Table 1 Teaching evaluations for process and content experts
From: A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
Item | Process Experts | Content Experts | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
Listened to learners | 4.83 [4.80-4.85]* | 4.68 [4.65-4.71] | <.001 |
Encouraged learners to participate actively in discussion | 4.76 [4.73-4.79] | 4.62 [4.59-4.66] | <.001 |
Expressed respect for learners | 4.86 [4.84-4.88] | 4.70 [4.67-4.73] | <.001 |
Encouraged learners to bring up problems | 4.79 [4.76-4.82] | 4.64 [4.61-4.68] | <.001 |
Called attention to time | 4.61 [4.56-4.66] | 4.45 [4.40-4.49] | <.001 |
Avoided digressions | 4.58 [4.53-4.62] | 4.47 [4.42-4.51] | <.01 |
Effectively dealt with disruptive students | 4.74 [4.69-4.80] | 4.61 [4.54-4.68] | <.01 |
Stated goals/objectives of the session clearly and concisely | 4.63 [4.58-4.67] | 4.42 [4.38-4.46] | <.001 |
Stated relevance of goals/objectives to learners | 4.56 [4.51-4.60] | 4.42 [4.38-4.46] | <.001 |
Repeated goals and objectives periodically | 4.43 [4.38-4.49] | 4.26 [4.21-4.31] | <.001 |
Used whiteboard or other visual aids | 4.74 [4.70-4.78] | 4.55 [4.51-4.59] | <.001 |
Referred to relevant schemes for clinical presentations | 4.68 [4.64-4.72] | 4.53 [4.49-4.57] | <.001 |
Provided ample opportunity for students to ask questions | 4.83 [4.81-4.86] | 4.70 [4.67-4.73] | <.001 |
Helped students draw connections between the clinical presentation and relevant science/physiology/anatomy | 4.76 [4.72-4.79] | 4.65 [4.62-4.68] | <.001 |
Overall, this preceptor was an effective small group facilitator | 4.78 [4.74-4.81] | 4.62 [4.58-4.65] | <.001 |