Epi07eval

=Evaluation of Epidemiological Thinking Course, Fall 07=

Instructor's self-evaluation
12 Dec 07, with additions suggested by students indicated in italics

0. Overall goal of enhancing epidemiological literacy > Students expressed appreciation (mid-semester & subsequently) for being introduced to the literature, but I find my self unsure whether the issues crystallized enough for students to hold on to them. This is in part because I need to crystallize the issues for myself -- reading & selecting the articles myself is one thing; seeing what questions come up for students and how to respond is another. >> I might do a diagnostic quiz early on, which would help me prepare min-lectures (see #2 below) as well as make recommendations about what parts of statistics each student should brush up on. See also #2 & 4 on my reviewing what came out in discussions and sharpening the focus in the future.

1. Sequence of topics > The "ideas" of the topics flowed well from one to next, but there's too many (14) for a one semester course -- especially if we spend more time on fundamentals (see #3). >> Not sure what to do -- which topics would I drop?

2. Establishing fundamentals > During the middle of the semester, we found ourselves focusing on selected tables and charts, which seemed useful. Otherwise, relied on students to read & refer back to Gordis text. Text good. Discussions didn't make reference to it & instructor didn't use it in mini-lectures. Need to stress population health as distinct from individual health. >> Prepare mini-lectures for each class //(or leaders prepare these)// -- especially about confounders -- and/or activities to read a table or a chart each class. I still want to retain the seminar format because the work of delving into areas you're not an expert on and getting something from them is part of epidemiological literacy. I could prepare a closing statement/wrap up of points I think are crucial take-aways and make sure there's time (5-10 minutes) to deliver it. //Make more reference to Gordis.//

3. Readings > The amount of reading varied from one week to next and often too great. >> Perhaps identify 2 required readings for each topic and divide up the others among the students who each add an annotated reference on it.

4. Class discussions > The formats for discussion explored various models -- which was intended -- but gradually relied more on me. //Bring in authors/practitioners as guest presenters.// //Better time management so we get through what we intend to.// >> I need to spend some time going through what happened each week and thinking about how to guide the discussions into focused areas. I'm worried that if I did mini-lectures, this would diminish the student leaders' sense of responsibility for coming up with ideas about how to lead discussion. //Leaders need coaching -- it's daunting for a student to lead for 2.5 hours. Accumulate a set of guidelines for discussion leading.//

5. Wiki postings > Rich material in the annotated references, but not all students got into the swing of looking for references that related the week's topic to their field. In any case, class discussions made little reference to these. > Responses didn't happen very often. > The additional material will, as hoped, give me a lot to read to refine what I would assign next time & how I would present it. (E.g., the Gene Watch article on Caspi & Moffitt make me less inclined to give Caspi & Moffitt such prominence in the course. Or, at least, if I used it, it would be as a lesson in how to scrutinise what looks reasonable and interesting on the first read.) >> Use wiki postings for summaries or annotations of identified readings other than the two required ones. Call on students to contribute during class in ways that build on what they posted on these secondary articles. //Students need coaching & reminding about making wiki responses.//

6. Course projects > "Prospectus" was confusing. >> Better to list specifically the options: grant proposal, literature review, research paper (perhaps building on a substantive statement),... > Not as much epidemiological thinking in them as I'd expected, but given how much epi was packed into the course, it makes sense that integrating it with one's own work would require more time (and coaching by me). I didn't manage to create any sort of network with practicing epidemiologists. >> Start the process earlier in the semester. I need to allow more time as instructor to explore epidemiological connections (people to talk to, readings) on each student's topic and bring these connections to the attention of the student.

7. General course dynamic > Cooperative & cheerful group. Seemingly patient with the rough edges and unusual features of the course, including the lack of enough guidance/reminders about the requirements. >> I hope that I'll get to teach it again, that the material will be less new to me, and I'll have a sharper sense of how to make sure the class and discussion highlights the most important things.

8. Use of technology > A wiki is no longer an exotic animal to the students. >> There needs to be a "feed" or something to indicate when key postings have been made related to the upcoming class and some incentive to look back at revisions on substantive statements and annotated references after the class. > Jan's presence by skype and then her absence stretched my ability to cater to students at a distance. >> Next step is to get reliable software to make compact recordings that have good sound quality. After that I might see if I can do videos without elaborate equipment and time spent.

9. Other? //Substantive statements were variable (in depth, length) and weren't often posted a week in advance.//