Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6a:
Leuven Pilot
Version History
Version
Date
Change
Author(s)
1.0
20 Mar 2014
First Draft
Anne Cazaerck
1.1
5 May 2014
Approved
Anne Cazaerck
Contents
Version History ...................................................................................................................... 1
Contents................................................................................................................................ 1
Aim ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
2: Prototype: Extra course for local students ........................................................................... 2
Overall goal ........................................................................................................................ 2
Value ................................................................................................................................. 3
Potential for improvement ................................................................................................... 3
On-line publication .............................................................................................................. 4
Practical applicability ........................................................................................................... 4
Reflection on feedback and recommendations for the future ................................................. 4
3 Pilot: 2-day residential course for external students............................................................... 5
Overall Goal ....................................................................................................................... 5
Value ................................................................................................................................. 6
On-line publication .............................................................................................................. 6
Practical application ............................................................................................................ 6
General comments ............................................................................................................. 8
Reflection on feedback and recommendations for the future ................................................ 8
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 9
A1 Front cover of questionnaire ........................................................................................... 9
A2 Pictures from the Pilot .................................................................................................. 10
A3 Attendance lists ........................................................................................................... 11
Aim
This is a pilot of a 2-day residential course held at the KU Leuven on 24th and 25th March 2014.
The bulk of this deliverable is the report of an evaluation of this course (and a local prototype)
based on questionnaire assessments of student opinion.
1 Introduction
The pilot module organized by Leuven consisted of two parts. The first one was for local
students. It was rather a small module that was meant to prepare the two days pilot course. This
second module was the main focus of the work package and the goal was to give a two days
course for international students. More information about the content of the pilot modules and
the evaluations of the students can be found in the next paragraphs.
Positive comments
Clear link with physical examination, thanks to the prediction of gait for every muscle
group.
The example was very well explained.
It was a nice repetition of the already given information. The integration was clearly
showed.
Clear explanation and repetition of the lessons was reached.
Better for clinical reasoning.
It was well explained by using the important gait analysis reports.
First good overview and repetition of clinical evaluation. Afterwards good link of this
clinical examination with gait analysis.
The last part of the course gives a good overview and conclusion.
Especially the last part was interesting.
The slides were very clear.
It was good to have an overview with links between each lesson.
All the things were already known but we have never seen how to link them.
Now you know where to focus on.
Negative comments
Value
Was it a surplus value to follow this extra class? How helpful was it to understand
the subject material better? Give a value between 0 and 10 (0 = not helpful at all, 10
= extremely helpful) + explain
Main score: 7.4/10
General comments (literally taken from the evaluation forms):
Positive comments
Negative comments
On-line publication
If these classes will be posted online (on Toledo), in what way will they help you to
give insight in the course material?
General comments (literally taken from the evaluation forms):
Practical applicability
Do you think that this kind of classes will prepare you in a better way towards the
practical work in a clinical setting? Give a value between 0 and 10 (0 = not helpful at
all, 10 = extremely helpful) + explain
Main score: 7.4/10
General comments (literally taken from the evaluation forms):
Theoretical class about clinical examination, gait and gait deviations and the link
between clinical examination and gait.
2pm 4pm
4pm 6pm
Case discussion of the same patient from the clinical examination, but regarding
data from several years before.
After completing the course, students filled in an evaluation questionnaire. The results can be
found below.
Overall Goal
The goal of this extra course was to link physical examination to gait analysis by
using clinical cases. Do you agree that this goal was reached? Give a value
between 0 and 10 (0 = I dont agree at all, 10 = I fully agree) + explain.
Main score: 9.4 / 10
General comments (literally taken from the evaluation forms):
The physical examination was done very well and discrepancies between different
organizations were well explained.
I did not have enough time to exercise on my own, namely to link the facts to the
plots of gait analysis data.
Excellent link regarding to the real aspect of walking. More outlining the positives
and negatives/drawbacks of clinical examination.
The course was very comprehensive and supported by excellent video material and
practical session.
A good overview of the physical exam as performed in Leuven. Due to the
international composition of the group, discussions about parts of the exam and
differences in performance were valuable.
Value
Was it a surplus value to follow this extra class? How helpful was it to
understand the subject material better? Give a value between 0 and 10 (0 = not
helpful at all, 10 = extremely helpful) + explain.
Main score: 9.4/10
The course was extremely helpful and has given me a good foundation for the
module of next year.
On-line publication
Some parts of the course are recorded. If these parts will be posted online, in
what way will they help you to give insight in the course material?
General comments (literally taken from the evaluation forms):
Some of the lecture notes could not show images/videos so clear. But if clear videos
would be posted online, it would be very beneficial and also for others to view.
To structure how to get through the analysis and to structure how to link it.
Providing the ability to go back and review the lecture particularly the spoken
elements not presented on the handouts.
Practical application
Do you think that this kind of classes will prepare you in a better way towards
the practical work in a clinical setting? Give a value between 0 and 10 (0 = not
helpful at all, 10 = extremely helpful) + explain.
Main score: 9.2/10
General comments (literally taken from the evaluation forms):
Yes it was very useful and gave a value insight into how other labs work.
Information on clinical practice from an experienced centre can help to view forms
or evaluate internal processes on clinical practice.
General comments
Looking back on your overall experience of this course, please provide c onstructive
feedback on the most positive aspects and any changes you recommend.
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication
(communication) reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Appendices
A1 Front cover of questionnaire
A3 Attendance lists
Note that students have signed in with their academic affiliation rather than place of residence.