we often hope that our students are learning the material we are presenting and that our course structure and assignments are clear and relevant in assisting them with the learning process. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The purpose of this report is to present a simple formative course assessment technique that may help improve this situation: quality circles (QCs). 1-4 QCs are a modified version of quality "control" circles used in industry, which allow the stakeholders, in this case the students, to have input into how to improve their working environment (i.e., the classroom). 1 Transferring the QCs concept to the classroom setting allows instructors to gain insights about teaching effectiveness throughout the course, rather than waiting until the end of the course for summative reports. This formative assessment can greatly assist the instructor in making immediate changes to instruction, assignments, and student assessment.

Athletic therApy todAy at eduCation © 2006 Human Kinetics • ATT 11(6), pp. 34-37 VER THE PAST 10 YEARS, athletic training education has experienced dramatic growth in the didactic and clinical education of students. As a result of this educational advancement, new responsibilities have developed for the academic faculty, who primarily conduct the didactic side of student education, and clinical staff, who essentially administer patient care and assist with the clinical portion of the education equation. With any type of growth, natural institutional and professional "growing pains" occur that create opportunities for the academic faculty and clinical staff. These opportunities can be viewed by many as conflicts between the two groups on how best to educate students while still maintaining a good professional and working environment. As the education of athletic trainers evolves, conflicting issues are developing that must be addressed by athletic training education programs (ATEPs) across the country. These issues might have caused a lack of cohesiveness between the academic faculty and clinical staff. The lack of unification could be related to additional duties placed on traditional college athletic trainers and the control of the ATEP. The purpose of this column is to discuss issues associated with the growing pains of education advancement and to provide recommendations to resolve these concerns. In addition, it is important to note that the word conflict is used throughout this column as a descriptive term for the growing pains and should not be viewed as a negative feature of relationships within the athletic training profession. Shift in PowerMany ATEPs are experiencing conflicting issues associated with their growing pains. One major issue is the formation of two separate departments, both administered by athletic trainers but with different goals and objectives. 1 One is primarily concerned with the education of athletic training students, and the other is primarily concerned with providing clinical care for a diverse population of individuals.Starkey 1 indicates that, before there were accredited ATEPs, there was only one athletic training department. Individuals in this department provided healthcare services to athletes and educated athletic training students in a single academic and health-care-service program. The head athletic trainer, who was hired by the athletic department, was usually in charge of both the education program and the medical services. The assistant athletic trainers, who also were hired by the athletic department, helped with teaching and supervising students during practice and competitions and in the athletic training room. Classroom teaching was done by various athletic training staff members, and these individuals functioned as faculty. With the formation of accredited athletic training curricula, this single program was divided into two separate entities: (a) academic faculty and (b) athletic training clinical staff.As a result of accreditation, the administrative control of...

No abstract