Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
We think we’re pretty good at teaching X but how can we tell we’re not just kidding ourselves?
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Evans, Kerrie Tuttle, Neil Bialocerkowski, Andrea |
| Copyright Year | 2014 |
| Abstract | Introduction/Background Some aspects of teaching and learning can be evaluated relatively easily with Kirckpatrick’s model. For others, evaluation can be more problematic. For example, we might think we are pretty good at teaching a ‘soft’, nonprocedural skill such as manual therapy palpation, but: 1) How do we determine how student’s reactions to our teaching approach compare with their reaction to other approaches when they are only exposed to one approach? 2) How do we evaluate learning when there is no objective way of assessing skills nor is there an agreed gold standard to compare the skills with? 3) The behaviours of interest are how the students perform in the clinical environment, but their performance is the result of a large range of inputs, so how can the impact of one aspect of our teaching be assessed? 4) Ultimately, results include factors such as patient outcomes, cost effectiveness, and therapist satisfaction which are perhaps even more multifactorial and difficult to assess. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/67988/101876_1.pdf;jsessionid=22C9520EF66BE12BFF03506EAA545761?sequence=1 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
