1 / 10

Monitoring of PBL Facilitation 2009 & 2011

Monitoring of PBL Facilitation 2009 & 2011. Melanie Alperstein and Acknowledging - Dr . Feroza Amien . Monitoring team: Cathy de Groote, Andrew Rand, Veronica Mitchell, Ruth Prescott, Debbie Constance, Sean Abrahams. Why monitor?. PBL was implemented in 2002

delta
Download Presentation

Monitoring of PBL Facilitation 2009 & 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Monitoring of PBL Facilitation 2009 & 2011 Melanie Alperstein and Acknowledging - Dr. FerozaAmien. Monitoring team: Cathy de Groote, Andrew Rand, Veronica Mitchell, Ruth Prescott, Debbie Constance, Sean Abrahams

  2. Why monitor? • PBL was implemented in 2002 • In 2009concerns of quality of facilitation across groups • 20 groups in each semester 1- 5 • Small core of experienced facilitators • High turnover of the rest

  3. Development of a monitoring tool • Developed by course conveners, facilitated by the EDU • Based mainly on literature related to roles of PBL facilitators and our experience of what needed monitoring

  4. Changes to training based on 2009 monitoring • 2010 –Training of facilitators based on weakness identified in 2009 • Main change – introduction of explicit clinical approach - the SOAP model in PBL

  5. Monitoring in 2011 • 2011 – monitoring the introduction of SOAP and any other changes since 2009 • Monitoring tool modified for monitoring in 2011, based on evaluating the tool in 2009 and introduction of SOAP

  6. What was monitored? • Group dynamics – were groups working well • Learning environment/group processes (social congruence) • Facilitating support and guidance of students • Learning principles (cognitive congruence) • Following the PBL steps • Integrating SOAP (2011) • Evaluation and feedback

  7. http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/pkal/icbl/why.html

  8. Who was monitored? 2009 – facilitators in semesters 3,4 & 5 32 facilitators 45 sessions; total hours 135 2011 – facilitators in semesters 2,3 & 5 25 facilitators 37 sessions; total hours 111

  9. How was monitoring used? • Individual feedback to each facilitator • Weaknesses focussed on in PBL training in 2012 for new facilitators. • Aim to run ‘refresher’ training for all facilitators this year July, 2012

More Related