
handle: 20.500.12866/6518
Resumen: Objetivo: Describir la evaluación de un curso de docencia en el campo clínico para residentes según los niveles 1, 2 y 3 del modelo de evaluación de programas educacionales de Kirkpatrick. Material y métodos: Se implementó un curso para capacitar a residentes en docencia. El curso fue evaluado mediante: una encuesta de satisfacción global, desempeño docente y calidad (Kirkpatrick 1-Reacción); un examen de conocimientos y encuesta de actitudes hacia la docencia realizados antes y después del curso (Kirkpatrick 2-Aprendizaje) y una encuesta realizada 3 meses después del curso sobre la aplicación de lo aprendido (Kirkpatrick 3-Conducta). Resultados: Kirkpatrick 1: De los 19 residentes que llevaron el curso, el 100% manifestó estar satisfecho con el curso y el desempeño docente; el 100% recomendaría los docentes a otros residentes.Kirkpatrick 2: Las calificaciones en el examen de conocimientos antes y después del curso fueron 8,7 (DE 2,7) y 15,5 (DE 3,4), p< 0,0005. Dieciocho (94%) de los residentes consideró estar preparado para ser docente después del curso.Kirkpatrick 3: 3 meses después del curso, 18 (94,7%) de los residentes habían realizado sesiones de docencia en grupo pequeño, mejorado el clima de aprendizaje y promovido el autoaprendizaje. Diecisiete (89,5%) impartían clases y realizaban feedback con residentes de años inferiores e internos. Conclusiones: El curso de docencia en el campo clínico para residentes fue factible de implementar, tuvo un alto grado de satisfacción entre los residentes, la mayoría reportó haber perfeccionado sus habilidades docentes y aplicó lo aprendido 3 meses después de haber llevado el curso. Abstract: Objetive: To describe the evaluation of a clinical teaching course for residents according to Kirkpatrick educational program evaluation model. Material and methods: A clinical teaching course for residents was implemented. The course was evaluated by: a questionnaire of global satisfaction, teaching performance and quality (Kirkpatrick 1- Reaction); a knowledge test and a questionnaire of attitudes toward teaching, both of them carried out before and after the course (Kirkpatrick 2-Learning) and a questionnaire, carried out 3 months after the course, about the application of the concepts (Kirkpatrick 3-Behavior). Results: Kirkpatrick 1: Nineteen residents who took the course (100%) expressed their satisfaction with the course and the teaching performance; 100% would recommend teacher's course to other residents.Kirkpatrick 2: The qualifications in the knowledge test before and after the course were 8.7 (SD 2.7) y 15.5 (SD 3,4), p< 0.0005. Eighteen (94.7%) of residents considered being prepared to be a teacher after the course.Kirkpatrick 3: Three months after the course, eighteen (94.7%) of residents had conducted small group teaching sessions, improved the learning climate and promoted self-learning. Seventeen (89.5%) gave classes and provided feedback to lower year's residents and interns. Conclusions: The Clinical Teaching Course for Residents was feasible to implement, had a high degree of satisfaction among residents, most of them reported had improved their teaching skills and applied what they have learned three months after taking the course.
Medical education, Medicine (General), Education (General), https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.03.00, Program evaluation, Evaluación de programa, Residency, R5-920, Educación médica, Residentes, L7-991, https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.00.00
Medical education, Medicine (General), Education (General), https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.03.00, Program evaluation, Evaluación de programa, Residency, R5-920, Educación médica, Residentes, L7-991, https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.00.00
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
