| Popis: |
Amir H Sam,1 Chee Yeen Fung,1 Janina Barth,2 Tobias Raupach3 1Medical Education Research Unit, Imperial College School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; 2Division of Medical Education Research and Curriculum Development, University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; 3Institute for Medical Education, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, GermanyCorrespondence: Tobias RaupachInstitute for Medical Education, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, D-53127, GermanyTel +49 228 287-52160Email Tobias.Raupach@ukbonn.deIntroduction: Evaluation of individual teachers in undergraduate medical education helps clinical teaching fellows identify their own strengths and weaknesses. In addition, evaluation data can be used to guide career decisions. In order for evaluation results to adequately reflect true teaching performance, a range of parameters should be considered when designing data collection tools.Methods: Clinical teaching fellows at five London teaching hospitals were evaluated by third-year students they had supervised during a ten-week clinical attachment. The questionnaire addressed (a) general teaching skills and (b) student learning outcome measured via comparative self-assessments. Teachers were ranked using different algorithms with various weights assigned to these two factors.Results: A total of 133 students evaluated 14 teaching fellows. Overall, ratings on teaching skills were largely favourable, while the perceived increase in student performance was modest. Considerable variability across teachers was observed for both factors. Teacher rankings were strongly influenced by the weighting algorithm used. Depending on the algorithm, one teacher was assigned any rank between #2 and #10.Conclusion: Both parts of the questionnaire address different outcomes and thus highlight specific strengths and weaknesses of individual teachers. Programme directors need to carefully consider the weight assigned to individual components of teacher evaluations in order to ensure a fair appraisal of teacher performance.Keywords: clinical teaching, evaluation, learning outcome, undergraduate medical education |
