Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 May;45(5):628-633. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.01.031. Epub 2017 Feb 13.

Structured evaluation and need-based restructuring of the cranio-maxillofacial surgery module within surgical clerkship.

Author information

1
Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. Dr. R. Sader), University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: shoefer@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
2
Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. I. Marzi), University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
3
Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. Dr. R. Sader), University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
4
Department of Trauma Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. F. Walcher), Medical Faculty University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Evaluations are important for teaching courses and contribute to educational quality assurance. CMF surgery provides a module in the skills-lab week in preparation for surgical clerkship. Even though the CMF module receives positive evaluations, the students report deviating content. Subsequently, exams skills were often not mastered correctly. The aim of this study is to gather the contents taught within the course and to revise the module accordingly.

METHODS:

A structured evaluation sheet was used to evaluate the CMF modules. The detailed time frame used, teaching methods integrated, and learning objectives taught were documented. Based on the results, the module was restructured and re-evaluated twice.

RESULTS:

There were substantial fluctuations among the taught learning objectives in the first evaluation (21%-47% of the objectives were totally covered). The deployed time (160.50 ± 32.55 min) for the module was much shorter than scheduled (210 min). After restructuring, more learning objectives were totally covered (44%-100%), which corresponds to a significant gain (p = .024). The deployed teaching time for the modules was used more efficiently (183.65 ± 21.10 min/p = .005), and the additional time (51.89 ± 21.23 min vs. 37.55 ± 16.06 min before/p = .011) was used mainly for practical exercises.

CONCLUSION:

Structured evaluations are a meaningful tool for gaining valuable insights regarding the contents and quality of teaching courses and pinpointing potential for improvement. Key factors for the improvement of an educational module are the definition of learning goals within the context of a transparent and structured module.

KEYWORDS:

Blueprint; CMF surgery; Learning goals; Medical education; Quality assurance in education; Structured evaluation

PMID:
28318928
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcms.2017.01.031
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center