1名p <0.10）。在26名教职员工的中间组中，有1名具有统计学上的显着改善（p <0.05）。有趣的是，这是该组中得分最低的教师。最初位于中间组的六名教师的分数比平均水平高出1 SD，这使他们成为榜样。最初被指定为“榜样”的其余8名教职员工在干预后得分没有统计学上的显着变化。干预后，构成教师榜样的所有9条标准的平均得分均有所提高。在提供反馈（p <0.05）和教学法教学，参加教学法活动以及通过使用文学激发批判性思维（所有p <0.10）类别中，看到了具有统计意义的显着改善。结论：（1）教师评估是一种诊断工具，能够从得分较低的人群中选择榜样。 （2）进行干预后，构成榜样的9条标准的总平均得分均有所提高，表明教师的整体水平有所提高。 （3）在最低分数的教师中最好地看到教师评估的治疗益处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号