Student & Resident Evaluation of Teaching
This section will document the assessments of my teaching that have been received by students and residents in settings in which I have not been considered to be their peers. This includes my clinical teaching primarily in inpatient settings during my training as a senior paediatric resident and paediatric gastroenterology fellow, as well as teaching in the classroom and small group settings in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.
Clinical Teaching Evaluations
Formal feedback
I am immersed in the role of an educator at all times during my clinical work on the inpatient unit, working with medical students and residents of varying levels of training.
Unfortunately, I have received limited formal feedback on my clinical teaching as a senior resident and clinical fellow. This is, in part, because I only received 2 evaluations in 2010-2011 and 2 evaluations in 2012-2013, so these could not be released to me because of protection of anonymity. In seeking my clinical teaching evaluations from medical students and residents during fellowship, I discovered that they have not been asked to evaluate their fellows from their inpatient and consult service weeks in the past. As a result, I do not have clinical preceptor scores from the many students I have worked with in the past year and a half. Completing this portfolio has made me think about this, however, and I will approach the program director and administrator in the upcoming months to see if this can be remedied.
Thus, 2011-2012 was the only academic year where I was able to receive anonymous, formalized feedback, which can be accessed below. These evaluations provide numerical scores on a five-point scale, as well as narrative comments on my performance. I was humbled to receive scores well above average in all domains, with narrative comments that were consistently positive. Students were able to complete their evaluations of me once I had provided honest, constructive feedback to them and submitted their formal evaluations, and it was encouraging to see that not only did this not appear to have any impact on their subsequent evaluation of me, but that my efforts in providing them with genuine feedback were positively commented on. Other strengths listed were my commitment to and interest in education, my positive role modeling of some of the roles of a physician, and providing responsibilities, resources, and challenges appropriate for their level of training.
This pdf is a summary document that I received for 2011-12, compiling the medical students' evaluations of me in my role as senior resident on the clinical teaching unit.
My overall average score was 4.99/5 (mean overall average score for faculty evaluated by undergraduate students was 4.61/5)
Informal feedback
To supplement this documentation, I have included a number of letters (identities kept anonymous) from medical students and residents who have worked alongside me as junior members of the inpatient and consult services in paediatrics and paediatric gastroenterology. Some of these letters were sent as replies after I had provided them with written feedback as part of their formal assessments, but their comments in support of my teaching were themselves unsolicited.
I have had more opportunity for clinical teaching with students during paediatric residency training at a time where other residents were obviously my peers. Meanwhile, since starting my gastroenterology fellowship, I have had more opportunity for clinical teaching and interaction with residents. It has been rewarding to get to know both groups as individuals, and to know that these learners have appreciated my efforts in balancing clinical care with education.
Lecture, Seminar & Small Group Tutorial Evaluations: UGME
Formal feedback
Facilitating interactive lectures and seminars can be challenging to conduct in small to moderate sized groups, in particular when they are conducted as part of an academic half-day during paediatric clerkship, where students expect that these sessions will help prepare them for the summative examinations at the end of their rotations.
While these learning sessions all received generally positive reviews, I have reflected on a few points. First, my desire to be thorough in my explanations can be both a strength and a weakness, as highlighted by the positive and negative comments with respect to the OSCE review sessions. Second, while my attempts to make the chest X-ray presentation more interactive appeared to be viewed favourably on the basis of improved overall scores, narratives seemed to be more mixed, with some suggesting that time was being used inefficiently, and others suggesting the content was too “clinically focused” and not “straight to the point for things we needed to know.” I still believe that on the whole, however, that learners prefer to be actively engaged, and I will continue to include ideas like this in my teaching sessions. Third, generally, it was felt that I was able to tease out points for greater emphasis appropriate for the students’ level of training, and that my enthusiasm and efforts were generally acknowledged and appreciated.
Last, student evaluation scores for the OSCE review session decreased significantly in my final year of instruction. While I am willing to accept a decline in performance as an explanation, I was actually more comfortable with the material and knowledge in this year, and the narrative feedback was generally excellent. Several factors may have played a role. For one, the sessions, while remaining optional, were later booked as part of the clerkship schedule, when they had previously been informally scheduled with the help of the students - so I do wonder if student perceptions’ of teaching were negatively altered by the fact that I was no longer thought to be volunteering my time. Second, I had expanded the list of possible stations for review to nineteen, and I noticed more comments asking to cover more topics thereafter, suggesting perhaps that the broadened curriculum potential was leading to higher expectations among the learners.
Paediatric OSCE Review Session - Formal evaluations for this session did not begin until 2012. Enclosed are summary documents that I received for 3 sessions over 6 hours given to two different groups in 2011-12 and 6 sessions given over 12 hours to four different groups in 2012-13, compiling the medical students' evaluations of me in my role as educator. My overall average scores were 4.89/5 in 2011-2012, and 4.62/5 for 2012-2013. (Open evaluations for: 03-06-12, 05-14-12, 05-23-12, and 2012-2013 sessions combined)
Approach to Neonatal/Paediatric Chest X-Ray - Enclosed are summary documents that I received for three 1 hour lectures given in 2011-12 and five 1-hour sessions given in 2012-13, compiling the medical students' evaluations of me in my role as educator. My overall average scores were 4.53/5 in 2011-2012, and 4.58/5 for 2012-2013. (Open evaluations for: 01-09-12, 02-27-12, 04-30-12, and 2012-2013 sessions combined)
Other sessions:
Approach to Paediatric Headache - One-time lecture prepared for Paediatric Clerkship Academic Half-Day. Enclosed is the summary document that I received, with an overall average score of 4.28/5. (Open evaluation for: 01-09-12)
Task Trainer (Simulation) small group session - Led two sessions, although only received evaluation for session in 2013. Enclosed is the summary document that I received, with an overall average score of 4.28/5. (Open evaluation for: 05-12-13)
Informal feedback
Before the OSCE Review Session was integrated into the formal schedule as part of the Paediatric Clerkship curriculum, I received several unsolicited letters of appreciation for the efforts that Dr. Foulds and I had put into the sessions, as well as gratitude for the notes that I had produced. Some had made suggestions that were later incorporated into future planning.
Lecture, Seminar & Small Group Tutorial Evaluations: PGME
Formal feedback
Paediatric Residency Training Program AHD Presentations: The only presentation I have been able to create for the paediatric residents thus far has been a 1-hour approach to nutritional assessment and management in the neurologically impaired child. No formal evaluations were compiled. I will be planning on presenting to the fourth year residents to help review topics in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition as they prepare for their Royal College certification exam this year.
Medical Genetics Training Program AHD Presentations: I presented two 1 hour lectures given in successive weeks to the medical genetics residents as part of their curriculum, in order to facilitate a better understanding of some of the genetic etiologies of neonatal cholestasis. In preparation, I reviewed their Royal College Objectives and developed the presentation around these. Enclosed are summary documents that I received for these talks, with an overall average score of 4.96/5. (Open evaluation for: 01-22-14 and 01-29-14).