Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15271044

Training the trainers: do teaching courses develop teaching skills?

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This paper reports on consultants' self-assessed changes in their teaching and training practices over an 8-10-month period. It compares the changes between a group undergoing a 3-day teaching course (participants) and a sample group taken from the course waiting list (controls). METHOD: A questionnaire listing 18 teaching skills was given to the participants immediately prior to the course and 8-10 months later, and to the controls at the same time intervals. Respondents were asked to rate their ability, frequency of use of each skill, as well as their teaching confidence and effectiveness. Additionally, the second questionnaire asked respondents to identify changes they had made to their teaching. A total of 63% (54) of participants and 51% (23) of controls completed both questionnaires. Changes of 2 + on the rating scales were seen as genuine. The number of such changes was calculated for each individual and on each skill for the 2 groups. Data were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The majority of course participants reported positive changes in teaching ability on a significantly greater number of skills than did the control group. As a group, changes in ability in 16 of the teaching skills were significantly greater for the participants than for the controls. Increased ability resulted in participants' increased frequency of use of only 4 of the teaching skills. The majority in the participant group reported changes to their teaching. Only a minority in the control group reported such changes. These changes were consistent with course topics and the teaching skills needed to meet General Medical Council recommendations for the education of new doctors. CONCLUSIONS: The teaching course is an effective vehicle for increasing consultants' teaching skills.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joyce Godfrey, Reg Dennick, Chris Welsh. 2004. Training the trainers: do teaching courses develop teaching skills?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01896.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗