Browsing by Author "Molgaard, Laura"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Improving Response Rates for Course and Instructor Evaluations Using a Global Approach(Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow, 2018-10) Malone, Erin; Root Kustritz, Margaret; Molgaard, LauraObtaining sufficient survey responses to make course and instructor evaluation results meaningful is a challenge in many, if not most, health professions training programs. This paper describes a series of policy changes that significantly improved data quality at one college of veterinary medicine located in the United States. The steps consisted of minimizing the number of items appearing on the instruments, providing students adequate time and space for completion, clearly explaining the purpose and value of the evaluations, simplifying data collection, collecting verbal feedback, and closing the loop with student participants by informing them of any changes that were made as a result of their feedback. The steps outlined in this model may be easily extended to other health professions programs that involve cohort models, multi‑instructor courses and limited resources with respect to time and people.Item Using a model board examination and a case study assessing clinical reasoning to evaluate curricular change(Education in the Health Professions, 2018) Root Kustritz, Margaret V; Rendahl, Aaron; Molgaard, Laura; Malone, ErinBackground: This study compared student ability to integrate basic science and clinical information before and after implementing a curriculum revision that introduced a problem-oriented case approach as required coursework. Materials and Methods: Student knowledge and competence were assessed just before entry into clinical training by completion of 100 multiple-choice questions mirroring the breadth and type of questions on the national licensing examination (Part I) and by completion of 10 cases to discern clinical decision-making (Part II). Scores from students from the classes of 2015 and 2016 (previous curriculum) were compared to those from students from the classes of 2017 and 2018 (current curriculum). Results: Part I scores were not significantly different between any classes in the previous and current curriculum. Part II scores for 3rd-year students in the current curriculum were higher than those for comparable students in the past 2 years of the previous curriculum. Mean scores for the class of 2016, the last year of the previous curriculum, were significantly lower than all other classes. Conclusion: Students benefit from measured and repetitive practice in clinical reasoning.