22 (0 7) 6 (5-7) Ability to present the material in an interestin

22 (0.7) 6 (5-7) Ability to present the material in an interesting manner 6.06 (0.77) 6 (4-7) Knowledge of the subject 5.94 (0.79) 6 (5-7) Clarity of speech 5.92 (1) 6 (3-7) Ability to structure the lecture in a clear manner 5.9 (0.81) 6 (4-7) Ability to hold student’s attention 5.8 (0.86) 6 (3-7) Explains the material clearly 5.78 (0.98) 6 (3-7) Pace of presentation (1 = too slow, 4 = just right, Z-IETD-FMK purchase 7 = much too fast) 4.28 (0.67) 4 (4-7) Student-centered skills     Opportunity for students

to ask questions 5.72 (1) 6 (3-7) Amount learned overall (1 = nothing/7 = a lot) 5.72 (0.95) 6 (4-7) Mix of theory and practice 5.64 (1.16) 6 (1-7) Response to questions in a constructive way 5.59 (0.99) 6 (3-7) Usefulness of class discussions 5.56 (1) 6 (3-7) Overall effectiveness of teaching 5.98 (0.75) 6 (4-7) Statistical analysis Students’ feedback data were coded and entered into IBM compatible computers using the software program. The mean value of 14 out of 16 attributes was calculated for each student. This mean had a normal distribution. The variation of the means of different tutorials

was homogenous CUDC-907 nmr (p = 0.78, Leven test). Two attributes were excluded from the calculation of the mean of attributes (the overall effectiveness of teaching and the pace of presentation because the best value was 4 and not 7 in this attribute). Data were analyzed with the PASW Statistics version 18, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Nitroxoline The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated as a test of the internal consistency of the survey instrument. One way ANOVA analysis or Kruskall-Wallis as appropriate was used to test for difference between the 7 tutorials. Spearman rank correlation test was used to correlate the mean of attributes with the overall effectiveness of teaching. A p value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Students’ open-ended comments were analysed qualitatively

to explore the content of commentaries, perceived teaching strengths and weaknesses and attitudes to the interactive lecture approach. Results All students at both universities returned completed questionnaires (100% response). The questionnaire had good internal validity having a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.87. Table 2 shows the values for students’ responses regarding the interactive approach Selleck Tideglusib including the educational tool, tutor-centered skills, and student-centered skills. It is clear that the educational tools were ranked higher. The median rank of the real world cases was outstanding followed by the use of slides. It is also evident that the mean tutor-centered skills were higher than the student-centered skills. The lowest ratings were for “”response to questions in a constructive way”" and “”usefulness of class discussions”". There was a significant correlation between the mean of attributes with the overall effectiveness of teaching (p < 0001, rho = 0.78, Spearman rank correlation). Figure 6 shows the mean of attributes in the 7 tutorials over time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>