An evaluation
Prof. Dr. Adriana del Rey, University Marburg
Fifty-eight participants were registered at the 2004 PNIRS Educational Short Course. A simple questionnaire was distributed at the end of the course. The aim was to know the opinion of the participants, so that this type of course could be improved. I received 41 forms back; not all items were answered in all forms. In the following, you will find summarized the answers provided by the participating “students”. I have just copied literally their answers, without any editing.
A few personal comments and suggestions derived from the students’ answers:
1) The “educational level” of the participants was very heterogeneous. (In fact, I was surprised about the number of “seniors” attending the course).
2) May be it would be good to limit the number of participants to 20-25 students. This would improve the “personal contacts”.
3) One of the more frequent critics (see below) was “exceeding the time planned”. This was (as usual) not very easy to control…but the participants were asked and most agreed in staying a bit longer. In fact, I did not expect so many questions from the participants. In any case, this only speaks in favor of the teachers…..
4) May be a handout from all speakers should be requested for future courses.
5) In personal talks with the students, many suggested: a) to plan a longer course; b) to organize two different courses: one for “advanced” and one for “beginners” or “new-comers”. I do not know if this fits with the organization of the PNIRS, but could be a possibility to consider.
6) The answers to question 7 (Which subject would you propose for a future course?) might help the organizer of the next PNIRS short educational course. In any case, as always in life, we cannot make everybody happy: One student proposed “Interactions between HPA axis and immunity” for the next course, and another “Neuroendocrine regulation of immunity (but NOT HPA axis)” !! (This was not the only example: one suggested longer talks, another shorter....).
In summary, as a whole, I believe that the students were satisfied with the course. Thanks to the participating “teachers” Deborah Hodgson, Annemieke Kavelaars, Clemens Kirschbaum and Rod Johnson! They really succeeded to avoid that the students looked at the fantastic landscape that could be appreciated through the windows! (Well… I had clear reasons to invite them as teachers….). Thanks to Rainer Straub for asking me to organize this course. I enjoyed it!
2004 PNIRS Educational Short Course
The questionnaire
Could you please, give us your opinion and help us to improve educational courses? Thanks!
1. How did you find...
|
|
Excellent |
Very good |
Good |
Regular |
Bad |
Very bad |
|
Program |
34% (14/41) |
41% (17/41) |
24% (10/41) |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Content |
34% (14/41) |
44% (18/41) |
22% (9/41) |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Time schedule |
15% (6/41) |
24% (10/41) |
29% (12/41) |
22% (9/41) |
10% (4/41) |
0% |
|
Teachers |
37% (15/41) |
51% (21/41) |
10% (4/41) |
2% (1/41) |
0% |
0% |
|
Atmosphere |
37% (15/41) |
49% (20/41) |
14% (6/41) |
0% |
0% |
0% |
2. What was the best thing in the course?
-Informality, integrative approach, solid instructors
-Talks were of an excellent length and the opportunity to ask questions was very useful
-Good overview on the topics. Enough data was presented, but not too intense
-All speakers were very good!
-The chairpersons
-Different areas involved
-1) Good!; 2) Speakers
-Last talk handouts
-The themes, good context for broad view of PNI
-The coherence between the different talks, not too advanced
-Good introduction and framework by chairperson, good up-date information
-The topics discussed seemed to have relevance to all people in the audience
-The progression from pre-natal to old age that presented a panoramic view
- I enjoyed the “chronological age” layout of the topics, showing a progressive effect on similar factors. Dr. Hodgson’s talk was particularly relevant to my own research, so I found her talk very informative and well constructed
-The chair person and organizer was very cheerful and outgoing
-Good built up of the
program, good coordination of the speakers
-Interactions
-Interesting talks
-General nature of the talks=relevant to all, not just specific areas
-The presentations span all life phases
-Didactic
-Informality, 35 minutes is perfect timing!
-First part (early life)
-The topics chosen and the complement between the talks
-All talks were very exciting
-Overall organization and life span
-Generally good overviews
-Connectivity of subjects along the course
-Variety of topics covered by the speakers and good opportunity to ask questions
-Good range of topics, combining introductory information with up to date research
-Topics were well presented and interesting
-Neonatal influences
-Very interesting was the information about changes on the immune system and Alzheimer disease
-The compilation was very good!
3. What was the worst thing in the course?
-The half-day restriction
-Running out of time
-More information on endocrine-neuro-immune interactions
-Time monitoring
-Exceeding the time allotted
-Nothing!
-As clinical psychologist, I need a more basic introduction to neuro-immunological processes
-Unfortunately, short time for discussion
-Changing the lights in the middle of a talk
-The talks were a bit long
-Registration should have been at the same location to prevent some time delay
-Time aspect (Too fast)
-The course could be longer to cover more topics
-Nothing!
-A little long with short break, but content was great, may be make course day long and add more breaks
-Where is the “P”?
-Talks too long, no overview of the literature in some talks
-Nothing…
-Nothing!
-Good exchanges, but increase the time!
-Allowing time for questions
-Not all speakers stacked to time schedule
-Speakers should stick to time!
-Time schedule
-Nothing
4. The level of the course was for me:
|
Too advanced |
Appropriated |
Too basic |
|
5% (2*/41) |
93% (38/41) |
2% (1#/41) |
* 1 clinical psychologist; 1 psychologist #senior scientist
5. Education at the time of the course and main speciality area
(if student, please indicate your level)
-Physician
-Post-Doc (Neuroscience, behavior)
-PhD candidate 5th year graduate student (physiological psychology)
-2nd year grad. Student (Immunology)
-2nd year PhD student (Master in psychology)
-MD/PhD (Neuroendocrine regulation of chronic diseases. Prolactin and the immune system)
-PhD/Senior scientist, (Molecular biologist, PNI is a new area for me)
-PhD (Immunology)
-Post-Doc (neuroimmunomodulation)
-Post-Doc, PhD (Molecular Biology)
-Post-Doc (Psychologist)
-MD (HPA axis and immunological diseases)
-PhD student last year (Psychological interventions and their effects on the immune response in cancer patients)
-3rd. Year graduate student (Neuroscience)
-PhD (Immunological modifications associated to psychological alterations)
-3rd. Year graduated student
-Student
-Post-graduate student
-PhD (half though) (stress-antibody response to vaccination)
-Senior, PhD candidate with primary training in neuroscience
-MD, PhD, (specially in Psychiatry and Internal Medicine)
-Faculty (Psychiatry)
-Senior, Faculty
-MD, PhD, (Allergy, Immunology, PNI and alternative + complementary therapies)
-Biologist-Immunogist
-2nd Year PhD student (Acute stress effect on immune challenge
-PhD student 3rd. Year, (Triggering of acute vascular effect and rheumatoid arthritis)
-PhD, 2 year Post-Doc (Psychological processes and vaccination)
-Graduate student
-Doing M.A. degree
-PhD post Doc (Conditioning)
-Psychologist in a practical year (like AIP)
(This point was not answered in all questionnaires)
6. What would you change? How?
-Handouts, send audience home with something
-Fewer speakers with more time each or a longer session
-Allow more time for questions
-Great effort
-More talks, e.g. 6 x 30 minutes
-May be limit the talks to 15-20 minutes
-Nothing!
-More handouts and literature references
-Make it more general (psychologist)
-Even more integration of rat and human, but this was fairly good
-Make a longer course
-More clinical and more “P”
-More discussion, more trainee-orientation, limit to trainees, smaller group
-More time for questions
-I would ask all speakers to provide their handouts of slides (as Rod Johnson did), it is always helpful
-Nothing
-More time for discussion, but was good, always can be more!
-Time keeping
-Only the time keeping!
-It was not a trainee meeting; it was more like a review of the studies
-In my opinion, you can increase the program time
7. Which subject would you propose for a future course?
-Neurodegenerative diseases
-PNI in major diseases (cardiovascular, cancer)
-Interactions between HPA axis, immunity, social buffers/stressors
-Neuroendocrine regulation of immunity (NOT HPA and NOT SNS)
-Effects of hormones on the immune system
-Chronic stress
-Stress in association with cancer
-More immunology and less HPA axis (student of neuroscience)
-Psychological Intervention: panoramic view
-Hypoxia stress reaction and chronic disease
-Different stresses and measurements
-Experimental techniques (e.g. brief explanation of psychological techniques, molecular techniques, and in vivo techniques
-This course touched on effects of sex steroids; a more in depth look might be interesting
-From Psycho to Neuroimmunology
-Bench-bedside integration, nobody in PNI is doing this!
-The contribution of complementary and alternative medicines to stress-induced diseases
-Microarrays
-More clinical to basic
-Cardiovascular diseases and PNI
8. Any particular comment/suggestion?
-Beautiful job; I thoroughly enjoyed this short course, was the first time for me and definitively was well worth the trip!
-Very nice, thanks
-Excellent, thank you
-Very good
-This was a great idea
-Could be a little bit more interactive, but that always depends on the amount of necessary information
-I liked the course since I obtained information on some themes I do not know very well
-Excellent course
-Explain standardized PNI tests (stress challenge)
-Great course!
-Thank you!
-Really excellent course