Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Postretreat attendee survey results. Attendees were asked to complete a survey where they rated (A) overall retreat satisfaction, (B) speaker selection satisfaction, and (C) breakout room satisfaction on a scale from 1 (yellow) to 5 (blue), with 1 being poor and 5 being fantastic. Out of the 78 attendees, we have survey results from 28 of them.
Tables
Category Description Objective (1) Ensure engagement (a) Active Learning (2) Specifically crafted activities (a) Emphasis on quantitative literacy Action (1) Buy-in through personalized project (a) Experimental design and statistics workshop (b) Poster presentation with quantitative emphasis (2) Retreat activities (a) Alternate active learning with passive lectures (3) Reflection and follow-up (a) Postretreat trainee meeting (b) Satisfaction survey Best practices (1) Breakout rooms (a) Enables direct engagement between speakers and trainees (b) Provided safer space for involvement of everyone (2) Breakup of passive and active learning (a) Schedule lectures before and after breakout rooms with a small group format Potential pitfalls (1) Overwhelming and/or impromptu activities (a) Preretreat data workshop requires a lot of organization and familiarity between trainees and the quantitative literacy expert (2) Breakout rooms functioning as lectures (a) Breakout rooms not designed around active learning principles were rated much lower with less buy-in (3) End of retreat panel discussion (a) Minimized audience participation (b) Incentivized only the most senior/extroverted to speak (4) Lack of diversity (a) Retreats missing gender, racial, and patient diversity lack critical perspectives A summary of the objectives we had for the retreat, the actions we took to achieve those objectives, and what we found to be the best practices and potential pitfalls.
In this issue
Incorporating Quantitative Literacy into a T32 Retreat: Lessons and Considerations from Experience
