Keith Baker1. 1. Harvard Medical School, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. khbaker@partners.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature is mixed on whether evaluation and feedback to clinical teachers improves clinical teaching. This study sought to determine whether resident-provided numerical evaluation and written feedback to clinical teachers improved clinical teaching scores. METHODS: Anesthesia residents anonymously provided numerical scores and narrative comments to faculty members who provided clinical teaching. Residents returned 19,306 evaluations between December 2000 and May 2006. Faculty members received a quantitative summary report and all narrative comments every 6 months. Residents also filled out annual residency program evaluations in which they listed the best and worst teachers in the department. RESULTS: The average teaching score for the entire faculty rose over time and reached a plateau with a time constant of approximately 1 yr. At first, individual faculty members had average teaching scores that were numerically diverse. Over time, the average scores became more homogeneous. Faculty members ranked highest by teaching scores were also most frequently named as the best teachers. Faculty members ranked lowest by teaching scores were most frequently named as the worst teachers. Analysis of ranks, differential improvement in scores, and a decrease in score diversity effectively ruled out simple score inflation as the cause for increased scores. An increase in teaching scores was most likely due to improved teaching. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of evaluation and feedback, including comments on areas for improvement, was related to a substantial improvement in teaching scores. Clinical teachers are able to improve by using feedback from residents.
BACKGROUND: The literature is mixed on whether evaluation and feedback to clinical teachers improves clinical teaching. This study sought to determine whether resident-provided numerical evaluation and written feedback to clinical teachers improved clinical teaching scores. METHODS: Anesthesia residents anonymously provided numerical scores and narrative comments to faculty members who provided clinical teaching. Residents returned 19,306 evaluations between December 2000 and May 2006. Faculty members received a quantitative summary report and all narrative comments every 6 months. Residents also filled out annual residency program evaluations in which they listed the best and worst teachers in the department. RESULTS: The average teaching score for the entire faculty rose over time and reached a plateau with a time constant of approximately 1 yr. At first, individual faculty members had average teaching scores that were numerically diverse. Over time, the average scores became more homogeneous. Faculty members ranked highest by teaching scores were also most frequently named as the best teachers. Faculty members ranked lowest by teaching scores were most frequently named as the worst teachers. Analysis of ranks, differential improvement in scores, and a decrease in score diversity effectively ruled out simple score inflation as the cause for increased scores. An increase in teaching scores was most likely due to improved teaching. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of evaluation and feedback, including comments on areas for improvement, was related to a substantial improvement in teaching scores. Clinical teachers are able to improve by using feedback from residents.
Authors: S S Lenny Lases; Onyebuchi A Arah; E G J M Robert Pierik; Erik Heineman; M J M H Kiki Lombarts Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Linda Myerholtz; Hannah M Baker; Emily M Hawes; Mallory McClester Brown; Catherine Coe; Lisa K Rollins; Cristen P Page Journal: PRiMER Date: 2022-04-21