Student Focus Groups UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 1 Formative Evaluation Using Student...
-
Upload
phoenix-babbit -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Student Focus Groups UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 1 Formative Evaluation Using Student...
1Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
Formative Evaluation Using
Student Focus GroupsHeidi M. Anderson, Ph.D.
University of KentuckyCollege of Pharmacy (UKCOP)
2Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
3Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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)
4Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
5Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
6Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
7Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
8Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
9Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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?
10Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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’
11Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
Evaluation of SLC Process
12Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
13Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
Survey Response Rate All 3 classes combined = 85%
PY1 = 90 PY2 = 80 PY3 = 85
14Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYI understand the purpose of the SLC
Mean
SD=1
D=2
A=3
SA=4
3.4
3.1
3.4
2.95
3
3.05
3.1
3.15
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
3.4
PY1 PY2 PY3
15Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYI feel comfortable providing information to the SLC member(s) for discussion at the next SLC meeting
Mean
3.2
2.9
3.2
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
2.95
3
3.05
3.1
3.15
3.2
PY1 PY2 PY3
SD=1
D=2
A=3
SA=4
16Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYThe SLC is an effective way to communicate class perceptions to faculty and administration
Mean
3.1
2.5
2.9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PY1 PY2 PY3
SD=1
D=2
A=3
SA=4
17Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
The SLC accurately reflects the perceptions of the entire class
Mean
2.7
2.02.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
PY1 PY2 PY3
SD=1
D=2
A=3
SA=4
18Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYAs a member of the SLC, the time required to participate was worthwhile
Mean
3.4
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.15
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
3.4
PY1 PY2 PY3
SD=1
D=2
A=3
SA=4
19Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYAs a member of the SLC, I understood what was expected of me.
Mean
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
3.4
3.45
3.5
PY1 PY2 PY3
SD=1
D=2
A=3
SA=4
20Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
Benefits Opportunity to voice class opinions to
communicate concerns to faculty The faculty response to the SLC feedback
21Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
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
22Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
Suggestions More effective methods to obtain student input
before these meetings: Email Class announcement Form
Summary of the meeting results to the class
23Student Focus Groups
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
References1. Clark, J and Redmond, M. Small Group Instructional Diagnosis
Final Report. Settle: Department of Biology Education, University of Washington, 1982. (ED 217-954).
2. Coffman, SJ Improving Your teaching Through Small-Group Diagnosis. College Teaching, 1991, 39(2), 80-82.
3. Angelo, TA., and Cross, KP. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass, 1993.
4. Wimer, M. Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass, 1990.