Tutor Development

Workshops

The Learning Environment:  Revisiting Our Roots - August 2013                
Savannah-August 27; Macon-August 29
View  Workshop Slides (Adobe PDF)

Tutor Development

Over a two year period from 2005 - 2007 a group of experienced Mercer University School of Medicine faculty routinely met together as the Tutor Development Team (TDT).  The purpose of the group was to identify aspects of tutoring that could be better defined for individual faculty understanding and development.  Among the initiatives of the group were the development of a Tutor Guide, identification of tutor support materials, initiation of a Peer Review Process, and redesign of the tutor evaluation form. The TDT was initiated and led by Dona Harris, PhD.Other group members were: Linda Adkison, PhD; Sebastian Alston, MD; Michael Brown, PhD; Fred Girton, MD; Charles Reagan, PhD; Allison Scheetz, MD; Sam Shillcutt, PhD; Tina Thompson, PhD; Jerry Tift, MD; and Anna Walker, MD.

Tutor Guide

To obtain a hard copy of this guide: in Macon, contact Chasity Watson (478-301-2604); in Savannah, contact M. Marie Dent, PhD (912-350-1722).

Peer Review Process

During the 2012-2013 academic year, the Peer Review of Tutors was revised and reinstituted.Tutors are reviewed by a faculty colleague and written feedback provided to each tutor.  Two observations occur during the phase, with a written summary given to the tutor.  The tutors and the tutor reviewers evaluate the process.  A summary of the outcomes is available.  Tutors will be evaluated every three years.  Requests can be made by faculty tutors or program directors to request a review prior to this time period.

For additional information contact M. Marie Dent, PhD, Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs (dent_mm@mercer.edu, 912-350-1722)

Examples of written Feedback and forms used by Peer Reviewers

Evaluation

Teaching/Tutoring Resources

CONSTRUCTING WRITTEN TEST QUESTIONS FOR THE BASIC AND CLINICAL SCIENCES (Third Edition)

This manual was developed by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) to help faculty members improve the quality of the multiple-choice questions written for their examinations.The manual provides an overview of item formats, concentrating on the traditional one-best-answer. It reviews issues related to technical item flaws and issues related to item content and also provides basic information to help faculty review statistical indices of item quality after test administration. The manual will be useful primarily by faculty who are teaching medical students in basic science courses and clinical clerkships. The examples focus on undergraduate medical education, though the general approach to item writing may be useful for assessing examinees at other levels and by other health professions educators.