This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

RAYMOND R. SUSKIND, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1966;93(5):543-544.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

WHILE IT IS extremely difficult to measure achievement or deficiencies of a teaching and learning workshop, important clues can be gleaned from feedback. Useful information is actually elicited during the sessions themselves via the level of activity of the participants, their reactions in specific sessions, their attitudes, and their comments. In order to provide the conference planning group with some measure of effectiveness of the sessions and the range of interests of teachers of dermatology, a questionnaire was sent out ten days after the conference soliciting opinions from each of the 145 participants. The results are tabulated below.

Results of Questionnaires

Questionnaires sent to registrants 145

Number returned 99

% replies 68.3%

Question 1.—

Do you believe that the objectives of the Conference were fulfilled; ie, to further examine the problems of teaching and learning in medical schools? 86 Yes

6 Partially fulfilled

1 Only fairly well

3 Most of the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PORTLAND, ORE

From the Department of Dermatology, University of Oregon Medical School, Portland.

Footnotes
Read before the Second Conference on Undergraduate Teaching in Dermatology of the Association of Professors of Dermatology, Chicago, April 30-May 2, 1965.

Reprint requests to University of Oregon Medical School, Portland, Ore 97201.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?