INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of the undergraduate curriculum is spent within Restorative Dentistry at the University of Liverpool. As well as supportive "phantom head" courses the undergraduates receive significant amounts of teaching within the clinics themselves. In 2004, to help inform the clinical tutors as to their areas of strengths and weaknesses, undergraduates were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire on the quality of teaching they received from their clinical supervisors. This process has been repeated subsequently in 2005 and 2006. METHOD: A 19 parameter questionnaire, employing a 5-point Likert scale and space for open comments, was circulated to every clinical undergraduate student. Questionnaires were returned anonymously and all data collected by one researcher. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed and the staff provided with individual feedback within the context of the overall departmental profile. The pooled data from each of the years was then compared to determine if any changes had occurred. Statistical analysis used Kruskal Wallis tests to determine whether these were statistically significant. RESULTS: Although the range varied, median scores of 4 (agree) were gained for each question each year. Following statistical analysis 18 of the parameters showed a statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05) between 2004 and 2006 with only one remaining constant throughout. CONCLUSION: It would appear that the use of a questionnaire based feedback system can result in a tangible and demonstrable improvement in the delivery of clinical teaching.
INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of the undergraduate curriculum is spent within Restorative Dentistry at the University of Liverpool. As well as supportive "phantom head" courses the undergraduates receive significant amounts of teaching within the clinics themselves. In 2004, to help inform the clinical tutors as to their areas of strengths and weaknesses, undergraduates were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire on the quality of teaching they received from their clinical supervisors. This process has been repeated subsequently in 2005 and 2006. METHOD: A 19 parameter questionnaire, employing a 5-point Likert scale and space for open comments, was circulated to every clinical undergraduate student. Questionnaires were returned anonymously and all data collected by one researcher. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed and the staff provided with individual feedback within the context of the overall departmental profile. The pooled data from each of the years was then compared to determine if any changes had occurred. Statistical analysis used Kruskal Wallis tests to determine whether these were statistically significant. RESULTS: Although the range varied, median scores of 4 (agree) were gained for each question each year. Following statistical analysis 18 of the parameters showed a statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05) between 2004 and 2006 with only one remaining constant throughout. CONCLUSION: It would appear that the use of a questionnaire based feedback system can result in a tangible and demonstrable improvement in the delivery of clinical teaching.