Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 9.
Published in final edited form as: Acad Med. 2019 Jun;94(6):819–825. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002663

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Data show learner satisfaction ratings (on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = poor and 5 = excellent) for microbiology courses using the microbiology modules developed by the RWJF collaborative (2015–2016) compared with the institutions’ microbiology course ratings for the prior year. UW used a six-point scale, which was adjusted to five points by collapsing two categories (poor and very poor) into one. UW did not have pre-RWJF data available for comparison purposes because of curricular restructuring. Asterisks indicate significance; Duke’s (P = .02) and Stanford’s (P = .03) RWJF student satisfaction ratings were significantly higher than their pre-RWJF ratings. RWJF modules at Duke were not evaluated separately on end-of- course surveys; data shown reflect ratings for the body and disease course in which the RWJF modules were used. Ratings for Stanford show the mean rating for quarter two, which was one of the quarters in which the RWJF modules were used. The mean Stanford RWJF rating for quarter four (3.46, data not shown) was not significantly different compared with the mean pre-RWJF quarter two rating. Abbreviations: RWJF indicates Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; UW, University of Washington School of Medicine; Duke, Duke University School of Medicine; Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine; UCSF, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.