Impact of Faculty Development Workshops in Student‐Centered Teaching Methodologies on Faculty Members’ Teaching and Their Students’ Perceptions

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess, after one year, the impact of faculty development in teaching and learning skills focused on a learner-centered approach on faculty members' perceptions of and approaches to teaching and on their students' learning experiences and approaches. Before training (2014), all 176 faculty members at a dental school in Chile were invited to complete the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) to assess their teaching approaches (student- vs. teacher-focused). In 2015, all 496 students were invited to complete the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) to assess their learning approaches (deep or surface) and the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) to measure their teaching quality perceptions. Subsequently, faculty development workshops on student-centered teaching methodologies were delivered, followed by peer observation. In March 2016, all 176 faculty members and 491 students were invited to complete a second ATI (faculty) and R-SPQ-2 and CEQ (students). Before (2014) and after (2016) the training, 114 (65%) and 116 (66%) faculty members completed the ATI, respectively, and 89 (49%) of the then-181 faculty members completed the perceptions of skills development questionnaire in September 2016. In 2015, 373 students (75%) completed the R-SPQ-2F and CEQ; 412 (83%) completed both questionnaires in 2016. In 2014, the faculty results showed that student-focused teaching was significantly higher in preclinical and clinical courses than in the basic sciences. In 2016, teacher-focused teaching fell significantly; basic science teaching improved the most. Students in both the 2015 and 2016 cohorts had lower mean scores for deep learning approaches from year 1 on, while they increased their scores for surface learning. The students' perceptions of faculty members' good teaching, appropriate assessment, clear goals, and e-learning improved significantly, but perception of appropriate workload did not. Teaching and learning skills development produced significant gains in student-centered teaching for these faculty members and in some students' perceptions of teaching quality. However, student workload needs to be considered to support deep learning.

Student\'s Perception of the Impact of E-learning on Dental Education

“…4,17,25,26 However, a few faculties in dental schools are utilizing online learning tools. 17,27,28 Some of the reasons for faculty hesitation to shift their teaching style to e-learning has been associated with low perceived benefit, difficulty in developing these online resources, frequency of student's usage, and the time required to invest in this process. 1, [28][29][30] Literature in the past supported the traditional learning strategy; however, this trend has shifted as the new generation has become technologically savvy, which were reported by Browne et al, 31 and Naser-ud-Din.…”

Using a Novel Student-centered Teaching Method to Improve Pharmacy Student Learning

“…Student-centered teaching has repeatedly been shown to be superior to the traditional teacher-centered approach to instruction, in which students could solve problems, cooperative learning, and inductive learning. [17][18][19][20] Inductive teaching, an effective method of linking theory with practice, involves students discussing questions and solving problems in class, with much of the work in and out of class being done by students learning in groups. 21,22 Student-centered teaching methods include active learning, which involves the student through participation and investment of energy in all three phases of the learning process (input, operations, and feedback) and better meets the needs of students with varying learning styles.…”

Student experiences of two small group learning‐teaching formats: Seminar and fishbowl

“…These complex results may be partially explained by differences in the learning approaches of our third and fifth year students, as measured quantitatively. 27,28 Year-3 students showed very similar deep and surface approaches to learning (ratio of deep:surface = 1.0), whilst year-5 students showed a higher deep:surface ratio (1.2) in their approach to learning. This finding might explain why more senior fifth-year students preferred the more flexible seminar approach, since they appear to have a higher intrinsic motivation to study.…”

“…Seminars were delivered exclusively by the course coordinator, whereas the fishbowl format necessitated an additional seven monitors who needed intense training in preparation of introducing the new format. 27…”