1Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Formative Evaluation Using

Student Focus GroupsHeidi M. Anderson, Ph.D.

University of KentuckyCollege of Pharmacy (UKCOP)

2Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Student Focus Groups UKCOP uses student focus groups as part of the

formative curricular evaluation process Goals:

Systematic method to collect information about the curriculum

Assure confidential timely exchange between professors and students on their perceptions of course in progress

3Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

How it Developed D. Joseph Clark, Washington University

Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) 5-step process Conducted once mid-semester

Adapted a hybrid version of SGID Student Liaison Committee (SLC)

4Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Who Participates in SLC? 10 Students from each class for Fall/Spring

9 members randomly selected from the 10 small groups 1 member is the class Vice President

Facilitators from the Office of Education Innovation (OEI) Assistant Dean Assessment Coordinator Recorder

Faculty observers periodically invited

5Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Obtaining the Participants Beginning of Fall semester students receive 1st

electronic correspondence, that: Explains purpose of Student Liaison Committee (SLC) Describes the random selection process

2nd correspondence, is sent: Those 10 selected members, informed of dates, training, etc. Entire class announcing the 10 individuals

6Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Initial Training Meeting Training on Providing Feedback

Purpose UKCOP process and assessment Focus group methodology Guidelines on offering constructive feedback

Relevant and Appropriate Specific descriptions Offer both positive and negative Explain how to improve

7Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Meeting Process After each set of block exams the Student Liaison

Committee meets to review the learning in each course Block Exams approximately every 3 wk period

Each course is given 10-12 minutes for discussion PY1 (#7) PY2 (#5) PY3 (#3)

SLC members represent their entire class Solicit feedback prior to meetings

8Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

During the Meeting Use a systematic 3-question format Responses are discussed, consensus is

reached and recorded Data is organized into a report for the instructor Report is sent electronically to the instructor and

course coordinator 48 hours post meeting

9Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Feedback Questions What elements in the course helped students

learn the material in this course? What elements in this course hindered the

learning? What specific suggestions do you have to

improve the course?

10Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Post Meeting The instructor takes a few minutes of

subsequent class to respond to student feedback in the SLC report and to describe any changes that will occur to improve learning

Facilitator will arrange a follow-up session with the instructor ‘prn’

11Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Evaluation of SLC Process

12Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Evaluation of SLC Spring 2005, conducted a survey to determine

student perceptions about SLC Purpose Comfort providing input Effectiveness of process Accuracy of process Benefits Areas for improvement

Specific questions for the SLC members

13Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Survey Response Rate All 3 classes combined = 85%

PY1 = 90 PY2 = 80 PY3 = 85

14Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYI understand the purpose of the SLC

Mean

SD=1

D=2

A=3

SA=4

3.4

3.1

3.4

2.95

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

PY1 PY2 PY3

15Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYI feel comfortable providing information to the SLC member(s) for discussion at the next SLC meeting

Mean

3.2

2.9

3.2

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2.95

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

PY1 PY2 PY3

SD=1

D=2

A=3

SA=4

16Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYThe SLC is an effective way to communicate class perceptions to faculty and administration

Mean

3.1

2.5

2.9

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

PY1 PY2 PY3

SD=1

D=2

A=3

SA=4

17Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

The SLC accurately reflects the perceptions of the entire class

Mean

2.7

2.02.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

PY1 PY2 PY3

SD=1

D=2

A=3

SA=4

18Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYAs a member of the SLC, the time required to participate was worthwhile

Mean

3.4

3.2

3.3

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

PY1 PY2 PY3

SD=1

D=2

A=3

SA=4

19Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACYAs a member of the SLC, I understood what was expected of me.

Mean

3.5

3.3

3.4

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

PY1 PY2 PY3

SD=1

D=2

A=3

SA=4

20Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Benefits Opportunity to voice class opinions to

communicate concerns to faculty The faculty response to the SLC feedback

21Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Areas for Improvement Feedback gathered from students by their SLC

members before the meetings Concern about selecting their own members to

the SLC Feedback from SLC members about the meeting

22Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Suggestions More effective methods to obtain student input

before these meetings: Email Class announcement Form

Summary of the meeting results to the class

23Student Focus Groups

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

References1. Clark, J and Redmond, M. Small Group Instructional Diagnosis

Final Report. Settle: Department of Biology Education, University of Washington, 1982. (ED 217-954).

2. Coffman, SJ Improving Your teaching Through Small-Group Diagnosis. College Teaching, 1991, 39(2), 80-82.

3. Angelo, TA., and Cross, KP. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass, 1993.

4. Wimer, M. Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass, 1990.