JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Dent Educ. 71(5): 606-618 2007
© 2007 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wuenschell, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by Shuler, C. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wuenschell, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by Shuler, C. F.

Educational Methodologies

PBL Core Skills Faculty Development Workshop 2: Training Faculty in Group Learning Facilitation Skills Through Role-Modeling and Role-Play Activities

Carol W. Wuenschell, Ph.D.; Kirsten R. Dalrymple, Ph.D.; Charles F. Shuler, D.M.D., Ph.D.

Key words: problem-based learning, tutor, tutorial

Submitted for publication 11/15/06; accepted 02/08/07


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods and Materials
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
This report describes the second workshop in a series intended to prepare faculty for their roles in a newly instituted problem-based learning (PBL) dental program. The Facilitation of Learning workshop was designed to familiarize participants with the role of the facilitator in the small-group learning context, the skills required for facilitation, and identification of student behaviors requiring facilitator intervention. Methods included discussion of a subject-specific scenario, role-modeling of a mock student group by workshop leaders or PBL students, and role-play by participants as facilitators of the mock group. An exit survey showed the majority of participants felt the workshop goals had been met. The opportunity to observe and participate in a realistically simulated PBL group was most commonly identified as an effective workshop element by attendees, with participant discussions and opportunities for input from experienced facilitators and students (when used) also cited as effective. Participant criticisms and suggestions that will likely contribute to program enhancement notably included expressed desires for further observation and practice prior to facilitation of a PBL student learning group and availability of ongoing follow-up training and support for fledgling facilitators.

In the 2000–01 academic year, the University of Southern California School of Dentistry (USC-SD) undertook the full-scale change from a traditional lecture-based format to a problem-based pedagogy, following the success of a small problem-based learning (PBL) pilot program. The change was to take place as a phase-in over the course of four years, with each new entering class of 144 students receiving their education by the new pedagogy, while previous classes completed their studies under the traditional instructional program that had been in place when they entered dental school. The need to provide an adequate number of competent facilitators to meet the needs of the new entering class, as well as subsequent classes, required creation of a new faculty development program. This article is one of a series describing the development, implementation, and initial evaluation of this faculty training program. Development of the program curriculum, the central elements of which consisted of a coordinated set of four workshops, is described in the first in the series, which appeared in the September 2006 issue of the Journal of Dental Education.1 This article provides the full description and outcomes of the second workshop in this series, Facilitation of Learning, which focused on the skills needed by faculty to effectively facilitate the learning process of students working in small groups using PBL. The goals and objectives of the Facilitation of Learning workshop will be outlined, and the methods and workshop format described. Measurable outcomes in the form of workshop participation and participant perceptions will be detailed, and the article concludes with a discussion of potential changes to the program based on participant input.

The experience of training faculty in the roles and responsibilities associated with problem-based learning has been more thoroughly explored in medical than in dental education. Reports from medical schools bring up a number of general issues to be considered when undertaking the creation of a faculty development program, such as sequencing, use of methodologies consistent with adult learning principles, institutional support, and program evaluation.2–5 Aside from these general considerations, there are additional specific issues that arise when considering a change in instructional approach to PBL. First, the transition from the traditional lecturer role to that of facilitator of learning is difficult for many faculty members.3,5 At the same time, the success of this transition may be critical to the success of the PBL pedagogy since there are important links between facilitator behavior and small group function.6,7

For these reasons, the developers of the faculty development program at USCSD decided that training in facilitation skills should be a major component in the design of the PBL faculty development program. It was felt, however, that faculty first needed to be equipped with a basic understanding of the PBL process. Accordingly, the Facilitation of Learning workshop was placed second in the workshop sequence, immediately following the PBL Process workshop, which was devoted to providing faculty with an understanding of the rationale and procedures involved in the PBL small-group learning process.8 The workshop planners recommended that the Facilitation of Learning workshop follow the PBL Process workshop and be in close conjunction with observation of a real PBL case. In addition, it was recommended that workshop participants should facilitate a case relatively soon after completing the workshops, so that individuals could apply what they had learned. The planners were committed to utilizing methods for instruction and practice that were consistent with concepts of adult learning theory9 and to providing opportunities for faculty to discuss their concerns amongst their peers in a nonthreatening environment. Program evaluation was also considered important to determine the impact of the program on faculty perceptions, as well as to assess the need for modifications to the program based on input from the faculty.


   Methods and Materials
Top
 Abstract
 Methods and Materials
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
The Facilitation of Learning workshop was offered to the dental school faculty and others, including dental hygiene faculty and postdoctoral students, who had an interest in the workshop subject or who might be expected to engage in facilitation of small-group learning. All individuals involved in the education of students at USCSD were required by the administration to attend the first, second, and third workshops in the series.

The formulation of the Facilitation of Learning workshop was based on the underlying idea that, to be effective as a facilitator, one should understand the process of learning being utilized by the student, the behaviors exhibited by the student that are representative of this process, and the general role the facilitator should take in guiding this process. All of these contribute to the goal that the participants would leave with the basic skills and confidence necessary to facilitate small-group student learning. It was also anticipated that workshop participants would leave with a more solid concept of the differences between traditional large-group teaching and small-group facilitating. With these items in mind, objectives for the workshop participant were set and are detailed in Table 1Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Facilitation of Learning workshop objectives
 
Instructional methods were selected to be in keeping with adult education principles,9 since this approach is thought to enhance participant satisfaction with the learning experience.5 For example, methods of instruction were chosen that required the participants to engage in active and cooperative learning and that allowed opportunities for constructive sharing of prior experience. In addition, methods were chosen when possible that used real-life contexts for presentation of material. The introductory information presented, as well as the methods to be used during the course of the workshop, were discussed with the participants, and discussions involving the participants were employed in each of the workshop activities. For the Facilitation of Learning workshop, activities consisted of a subject-specific scenario as well as role-modeling and role-playing activities.

The Facilitation of Learning workshop was presented in a half-day format. The sequence of activities in the workshop is summarized in Table 2Go, including details of time allotted, the principle parties involved, and objectives addressed by each activity. The objectives for the workshop, as well as the workshop format, were presented to the participants at the beginning of the workshop, and the introduction also included a short recap of the PBL process as well as presentation of key concepts. The subject-specific scenario, role-modeling, and role-play activities are described in further detail in the next section. Selected literature on facilitation issues was made available to the participants at the close of the workshop as were two handouts, one outlining specific responsibilities of the facilitator and the other, a "Facilitation Starter Kit" designed by the program developers and based on recommendations from The Skilled Facilitator.10


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Workshop program, resources, and learning objectives
 
Detailed Instructional Methods
A subject-specific scenario was used in the Facilitation of Learning workshop. This approach has been effectively used to train math instructors11 and was adapted for use in the USCSD faculty development program. Use of such scenarios directly involves the learner and recognizes adult preferences for lifelike problems. The scenario utilized for the Facilitation of Learning workshop (Figure 1Go) outlined a common situation experienced by facilitators, one that highlights behavioral cues that present appropriate and inappropriate opportunities for intervention by the facilitator. The scenario was used as a means to focus participants on particular topics and engage them in a brainstorming and problem-solving discussion with a partner. After brainstorming, the moderator brought the participant pairs back together and conducted a larger group discussion, applying participant-generated points back to the topic at hand and, where possible, providing specific answers to questions raised in the discussion. In using the scenario as a discussion-stimulating tool, the workshop planners anticipated reinforcing steps of the PBL process and sparking discussion of facilitation opportunities and faculty attitudes about playing the role of facilitator. This activity thus served as a means of tapping the participants’ prior knowledge and experiences, as well as their preconceived ideas about the facilitator’s role. It was anticipated that the scenario might create a "need-to-know-experience" for the participants in accordance with adult learning principles.5


Figure 1
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Subject-specific scenario for break-out groups and general discussion

 
Role-playing and role-modeling were used in the Facilitation of Learning workshop to provide demonstration and to allow participants to practice the actions of a facilitator working with a small group of students engaged in the PBL process. It was felt that role-modeling and role-playing were instructional methods that would appeal to adults’ preferences for learning through lifelike situations. The activities also provided an opportunity for critique of the demonstrated facilitator behavior. During these activities, a mock student group worked on a mini-case, following the same learning steps used by the dental students when working on the full-scale cases used in the PBL curriculum at USCSD. The mini-cases, one of which is shown in Figure 2Go, resembled the first part of a case from the PBL curriculum, with a small number of facts for the mock group to work with so that the group’s work on the case could proceed relatively quickly.


Figure 2
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Mini-case for role-modeling and role-play activities

 
The overall goal of the role-modeling was for the mock group to clearly demonstrate how student behaviors prompt specific interventions by a facilitator. To elicit specific behaviors from the mock student group, a loose script was created as a guide. The script (Figure 3Go) assigned roles to each of the mock students, specifying a type of "problem" behavior to be demonstrated such as presenting ideas with no supporting evidence. The mock student group members were asked to base their behavior on the script and fulfill the objectives set for the dramatization. For the role-modeling portion of the activity, the mock student group included an experienced facilitator, and it was intended that the participants would identify the problematic behaviors in each case and observe the specific intervention by the facilitator that was prompted by the student behavior. The impact of the facilitator’s intervention was designed to be clear to the participants (i.e., the problem was resolved). The take-home message for the participant was intended to resemble the following pathway:


Figure 3
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Behaviors addressed and script sample for mock group

 

Formula

A set of criteria for facilitator behavior (Figure 4Go), derived from a number of sources,10,12 was provided to the participants to aid their understanding and evaluation of the facilitator’s actions. A worksheet accompanying the list of criteria was designed to assist the participants in applying the criteria to the behaviors exhibited by members of the mock group. After behaviors and interventions had occurred, the demonstration was stopped, and a discussion of the events was initiated among the moderator, participants, and mock group members. The goal of the discussion was for the participants to link student behavior to the resulting facilitator intervention, applying the facilitator behavioral criteria and noting the impact of the facilitator on student behavior.


Figure 4
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4. Criteria for facilitator behavior

 
In the role-playing situation, the mock group were to continue demonstrating their assigned roles in a novel phase of the process or with a new case, and one of the participants was asked to take on the role of the facilitator and interact with the mock group. Participants were randomly selected to role-play as the facilitator. In the larger workshop groups, time constraints made it impossible to allow each participant to facilitate a mock group. After the participant-facilitator had been given an opportunity to respond to the student behaviors, the role-playing was stopped, and the entire group was again asked to discuss the activity with respect to the facilitator behavioral criteria.

Methods of Program Evaluation
The Facilitation of Learning workshop was evaluated by surveying the participants immediately following completion of the workshop. The first part of the survey assessed the level of participant agreement that the workshop objectives had been met, using a four-point Likert scale with these choices: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Survey data were tabulated by first assigning numerical values to the scale (1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each survey item.

Participants were also asked to identify effective and ineffective methods used for the workshops and were asked to make any suggestions they might have as to how to improve the workshops in the future. Similar responses were grouped where possible to identify common recurrent themes. As an additional immediate assessment, those involved with running each workshop session discussed their impressions of the event with respect to logistics, participant outcomes, and needed modifications at the end of each presentation of the workshop.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods and Materials
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 
The principal measurable outcomes of evaluation of the Facilitation of Learning workshop rest upon the perceptions of the faculty participants as expressed in responses to items on a survey conducted immediately upon completion of each workshop. Surveying faculty perceptions was done primarily to provide the course developers with an idea of the elements of the workshop with which faculty felt less satisfied or areas where they had less confidence, so that modifications or additions to the faculty development program could be made in the future, an approach similar to that used by Des Marchais and Chaput.13

This article reports the outcomes of the PBL core skills workshops offered over a two-year period from 2003 to 2004. During this time, the Facilitation of Learning workshop was presented a total of eleven times. The number of participants enrolled in any given presentation of the workshop varied between five and twenty-five. While the workshops were open to all faculty and to non-faculty individuals involved in case facilitation, only those faculty employed with at least a 40 percent commitment of time to USCSD were required to be certified in the PBL core skills. Of the 182 individuals identified as requiring certification, 119 attended the Facilitation of Learning workshop during the indicated two-year period. All participants were given the opportunity to complete the exit survey regardless of faculty status or requirement that they be certified.

A total of 125 surveys were distributed to participants in the Facilitation of Learning workshop. Of these, eighty-nine were returned with data for analysis of responses regarding the achievement of workshop learning objectives, representing a 71.2 percent return rate for this portion of the survey. The analysis is summarized in Table 3Go. In general, the respondents expressed the opinion that the workshop was successful as measured by their responses to the first part of the survey, in which they were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that the workshop had met its three stated objectives. The mean levels of participant agreement that the Facilitation of Learning workshop objectives had been met were 3.32 (SD ±0.63) for objective one, 3.34 (SD ±0.62) for objective two, and 3.36 (SD ±0.63) for objective three, where the numerical value of 3 was assigned to the "Agree" response choice and the value of 4 was assigned to "Strongly Agree."


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Participant perceptions: achievement of learning objectives
 
The exit survey also requested that the workshop participants respond to a number of questions by writing comments. Specifically, the participants were asked to describe what they felt were the most effective elements and the least effective elements of the workshop and to give suggestions for ways in which the workshop could be improved. Out of 125 surveys distributed, ninety-eight were returned with some written response on this qualitative part of the survey, although only thirty-five individuals responded to all three items. The written comments were transcribed and grouped, based on related content, and a number of recurrent topics and themes emerged. Comments on less effective elements and suggestions for improvement were sometimes difficult to separate since respondents tended to note a weakness and suggest a solution in the same written statement. In the discussion below, numbers of comments in any specific category cannot necessarily be directly equated with numbers of respondents since workshop participants frequently wrote more than one comment to identify most effective and least effective components of the workshop. The purpose here is to present the overall patterns observed among the comments.

The overall tone of the written comments was favorable in that there were more responses for the "most effective" question (89) than for the "least effective" question (55). Of the fifty-five respondents who made "less effective" entries, twenty-one wrote either "none" or "could not think of any" in response to the query, so that the number of actual negative assessments of the workshop obtained in response to this question was only thirty-four. In addition, there were twenty-two unsolicited expressions of either thanks or general praise for the workshops or the workshop leaders. Although they were not asked specifically about learning, thirteen of the participants volunteered the perception that they had learned something, either general or specific, and the area of perceived learning, when specified, was in all but one case related to one of the workshop objectives. These observations are broadly consistent with the view of the majority of participants that the workshop objectives had been met.

Comments Regarding Effectiveness of Workshop Exercises
The participants’ comments are summarized in Table 4Go (most effective elements) and Table 5Go (less effective elements). By far the greatest numbers of comments on effective elements of the workshop were related to the activities involving the mock group. In all, forty-two of the comments for the "most effective" question referred to some aspect of the mock group activities. Of those who wrote more extensive comments, many seemed simply to appreciate the opportunity to "see how it is done," as, for example, the participant who wrote that the most effective element was "being able to observe an experienced facilitator and group in action." A smaller number expressed an appreciation more specifically for what the activity was designed to show, as in the case of one participant who indicated that the effectiveness resulted from "actual observation of behaviors and how the facilitator managed the group." It was difficult to separate the role-modeling activity from the role-playing activity when analyzing the participants’ comments. Some mentioned role-playing specifically, but it was not always clear that the respondent understood the distinction between role-modeling and role-playing. In fact, these two activities were closely linked to each other in the workshop design, and it is not surprising that the participants might have seen them as a single activity.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Participant perceptions: effective workshop elements
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. Participant perceptions: less effective workshop elements
 
A substantial number of participants (twenty-seven) mentioned discussions or question and answer sessions as effective elements. More than half of these comments referred specifically to the discussions of the mock group sessions. For example, one participant wrote that the most effective element was "the ability to observe the mock session and the discussion that followed." Apparently, these participants not only liked being able to see how it is done, but also appreciated having the opportunity to talk about the experience. Most of the other comments identified "discussions" or "question and answer" sessions as most effective elements without identifying a specific part of the workshop. This could be viewed as a general endorsement of the adult learning principle of allowing learners to be actively involved in their learning. A few comments did refer specifically to discussions on understanding the role of the facilitator, which was the topic targeted by the subject-specific scenario. In general, however, specific workshop components other than the mock group activities received very little mention.

A number of participant comments were related to what might be termed participant factors, outside of the control of the workshop organizers. Some of these were of interest in that they described participant input as an effective element and even commented that they had learned from fellow faculty or that "having people who had facilitated before coming to the workshop" was part of what made the experience effective. These comments may be viewed as further evidence that the workshop participants were actively interested in having additional input or insight into how PBL facilitation is done. The same may be said of the responses to the use of experienced PBL students as the "students" in the mock group in some of the workshops. A surprising number of participants mentioned that they found it helpful to hear the PBL students’ comments on their experiences in group or on what makes a good facilitator.

The mock group activities were also identified as a least effective element by some participants. However, none of the eighteen negative comments concerning the mock group was worded in such a way as to suggest that the mock group activity was viewed as ineffective. Rather, the comments referred to specific aspects of the activity, such as the length of the sessions, which did run over time on a number of occasions. Interestingly, a number of comments indicated that the respondents wanted more from these activities; that there was not enough attendee participation (role-playing) in the mock group sessions, or that the respondents thought too little of the case process was demonstrated. For example, one attendee wrote: "I think the group process should not have been interrupted—I think it caused the group not to act all the way through a normal group process."

Items that could be termed participant factors also appeared in the ineffective comments. In contrast to those who appreciated having experienced facilitators among the participants, there were a few who felt that widely divergent levels of experience among the participants was a problem; that the presence of some who were "accomplished facilitators" inhibited the inexperienced participants from asking questions; or that some faculty participants dominated and were opinionated. The divergence of perspectives on the presence of participants with facilitation experience may reflect the individual makeup of the audiences at the different workshops.

Participant Suggestions
Fifty-four of the participants made responses in the space designated for suggestions, although fifteen of these responses were indications that the individual had no suggestion to offer, either because "everything was good" or because they felt they did not know enough to make useful suggestions. One participant wrote: "Maybe after I facilitate a group, I will have input in this category." Since the category of "suggestions for workshop improvement" was broad and open-ended, the observations here are, as one would expect, somewhat anecdotal. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the general theme of participants wanting more experiences with observing or participating in small-group learning was evident in suggestions proposed by participants.

These suggestions included changes to the workshop itself and general improvements to facilitator training. Among examples of the former, a number of attendees suggested that videotaping real or mock sessions could be useful to make the mock sessions show what they were intended to show more efficiently or to provide more examples of good and bad facilitator behavior. One wrote, "Maybe there should have been film of other facilitators in action," and others suggested that it would be useful to have more feedback from experienced facilitators without referring to the use of film or videotape. As another example, several respondents offered suggestions to broaden the scope of coverage of the workshop to cover what is encountered in everyday facilitation, rather than just specific problem behaviors, or to cover how the facilitator deals with the full PBL process. (Because of the mini-case used, the mock group activity was confined to only the first iteration of the PBL cycle and in some cases did not even progress to the students’ selection of Learning Needs.) One attendee simply wrote that the workshop organizers should "have additional cases to present for more experience in handling ‘problem’ situations." Finally, two additional suggestions related directly to increasing the participant involvement in the role-playing activity ("you need more participation by attendees"). Frequently, there was only time for one participant to take the facilitator role in the mock group, and some participants felt that the workshop could be improved by allowing more faculty to have this experience.

Participants’ suggestions for broader facilitator training experiences beyond the Facilitation of Learning workshop included such things as more observation of cases or being mentored on a case. One wrote: I "recommend that each participant ‘sit in’ as [an] observer before taking on this as [an] independent solo facilitator." The original plan for this faculty development program included post-workshop observation, but this activity had not been implemented at the time of this study. One participant, writing in the "less effective elements" box, tellingly observed that "this process takes practice—another case with practice facilitation would be helpful." On a related note, there were several suggestions for various kinds of ongoing follow-up to the workshop. The institution of regular short workshops was one of these. Another respondent wrote: "I think it would be a good idea if I, as a facilitator, have somebody I can go [to] and ask my questions that come out later!" Another suggested that the school should "develop a PBL facilitation website bulletin board or email to discuss difficult PBL dynamics."


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods and Materials
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 References
 
The circumstances under which PBL pedagogies have been implemented have varied widely among dental schools.14–17 The extent to which PBL is used in the curriculum, the structure of the small group tutorials, and even the exact style of the PBL process used also vary among health care education institutions.16–18 Probably no two institutions are alike in their experiences. During transitions from traditional lecture-based formats to PBL, however, the need to train faculty to implement an unfamiliar approach to student learning remains a constant. A number of descriptions of faculty training programs for PBL tutors/facilitators are available in the literature4,13,19–22 (reviewed by Hitchcock and Mylona3). These training programs have been evaluated, by and large, through surveys of participant perceptions, as we have done in this report. Though faculty self-assessment of teaching skill acquisition has been criticized, some studies have supported its validity.23,24 Reports of participant assessments have typically found that faculty development programs, for both PBL and traditional teaching approaches, were well received by the participants and have further suggested that these programs resulted in increased knowledge of teaching styles, as well as awareness of, and positive changes in, participants’ teaching behaviors.13,22–25

In evaluating the faculty development program instituted at USCSD, we found that participant responses to the Facilitation of Learning workshop were generally quite positive. Indeed, many participants freely expressed their appreciation of the learning opportunity afforded by the workshop activities. We further observed, however, that the workshop’s greatest perceived strength lay in the fact that it included an activity using a mock PBL group, thus providing participants an opportunity to observe, and in some cases participate in, aspects of the role of the PBL facilitator in action. In addition, a number of respondents voiced concerns that indicated they wanted more practice, more opportunities to observe experienced facilitators, or more instruction in aspects of the facilitator’s role that were not specifically included in the workshop design. One interpretation of these observations is that, faced with the major change in their role that PBL requires, most faculty were willing to learn, but felt insecure in their ability to fulfill the new role. They were glad to be offered helpful instruction, but they wanted more opportunities to observe or to practice facilitation and more demonstrations of additional functions they would be expected to perform. This is consistent with the view, also expressed by others, that acquiring confidence in one’s ability to facilitate small-group learning requires extensive experience and practice over time.13

Achievement of Workshop Objectives
Based on the responses of the participants who filled out the survey, the workshop was broadly successful in achieving the stated objectives to increase understanding of the skills necessary to facilitate student groups, to increase the ability to identify student behaviors requiring facilitator intervention, and to increase understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the facilitator. On the face of it, faculty members’ perceptions that they have achieved a better theoretical understanding of a subject seem likely to be more accurate than a perception that one will be able to apply one’s new understanding to a practical situation. Participant responses to a training program at the University of Natal support this idea as reported by Ohmesdahl and Manning.25 In that study, fifteen participants in a facilitator training program were surveyed immediately following a workshop and again after they had facilitated their first PBL module. The participants’ views remained fairly stable regarding agreement with statements on the effectiveness of small-group learning in achieving curricular goals and on the importance of group atmosphere to group goal achievement. A substantial number of the respondents indicated, however, that in practice they found themselves wanting more control over the students’ learning. They also reported having more difficulty avoiding providing information to students in the group than they had predicted immediately after completing the workshop.25 These points are included in ongoing planning to continue to improve the faculty as small-group facilitators.

Effectiveness of the Workshop Within the Program Sequence
The placement of the Facilitation of Learning workshop in the sequence following the PBL Process workshop proved effective. The intended order of the workshops was not rigidly enforced, but rather was presented to faculty as a recommendation. It was noted that some faculty members deviated from the recommended workshop sequence, probably for reasons of scheduling conflicts, and this may account for the exit survey comments of the few individuals who indicated that the workshops should be taken in order, that they would have liked to have seen more of the PBL process demonstrated in the facilitation workshop, or that the presence of participants who lacked an understanding of the PBL process was detrimental to the workshop experience.

There were a number of faculty members who had moderate facilitation experience prior to the development of the PBL Core Skills workshops. These individuals were waived from taking the PBL Process workshop but were still asked to attend the Facilitation of Learning workshop. This was done because it was felt that even experienced facilitators would likely benefit from the workshop content. In support of this judgment, only three survey respondents complained that the content was "redundant" or that there was "not much new" for them in the Facilitation of Learning workshop.

Effectiveness of Application of Adult Learning Principles
Consistent with the principle that adults like to be actively involved in their learning rather than mere passive recipients, there was evidence that the participants valued the opportunities to participate actively in the workshop and that they valued the participation of the other workshop attendees as well. This was revealed in part by the number of comments, already mentioned, that pointed to "discussions" of one kind or another as effective elements. In addition, there were six comments in the "effective" box that cited input from the workshop audience specifically.

The striking popularity of the activities involving the mock group may, in part, reflect the adult preference for lifelike learning presentations. Four comments made direct reference to the mock session’s "realism." For many of the other respondents, whose comments were grouped under "the mock group (role-modeling and/or role-play)," it was apparent that having the opportunity to "see how it’s done" by an experienced facilitator was valued as a learning experience. In this case, it may simply be that facilitation is a complex skill that is better learned through observation than through didactic instruction.

Lessons for the Future
A number of things were learned from the survey results and from the experience of running the workshop program that may be used to modify or extend the program in the future. The workshop could be strengthened by expanding the popular mock group activity, though not at the expense of other aspects of the workshop program, especially activities that provided the participants an opportunity to ask questions and freely express their concerns. Modifications to the mock group activity that we are considering include 1) focusing less on specific problem behaviors in the mock group sessions by including more on the basics of working with a group, 2) covering more parts of the case, and 3) giving all participants the opportunity to practice being the facilitator.

We are looking into the possibility of preparing videotaped demonstration sessions to provide additional opportunities to "see how it’s done." Such tapes could be made available online for faculty to view at their own convenience. In addition, it is clear that our intention to have faculty observe a case being facilitated by an experienced faculty member as part of their training is a plan that should be further implemented, as it would provide more extensive demonstration, including the opportunity to see all parts of the case demonstrated. Having the novice facilitator’s first case observed by an experienced peer who can provide ongoing evaluation and mentoring is likely to enhance the overall training experience. Finally, in recognizing the fact that facilitation of learning is a complex and subtle, as well as an unfamiliar, skill for most faculty, the need for an ongoing program of observation of facilitator performance, combined with peer mentoring and follow-up learning opportunities, cannot be overemphasized.


   Conclusions
Top
 Abstract
 Methods and Materials
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
References
 
In conclusion, it appears that the majority of faculty participants felt that the goals of the Facilitation of Learning workshop were met, and the level of satisfaction with the workshop experience was generally high. Substantial numbers of participants expressed gratitude for having been given the chance to see the facilitation techniques demonstrated. Many expressed a desire for additional opportunities to observe or to practice these skills. Faculty comments provided an impression that most came to the Facilitation of Learning workshop with open attitudes toward learning about their new role as facilitators, but that many had some level of concern or anxiety about assuming their new role. It is also clear that, despite the general satisfaction with the workshop, some level of anxiety and concern remained among participants.


   Acknowledgments
 
The authors would like to thank Drs. Alvin Rosenblum, Michael Paine, David Crowe, Shirley Wong, Hsing Chi von Bergmann, Marian Bradford, Timothy Saunders, Loris Abedi, Tae Jun Ahn, and Payem Sanjideh for their contributions to the creation of the PBL faculty development program at USCSD.


   Footnotes
 
Dr. Wuenschell is Assistant Professor, Division of Craniofacial Sciences and Therapeutics; Dr. Dalrymple is Assistant Professor, Division of Diagnostic Sciences; and Dr. Shuler is Director, Center for Craniofacial Molecular Biology, and George and Mary Lou Boone Chair of Craniofacial Molecular Biology—all at the University of Southern California School of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Charles F. Shuler, Center for Craniofacial Molecular Biology, University of Southern California, School of Dentistry, 2250 Alcazar Street, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9062; 323-442-3174 phone, 323-442-2981 fax; shuler{at}usc.edu.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Methods and Materials
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 

  1. Dalrymple KR, Wuenschell C, Shuler CF. Development and implementation of a comprehensive faculty development program in PBL core skills. J Dent Educ 2006; 70(9):948–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Wilkerson L, Irby DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices: a comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med 1998; 73:387–96.[Medline]
  3. Hitchcock MA, Mylona ZE. Teaching faculty to conduct problem-based learning. Teach Learn Med 2000; 12(1): 52–7.[Medline]
  4. Newland MC, Newland JR, Steele DJ, Lough DR, Mc-Curdy FA. Experience with a program of faculty development. Med Teach 2003; 25(2):207–9.[Medline]
  5. Farmer EA. Faculty development for problem-based learning. Eur J Dent Educ 2004; 8:59–66.[Medline]
  6. Schmidt HG, Moust JH. What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Acad Med 1995; 70(8):708–14.[Medline]
  7. Dolmans DH, Wolfhagen IH, Scherpbier AJ, Van der Vleuten CP. Relationship of tutors’ group dynamic skills to their performance ratings in problem-based learning. Acad Med 2001; 76(5):473–6.[Medline]
  8. Dalrymple KR, Wuenschell C, Rosenblum A, Paine M, Crowe D, von Bergmann HC, et al. PBL core skills faculty development workshop 1: an experiential exercise with PBL process. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(2):249–59.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner. 5th ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.
  10. Schwarz R. The skilled facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
  11. Friedberg S, Ash A, Brown E, Hallett D, Kasman R, Kenney M, et al. Teaching mathematics in colleges and universities: case studies for today’s classroom. Faculty ed. Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society & Mathematical Association of America, 2000.
  12. Personal correspondence. Stewart Mennin, Ph.D., Office of Teacher and Educational Development, University of New Mexico School of Medicine.
  13. Des Marchais JE, Chaput M. A comprehensive continuous preclinical PBL tutor training system. Teach Learn Med 1997; 9(1):66–72.
  14. Townsend GC, Winning TA, Wetherell JD, Mullins GA. New PBL dental curriculum at the University of Adelaide. J Dent Educ 1997; 61(4):374–87.[Medline]
  15. Lantz MS, Chaves JF. Implementing a new predoctoral curriculum with a PBL component at Indiana University School of Dentistry. J Dent Educ 1998; 62(9):675–9.[Medline]
  16. Matlin KS, Libert E, McArdle PJ, Howell TH. Implementing the problem-based curriculum at Harvard School of Dental Medicine. J Dent Educ 1998; 62(9):693–708.[Medline]
  17. Rohlin M, Petersson K, Svensater G. The Malmo model: a problem-based learning curriculum in undergraduate dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 1998; 2:103–14.[Medline]
  18. Des Marchais JE, Bureau MA, Dumais B, Pigeon G. From traditional to problem-based learning: a case report of complete curricular reform. Med Educ 1992; 26:190–9.[Medline]
  19. Holmes DB, Kaufman DM. Tutoring in problem-based learning: a teacher development process. Med Educ 1994; 28:275–83.[Medline]
  20. Evans PA, Taylor DCM. Staff development of tutor skills for problem-based learning. Med Educ 1996; 30:365–6.[Medline]
  21. Wetzel MS. Developing the role of the tutor/facilitator. Postgrad Med J 1996; 72:474–7.[Abstract]
  22. Bahar-Ozvaris S, Aslan D, Sahin-Hodoglugil N, Sayek I. A faculty development program evolution: from needs assessment to long-term effects of teaching skills improvement program. Teach Learn Med 2004; 16(4):368–75.[Medline]
  23. Godfrey J, Dennick R, Welsh C. Training the trainers: do teaching courses develop teaching skills? Med Educ 2004; 38:844–7.[Medline]
  24. Hewson MG, Copeland HL, Fishleder AJ. What’s the use of faculty development? Program evaluation using retrospective self-assessments and independent performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2001; 3(3):153–60.
  25. Olmesdahl, PF, Manning DM. Impact of training on PBL facilitators. Med Educ 1999; 33:753–5.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J Soc WorkHome page
D. O. B. Lam
Impact of Problem-Based Learning on Social Work Students: Growth and Limits
Br. J. Soc. Work, May 7, 2008; (2008) bcn073v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
K. R. Dalrymple, S. Wong, A. Rosenblum, C. Wuenschell, M. Paine, and C. F. Shuler
PBL Core Skills Faculty Development Workshop 3: Understanding PBL Process Assessment and Feedback via Scenario-Based Discussions, Observation, and Role-Play
J Dent Educ., December 1, 2007; 71(12): 1561 - 1573.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wuenschell, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by Shuler, C. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wuenschell, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by Shuler, C. F.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS