PubMed · 7382880
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B Lennox. 1980. MCQ responses.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7382880/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: Educational interventions may ultimately impact on patient care as well as affecting individuals' learning. Critical evaluation of educational literature by those involved in designing and developing educational interventions is therefore important. A checklist instrument for critically appraising reports of educational interventions is described. DESIGN: The instrument was developed by an iterative process and piloted. The instrument consists of nine questions: 1. Is there a clear question which the study seeks to answer? 2. Is there a clear learning need which the intervention seeks to address? 3. Is there a clear description of the educational context for the intervention? 4. Is the precise nature of the intervention clear? 5. Is the study design able to answer the question posed by the study? 6. Are the methods within the design capable of appropriately measuring the phenomena which the intervention ought to produce? 7. Are the outcomes chosen to evaluate the intervention appropriate? 8. Are there any other explanations of the results explored in the study? 9. Are any unanticipated outcomes explained? A worked example is given to illustrate how the instrument can be used in practice. SETTING: The Department of General Practice in Glasgow. SUBJECTS: Young general practitioners and the Educational Journal Club. RESULTS: The instrument was feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the checklist allows the reader to critically appraise reports of educational interventions and helps in the practice of evidence-based education.
OBJECTIVES: Research on tutoring in problem-based learning has not focused so far on the variation in tutoring and how this variation can be interpreted by conceptions about effective tutoring. DESIGN: This study focuses on the profiles of tutors generated by means of an instrument, the so-called Tutor Intervention Profile (TIP), and tries to determine which profiles are more or less effective. The TIP contains four dimensions of tutor behaviour: (1) elaboration; (2) directing the learning process; (3) integration of knowledge; and (4) stimulating interaction and individual accountability. SETTING: The medical school of the University of Maastricht, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Sixty-seven tutors who run 67 tutorial groups across three units (courses) in the academic year 1996-97. RESULTS: It appeared that high, average and low performing tutors differ in their performance on each of the four dimensions of the TIP. Several different profiles of tutor performance could be distinguished, which were more or less effective. One group of tutors demonstrated a tutor intervention profile that was characterized as relying more on the use of expert knowledge, whereas another group of tutors was characterized as relying more on their abilities to stimulate the learning process in the tutorial group. The tutor intervention profile that was perceived by students as most effective showed high scores on each of the four dimensions, as expected. Notably, a tutor stressing the learning process in the tutorial group was perceived as more effective than a tutor stressing content (expert tutor). This is especially true for a relatively poor scoring tutor. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are consistent with research on human tutoring and research on tutoring in problem-based learning.