Faculty & Peer Evaluations of Teaching
I have often found peer and faculty assessments to be insightful and constructive during my training in paediatrics, and in particular, those evaluations paired with thoughtful ratings and comments. In part, this is because I trust the experience and support of these groups, and in part, because their appraisals have consistently highlighted areas of strength and weakness that I am in agreement with. Clearly, this is just one tool in the assessment process, as individuals may differ significantly in the teaching philosophies and theories that they subscribe to.
This section will document the assessments of my teaching that have made by my peers and by supervising clinicians during my training, mostly through direct observation. This includes the evaluations of my clinical teaching, primarily in inpatient settings during my training as a senior paediatric resident and paediatric gastroenterology fellow, and of my classroom and small group teaching for the Department of Paediatrics and its associated subspecialties during my postgraduate medical training.
Clinical Teaching
Formal feedback
Formal feedback on my clinical teaching during paediatric residency training was difficult to compose, as there were opportunities for supervising physicians to incorporate ratings on elements of my clinical teaching within each of the various domains of the CanMEDS framework as a component of my in-training evaluation reports (ITERs). The narratives provided by some individuals were more specific regarding my teaching abilities, mostly within the domain of scholarship, but again, through others as well. Thus, I have compiled a summary of all of these specific comments in the enclosed document below. Several of these comments were very humbling, particularly coming from paediatricians, paediatric subspecialists, and paediatric surgeons who have served as mentors for me, whose dedication to and aptitude for medical education is truly admirable. Specific strengths identified for me as a medical educator included my devotion and dedication to the my more junior learners, my delegation of tasks appropriate to level of training, my knowledge base and my drive as a self-directed learner to serve as an example to others. Additionally, my use of contextual and case-based teaching and ability to create a respectful and safe learning environment were commended.
The central areas for improvement noted were in time management (balancing clinical responsibilities better with guidance and education for the learner), and in communication skills (simplifying some discussions and sticking to the most pertinent details).
Meanwhile, I have had the opposite problem with collecting formal feedback from supervising clinicians during paediatric gastroenterology training. The ITERs upon which I am evaluated include a global rating of the trainees teaching ability, but there have been few comments on my clinical teaching skills formally provided. Enclosed is a summary document that I composed based on a compilation of the evaluations of me in a clinical educator role by faculty members within the Division of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition at the Alberta Children’s Hospital. My overall average global rating of teaching ability from a total of 17 evaluations thus far is 4.47/5.
Informal feedback
I believe that most of the informal feedback received from faculty members has echoed the formal comments, including during my fellowship training, where there is still concern at times about me meeting the demands of a busy clinical service while ensuring residents receive some educational value in return for the service they provide.
Enclosed are letters of appreciation for my work in medical education from the paediatric residency program directors and administrators, and from my fellow paediatric residents upon completion of training at the University of Alberta.
Lecture, Seminar & Small Group Tutorial Evaluations: PGME
Formal feedback
During my residency and fellowship training, I have been asked to provide presentations to a variety of divisions and departments, often during academic half-day (AHD). I have enjoyed these invitations to contribute professionally to the clinical setting where I have been training, and have also used these as opportunities to study topics of interest or areas in which I was able to identify and address individual learning needs.
The following evaluations pertain to the formal evaluations received while educating in these settings, composed largely of faculty members, residents and fellows in attendance, with some sessions involving medical students as well.
Such presentations have offered me dual challenges of both learning a topic I have previously known little about and presenting this material at a level appropriate to residents and fellows while in the presence of experts in these areas. Facilitating interactive lectures and seminars can also be challenging to conduct in these relatively small groups, in particular when they contain experts who are fulfilling a responsibility to the program or to continuing education rather than being present to learn the material.
Again, I believe that the evaluations have generally deemed these presentations very good to excellent. I have reflected on a few points from these evaluations overall. First, my attention to providing organized and thorough reviews with interaction and active engagement of students is appreciated. However, this has led me to issues with staying within the allotted time, and subsequently, I will be attempting to employ a flipped classroom method to remove some of the time that I previously spent exploring the basic science and material that can be as easily transmitted through podcasts in advance of the presentation. I do not enjoy reading large amounts from slides as a presenter, and while some see my balance of text and illustrations as a strength, I do appreciate the comment that the combination of the two on the same slide can make the slide too busy, so to focus more on one or the other. Generally, my ability to review and simplify complex topics, my presentation style, and my ability to make the presentation relevant to the patient or clinical scenarios are seen as areas of greatest strength.
Paediatric Residency Training Program AHD Presentations: Enclosed is a summary document that I received compiling the paediatric residents’ evaluation of me as educator for my presentation to my peers on an approach to chronic pediatric diarrhea. My overall average score was 4.19/5. (Open evaluation for Approach to Diarrhea). This was the lowest score I have received, and there were no specific comments on how to improve. I actually put a large amount of work to make it comprehensive and relevant, and had developed the case studies for the second hour (traditionally led by the supervising staff), in addition to pre and post-testing to encourage active participation. Interestingly, the senior residents in attendance expressed gratitude for this review as part of their Royal College examination preparation.
Paediatric Subspecialty Training Program AHD Presentations: While I gave presentations to several divisions during my training in paediatric residency, only the Division of Developmental Paediatrics provided a formative evaluation to me on the basis of this teaching. Enclosed is a summary document that I received compiling resident and faculty evaluations of me as educator for my presentation to the Divisions of Developmental Paediatrics and Paediatric Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation on toilet training. My overall average score was 4.49/5. (Open evaluation for Toilet Training).
Paediatric Gastroenterology Training Program AHD Presentations: Enclosed are summary documents that I have received compiling student, resident and faculty evaluations of me as educator for my presentations to the division's academic half-days. My overall average scores have varied from 4.55/5 to 4.92/5. (Open evaluations for: Helicobacter pylori (4.6), Pancreatic Physiology (4.9), Primary and Secondary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding, Journal Club (4.71), Prognosis after Gastrostomy Tube Insertion and Fundoplication, Journal Club (4.92), Gastric Motility and Dysmotility (4.55), Wilson Disease (4.71), Autoimmune Hepatitis & Immune Dysregulation, Journal Club (4.86)).
Paediatric Grand Rounds Presentations: Enclosed are summary documents that I have received compiling faculty evaluations of me as educator for my joint presentations at the University of Alberta Department of Pediatrics’ Grand Rounds. My overall average scores were 4.28 and 4.35/5 for the presentations. Note, however, the exceptionally small number of respondents relative to the numbers in attendance. (Open evaluations for: Cardiac Risk Assessment before the use of Stimulant Medications for ADHD, Inhalant Abuse)