OMSMBChB

Module Conveners Guide to EvaluationUniversity of Otago Medical School

Otago Medical SchoolTe Kura Hauora o Ōtākou

This document supports the Module Conveners Role Description document. It contains suggestions to help you gather information related to your module to improve teacher support and enhance student learning.

Governance of the MB ChB You have an important role in the education of our medical students. There are several people and processes dedicated to help you with your role as module convener. Your Head of Department is available to assist you with your requests for resources. For matters relating to the MB ChB curriculum, please liaise with your local campus Associate Dean Medical Education (ADME) for modules in the Advanced Learning in Medicine (ALM) programme (Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington) or the Director of Early Learning in Medicine (DELM) for modules in the Early Learning in Medicine (ELM) programme (Dunedin). You are also welcome to raise educational issues related to your role as module convener at your local MB ChB Curriculum Sub-Committee (CSC) meetings. CSCs meet at least 6 times per year and are chaired by the local ADME or DELM. The CSC’s role is to oversee and coordinate the delivery of the MB ChB programme for its campus and associated regional sites. As a module convener, you are a member of your local CSC and are expected to attend meetings when practicable.

Your local ADME and CSC will require you to perform duties associated with your module convener role during the year, as outlined in the Module Conveners Role Description, Module Conveners Guide to Assessment, and Module Conveners Guide to Evaluation. See the last page for the list of contacts.

The CSCs report regularly to the MB ChB Curriculum Committee (MCC), and advise and take direction from the Advanced Learning in Medicine Sub-Committee. MCC is responsible for the educational direction, policies, and structure of the MB ChB programme and for staff support to achieve the direction and policies. For more information about the governance of the MB ChB programme please see https://www.otago.ac.nz/medical-school/for-staff/mcc.html. A number of other sub-committees report to MCC. Of importance in your role are the:

• MB ChB Assessment Sub Committee (MASC) The purpose of MASC is to direct and oversee the development, implementation, monitoring and quality improvement of all assessment within the MB ChB programme.

• MB ChB Educational Research and Evaluation Sub Committee (MEREC) The purpose of MEREC is to develop, implement, and oversee strategies to ensure the MB ChB programme meets expectations of research-informed quality and innovation in student learning. This sub-committee is responsible for this guide.

• The domain sub-committees Six domain sub-committees oversee each curriculum domain throughout the MB ChB programme. The domains are: Clinical Skills, Diagnostics, and Therapeutics; Hauora Māori; Pacific Health; Population Health and Epidemiology; Professional Practice; and Science, Research, and Scholarship. A major focus for these committees is overseeing their domain’s contributions to the Curriculum Map; for more information about the Curriculum Map please see https://medmap.otago.ac.nz/.

Hello Module Convener

1

As a convener, you should be routinely collecting information on your module to assess the quality of the learning environment for quality improvement purposes. The process of collecting and analysing the information is called evaluation. This document details guidelines for conveners in evaluating their module and presenting the results to staff and students. The guidelines have been endorsed by the MCC, and include any block or vertical module in the course from years 2-6. MEREC requires documentation confirming that evaluation occurs regularly to ensure quality improvement of modules and, where appropriate, modification of modules.

There are three critical aspects of the evaluation process:

• Acquisition of data/information – should occur annually and involve a range of methods

• Synthesizing and reporting – achieved through the preparation of a summary of module evaluations every three years

• Feedback – involves feedback by you to staff and students on the outcome of the module evaluations and feedback from relevant committees on issues that you raised in your module summary

Evaluation of a Module

+-' C 0 0... � C (Q

+-' (Q

::J 0 �

+-' V) V) V) (Q

0 +-'

QJ

..0 (Q

V)

!..... QJ V) "> "'O <( C 0 +-' (Q u ::J

"'O w (Q u 0 !..... ::J 0 >-

Year1 Summary of Module Evaluations

reporting year Put your first year evaluation plans into action

February/March Reminder that this year is your reporting year

April-June Pull together the evaluation data you have collected in the last three years and write your summary of module evaluations

Year 2

July/ August Discuss your summary with your HoD and submit it with your HOD's comments to CSC for discussion

Put your second year evaluation plans into action

Year 3 Put your third year evaluation plans into action

End of Year 3 Begin planning your next Years 1 - 3 evaluations

Year4 Evaluation cycle begins again

Vl C 0 +--' ru :J ru > (1J I,_

:J 0 >. C

Vl C 0 +--' Vl (1J :J 0-+--' C (1J E C 0 I,_

·5C (1J b.OCC I,_ ru(1J

0�+--' (1J...c+--'(1J

-0 :JuC

0+--'I,_

(1J _o E(1J E(1J �

Process• The cycle for reporting summaries

of module evaluations will be planned by your local CSC. You will be notified by your local CSC which year your summaries of module evaluations should be prepared and the date on which it should be submitted to the CSC.

• Your module summary should be planned well in advance of data collection and should include data over the three-year period, hence the need to acquire data each year.

• Your completed summary should be forwarded to the local CSC, on or before the specified date.

• The local CSC will report through the ADME on your module to the relevant MB ChB sub-committee (e.g. MEREC, MASC or MCC).

• Your ADME will provide you feedback from the relevant committees on any issues raised.

2

Guidelines

Evaluation process1. You should be evaluating aspects of your module on a routine basis, preferably yearly. However, the value of frequent

evaluation for evaluation sake should be carefully considered against the resource (student and staff time and input) required.

2. You should decide what needs evaluating, the method of evaluation and identify scheduled time within your module for this activity. On occasions the local Education Unit (EU) or CSC may determine common areas of evaluation across modules, about which you would be notified.

3. The evaluation plan you choose should include a range of methods. For ideas of the different methods of evaluation please see Appendix 1 or contact your local Education Adviser. The methods chosen should not just rely on student feedback and will be expected to include performance data (i.e. assessment data related to your module).

4. It is advised that where feedback from any source includes named individuals and is of a non-constructive nature, you should ensure that identifying details are removed before wider circulation to staff / students. (The EA may be able to assist with this activity). This process is to avoid defamation and the difficulties that might arise as a consequence.

5. You should discuss outputs of evaluation with relevant teaching staff, Associate Dean for Medical Education and/or Head of Department.

6. Consistent constructive and negative comments about individuals or experiences within a module should be discussed with Associate Dean for Medical Education / Head of Department to identify strategies for resolution; otherwise, the acceptance of the insolubility of the issue should be stated.

Module Summary of Module Evaluations1. You will be required to complete a summary of the evaluation activities in your module once every three years, and

submit to your local CSC (DSM, UOC, UOW or ELM) for review, feedback and discussion.

2. The Summary (pages 6-12 for exemplar) comprises several sections including areas of concern and strategies for change, where applicable.

3. Summaries submitted by module conveners will be tabled for discussion by your local CSC.

4. Your CSC will work with you to ensure that relevant staff and students (via your student-staff liaison committee) receive your final summary, and support your suggested strategies for change.

5. The summary of module evaluations should not be considered a trigger to evaluate your module, but rather a tool to facilitate reflection on your module evaluation activities over the preceding three year period.

3

Appendices

The following grid aims to inspire a module convener to consider evaluation tools other than student feedback to evaluate their course.

√ May be used√√ Appropriate tool √√√ Appropriate tool, routinely use

Student learning experience √ √√√ √√√ √√√ √• How does experience match expectation? • How well is the course delivered? Staff experience / support √√√ √√√ √ √• Is the School a responsive employer?• Do staff understand the philosophy of the curriculum?• Do conveners and teaching staff have sufficient administrative support to deliver teaching and

coordinate the module? Achievement of outcomes by students √√√ √• Are the Curriculum Map outcomes reflected in the Exam

assessment, using Core Presentations (CPs) and log Core Professional Activities (CPAs) as a framework? book

Opportunity to learn outcomes √ √√ √√ √√• Is the correct weighting/time allocation present for Module Student Student

the outcomes? guides• Are the outcomes reflected in the learning

opportunities?• Is there clear alignment between learning outcomes,

course content, and assessment? • Is this clearly signalled to students?• Given the spiral curriculum, do learning outcomes

follow on from/support prior learning or extend prior learning?

Assessments √√√• Do the assessments reflect real life assessments? Module • Is the formative/summative balance appropriate? guides Teacher ability √√√ √√√ √√√• Do staff members enhance student Peer Students Students

learning coherent with the educational review philosophies of the course e.g. Are they able to give constructive feedback?

Common Methods of Evaluation (Evaluation tool box)

Obs

erva

tion

al a

naly

sis

Dat

a an

alys

is

(Ass

essm

ent)

Doc

umen

t ana

lysi

s

Que

stio

nnai

re –

qu

anti

tati

ve

Que

stio

nnai

re –

qu

alit

ativ

e

Focu

s gr

oups

Stru

ctur

ed in

terv

iew

s

Areas of evaluation (with some example questions)

Evaluation tools

Appendix 15

Evaluation tools• Observational analysis – reflecting on data gathered by watching behaviour and/or events in the learning

environment (e.g. peer review).

• Data analysis – reflecting on data using analytical and/or statistical tools to discover useful information on student learning (e.g. reviewing student log books to determine prevalence of certain skills experience).

• Document analysis – interpreting a document to seek corroboration or triangulation with other pieces of information (e.g. are module outcomes reflected in learning opportunities).

• Questionnaire (quantitative) – usually involves using closed questions where the intent is to gather numerical data or data that can be put into categories (e.g. ‘yes’ or ‘no’).

• Questionnaire (qualitative) – usually involves using open questions where the intent is to gather data that can be put into categories or themes.

• Focus group – gathering of deliberately selected individuals who participate in a facilitated discussion intended to elicit perceptions about a particular topic or area.

• Structured interviews – using open questions it allows respondents to talk in some depth, choosing their own words, about their understanding of a situation (e.g. talking to staff about their perceptions around professional development).

6

Module Name Clinical Skills (CS) Vertical ModuleModule Year Y4/5/6Module Convener Niki Newman Yr 4/5, John Dean Yr 6, Claire Dillon Co-Convener Yrs 4-6Three Year Data Collection Period 2015-18

Executive summary: key points from your digest and discussion with CSC

• Module is guided by the OMS Masterplan, MBChB Curriculum Map and Clinical Skills Overview Map.

• Simulation Based Education (SBE) and the Simulated Learning Environment (SLE) are ideally placed for meeting students learning requirements in the CS module.

• CS module allows opportunities for repeated, deliberate and observed practice including immediate feedback.

• Continuing high level of engagement with Simulation Based Education from students and enthusiasm for increased access to the Simulation Centre for practising clinical skills.

• Strategies to improve transfer of skills from the Simulated Learning Environment to the real clinical environment includes desire for further engagement with block modules, and modifications / enhancements to 6th year CS programme to facilitate transition from TI year to PGY1.

• New IPE session around discharge planning introduced to 6th year brings together eight professional groups across three organisations. Addresses importance and need for health professionals to be ‘collaborative-practice-ready’ when they enter the health workforce.

• Physical space constraints at the Sim Centre limit ability to build capacity and to offer more learning opportunities and collaborations.

Methods used to gather, and who were asked for feedback

HEDC• Module evaluation Years 4/5, end of 2017

• Module evaluation Year 6, end of 2016/17

• Orientation fortnight evaluation (one question directly relates to Sim Centre session)

• Personal teaching evaluation for Professional Practice Fellows 2016/17

Peer review• International – Professor Jean Ker, William Evans Visiting Fellow

• National – Dr Jane Torrie (University of Auckland, Simulation Centre for Patient Safety)

• Feedback from UO IPE Project manager Ashley Symes

• Conversations and feedback from visiting external medical students (from New York University School of Medicine)

Collegial Presentations• Module conveners 2018 (Trainee Intern CS programme)

Other• Regular staff review of sessions

• Quarterly curriculum planning staff meetings and discussions

• Student evaluations from individual teaching sessions

• Observations and evaluation data from students at end of 4th year ESLO session

Summary of Module Evaluations Digest 2018 (sample)

Appendix 2

1

2

7

Overall feedback and observations

Clinical Skills Vertical Module HEDC evaluations2016 Trainee Intern response rate 38%. Sample of results:

To what extent has this paper helped to develop your clinical skills? Median 1.7.

To what extent did the teachers in this paper promote a class atmosphere that helped learning? Median 1.3 (1 = to a very large extent, 5 = to a very small extent).

2017 Years 4/5/6 had low response rates (17% of 4th yr class, 10% of 5th yr, 17% of 6th yr). Samples of 2017 results:

How valuable do you consider the CS module has been for you? Median 1.2 (4th yr), 1.4 (5th yr), 1.6 (6th yr) (1= extremely valuable, 5 = not at all valuable)

Do you believe you are performing CS more competently as a result of sessions in the Simulation Centre? Median 1.3 (yr 4), 1.6 (yr 5), 1.9 (yr 6) (1 = Yes, greatly, 5 = No, not at all)

When asked if the Simulation Centre environment supported and encouraged my learning the median was 1.2 across the 3 years (1=to a very large extent, 5 = to a very small extent)

• Notwithstanding the low response rate for these surveys, these and other indicators, including excellent attendance rates, suggest a high level of satisfaction. These views match those of the teaching staff.

Clinical Skills as part of Clinical Orientation fortnight• Data collected over the past 2 years identifies that students consistently rate CS as a useful aspect of the 4th year

Clinical Orientation fortnight for e.g. To what extent did the Simulation Centre session help prepare you for the clinical environment? (1 = To a very large extent, 5=To a very small extent), median for 2017 was 1.6 (response rate 26%), 2018 was 1.8 (response rate 74%).

We have observed an ongoing, high level of engagement from students with simulation based education and an enthusiasm for increased access to the Simulation Centre for practicing skills. This is evidenced by an increased number of student bookings for extra study and increased attendance at drop-ins. In 2016 the Christchurch Medical Student’s Association Award for Best Vertical Module was awarded to 5th year Clinical Skills.

Areas identified for, and strategy to address, improvement

Previously it was identified that the transfer of skills from our module to the clinical environment was a key area to address.

Strategies to improve this include:

• Increased engagement with the block module conveners. CS will encourage clinicians to notify/recommend/refer students who would benefit from further practice of a particular clinical skill. The Simulation Centre has also recently purchased models and part-task trainers which are able to be incorporated in to teaching held at the Sim Centre by other modules. The SEGO module has shown interest in this and was involved in the decision to purchase teaching resources e.g. the abdominal trainer. This will not only be a useful adjunct to their teaching but also allows for collaboration between modules. We have also purchased equipment which the Hauora Māori module can use to enhance their teaching when at the Simulation Centre, and can be shared.

4th yearFeedback from students is that they want more: more time learning each skill, more skills and more sessions. We decided in 2017 that we needed evidence as to what students had actually learned and retained over the year, and if there were gaps in our teaching and their learning. These questions lead us to develop a new (2017) mock ‘OSCE’ (not assessed) which ran at the end of 4th year (and titled ESLO – Extra Sim Learning Opportunity!). The students participated in an online quiz, procedure and scenario stations, and were given immediate peer and tutor feedback. The results highlighted very poor hand hygiene technique. Consequently, all students are now required to complete an online hand hygiene module and quiz in the first weeks of 4th year and it is anticipated that there will be an improvement in their clinical practice.

3

4

8

5

In 2019 we plan to re-introduce the ‘Vital Signs Plus’ session back in to our 4th year CS curriculum as we have been concerned that, at the start of 4th year, the students are reporting that they are not confident with these basic skills when on clinical placement. We had removed this session from our teaching due to lack of tutors.

5th yearTo further increase our student contact time as requested and to help students learn to manage the undifferentiated patient we have added an additional 5th year session – ‘The Breathless Patient’.

6th yearSeveral scenario-based sessions have been modified since the last digest report and a new session introduced:

1. Modifications

• The Deteriorating Ward Patient. The high acuity care element of this session has been modified to emphasise the importance of systematic clinical decision making, inter and intra professional communication and the use of the New Zealand Early Warning Score system. The modified session places higher expectations on the participants whilst introducing appropriate senior clinician support at an earlier stage.

• The Shocked Patient. This session has been substantially modified. The scope of the session has been expanded from being solely concerned with initial trauma management to addressing hypovolaemic, cardiogenic, neurogenic and septic shock. Each scenario requires the application of specific skills whilst also encouraging the application of generic skills in the care of the acutely unwell, high acuity patient.

2. New IPE Session

Inter-professional Discharge Planning. This session has been introduced to the programme in recognition of the importance of effective and safe discharge planning for patients and families. The session brings together up to 8 professional groups, faculty and students, to produce an integrated discharge plan for a patient. The session brings together students and faculty from 3 organisations (UOC, CDHB, UC). The session’s lead tutor successfully applied for a University of Otago Inter Professional Education Grant for research around this session.

3. Further modifications

Planned for the coming year. The intention is to bring together, in a single session, the teaching of skills to be used in the care of the shocked patient with the scenario-based sessions referred to above.

Increased opportunities to practise skillsAll students: Encouraged to arrange one-on-one tutoring for catching up on missed sessions or for extra observation, practise or feedback on their performance.

Continual improvement in availability of learning resourcesWe have worked closely with the e-learning co-ordinator to improve two of our sessions to include a digital component using iPads (ESLO and IPE sessions).

CS App – in 2017, a 6th year selective student interested in medical education and simulation developed a free CS app (available on iOS and android devices) which is being trialled this year with students. We have received good feedback that this is a very useful local resource which can be accessed at the point of care if necessary and a formal evaluation will be done at the end of 2018.

CS video – in 2018 a selective student has been developing an online intravenous cannulation video using best practice technique and equipment used in local hospital (work in progress).

How has your module responded to previous digest report comments?

• An improvement on integration and transfer of skills to the clinical environment has been achieved to some extent by the large pool of volunteer RMO helpers in 2017/18 who help us teach within the module. However, it must be noted that these volunteers are not always available and cannot be relied on to boost tutor numbers on any given day – permanent CS tutors must always be available. As stated in previous digest reports we would like to be able to establish a role such as ‘Clinical Skills Teaching Fellows’ who could receive some medical education based training and support, and be able to help teach students not only in the Simulation Centre but to also be available in the clinical environment.

9

• It was hoped that we could have established a volunteer patient programme to expand learning opportunities for selected skills such as consultation/communication/clinical reasoning/assist with transfer from model/manikin to real persons, however, we have not been able to pursue this due not having staff available for this project.

• Suggestions for changes that could be made to the CS sessions to improve contact time and learning, included wanting more drop-in opportunities, more time to practise, more case-based scenarios. We also have asked if there are other skills not currently taught which would be useful and requests for intravenous fluid administration, local anaesthesia, documentation have been addressed and are now included in Years 5 and 6.

• Teaching and learning for the CS module remains constrained by the physical space limitations of the Simulation Centre. This impacts on how many students we can accommodate at one time and as the previous digest indicated, 50% of our year 4/5 teaching is independent learning time which in part is to allow the students to prepare pre-session, but also because we can’t accommodate larger student groups. Also noteworthy is the room temperature during the summer is very difficult to manage and we have received complaints from tutors and students. This has flow on effects for the teaching staff who need to work in this environment. Access to the Simulation Centre site in 2018 has been difficult due to ongoing road works and road closure.

Describe how your stated learning objectives, teaching strategies, and assessments are aligned with each other,and with the MB ChB Teaching and Learning Masterplan 2015.

The overarching learning outcomes for the CS Module are:

• During the three years of the Clinical Skills Vertical Module at UOC you will develop your professional and clinical skills in a simulated clinical environment. By the end of the module you will be able to:

1. Demonstrate a range of professional behaviours and skills required of a newly graduated medical practitioner.

2. Demonstrate the use of a systematic approach to the assessment and initial management of patients.

3. Demonstrate critical thinking and reasoning skills during patient assessment, diagnosis (history, examination, investigation) and initial management

4. Perform procedural skills in a way which demonstrates safe, effective techniques and strategies to minimise complications.

5. Be ready to apply clinical skills learned through simulation to the real clinical learning environment.

Our CS curriculum aligns closely with these outcomes with increasing expectations over the three-year period, so by the end of 6th year, when transitioning from an undergraduate medical student to PGY1, they will have achieved these. Each teaching session has its own learning outcomes and students are made aware if these.

Assessment for CS module:

• Attendance and participation in all sessions of the Clinical Skills module is a ‘terms’ requirement. An absence from any session without a satisfactory explanation and/or making up the missed session will potentially generate a conditional pass and may result in terms being denied. A register of attendance is maintained for this module.

• Alignment with the MB ChB Master Plan 2015: CS module states clear outcomes. Learning is sequential with a progression from 4-6th year with the increasing complexity and knowledge level of the sessions over the three years. Students are given opportunities to reflect on their learning and are observed and given immediate feedback on their own performance and on that of a team if they have participated in scenarios (debrief). Our teaching methods are varied, activity based and allow opportunity for repeated and deliberate practise. Simulation based education is ideally placed for meeting students learning requirements.

• The CS module closely aligns its curriculum and teaching with the MB ChB Curriculum Map and has linkages firmly in place within the Clinical Skills Overview Map.

6

10

How has the learning environment supported student learning?

• Feedback from students on what/who helped their learning, has indicated that the staff are helpful and knowledgeable and have created a positive, encouraging, safe and inclusive learning environment. They also commented on the good ratio of teachers to students (this is boosted by the volunteer RMOs we have assisting us with teaching). Expectations that students will prepare for the session using the resources available on Moodle prior to attending, leaves more time for the actual hands-on teaching and learning.

• When asked what types and aspects of CS sessions did they like the most - students liked new skills being demonstrated first then having time to practise them. They like the drop-in sessions, models, manikins, simulators, simulations of real patient cases and practical aspects of learning skills.

• Generally, students comment on how much they benefit from, and enjoy, activity-based learning which Simulation Based Education (SBE) is ideally placed to offer and deliver.

Staff development requests, individual or group

• Assistance with development of a research strategy.

• It is anticipated that Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) will be introduced in to the curriculum at some time in the future and staff will need training relevant to this.

What’s working for you that others could learn from?

Collaborative teaching• Our developing relationship with volunteer RMOs from the CDHB to help with teaching sessions is working well to

increase number of tutors available to provide observation and feedback in procedural sessions. These RMOs receive a letter, on request, to verify their contribution to undergraduate medical education and also benefit from practise as ‘doctors as educators’. We also have one surgical SMO who commits to being the lead tutor for the CS ‘Sensitive Examinations’ teaching (4 sessions) each year.

Student resources• The accessibility of a point of care local resource being available in an App form on student’s devices has received

good verbal feedback from students on its usefulness (formal evaluation at end of 2018).

Technology• Our availability and use of the B-Line Medical web-based video and recording system allows us to view in real time

and record teaching sessions (predominantly scenarios and debriefs). Because of this capability, the teaching team is able to have a weekly peer review session allowing us to continually monitor and improve our teaching and debriefing.

E-Learning• Practical support from eLearning facilitator with the 4th year ESLO session and the new 6th year IPE discharge

planning initiative, has been invaluable and enhances the delivery and outcomes of these sessions.

Head of Department response

EndorsementFirstly, I can confirm the accuracy of this report. The SIM centre is well aligned with the curricula map, responsive to feedback, and delivers a well-structured and integrated Clinical Skills (CS) Vertical Module. This has been awarded the student prize for the best vertical module.

ReflectionThe SIM centre is highly functional, hardworking, focussed on best learning outcomes and masters in the ‘can do’, addressing the possible. I would encourage the development of the RMO volunteer and also ‘patient volunteer / friends of the SIM centre’ database. Administrative support should be available.

Future DirectionSome of their work is at the cutting edge of education interventions, like clinical skills app, inter-professional education and ‘gamification’ of learning. I would encourage staff to publish this, and will work with the centre to develop a research strategy.

7

8

9

10

11

GUIDE NOTE 1: Method(s) used to gather data on the quality of the module, including who you approached for feedback List all the methods used to gather feedback during the three years since the last summary of module evaluations. For example, evaluation data may be generated from Otago inFORM questionnaires, assessment results, Qualtrics surveys, or focus group interviews. Please indicate who provided the feedback (e.g., staff, students, other). When using surveys, questionnaires, or interviews, please remember to include compulsory questions – see Guide Note 5.

GUIDE NOTE 2: Overall feedback and observationsList the areas or aspects of the module that were highlighted in the evaluation data . Include both strengths and weaknesses.

GUIDE NOTE 3: How has your module responded to previous evaluation comments? State aspects of the module that were previously identified by evaluations as areas for improvement and what has been done to address those. If there are aspects that were subsequently not improved on, indicate why change has not occurred (e.g., students wanted more bedside tutorials but staffing numbers were too low to accommodate this).

GUIDE NOTE 4: Describe how your stated learning objectives, learning opportunities, and assessments (if any) are aligned with each otherBriefly describe how you ensure that the learning opportunities in your module allow students to meet stated learning objectives, and how your assessments (if any) match those objectives and opportunities. Please also identify any linkages you have started to make with the Curriculum Map Core Elements, i.e., Core Professional Activities, Core Presentations, Core Conditions.

GUIDE NOTE 5: Summarise the findings of the compulsory questions you asked students about how the learning environment supported student learningEvaluations should provide the students the opportunity to comment on their learning environment, by which we mean the place, people and resources that help students learn in your course. Please ensure that your student evaluation includes the following two required questions: 1. The environment supported and encouraged my

learning. Likert scale: To a very To a very

large extent small extent 1 2 3 4 5

2. Please comment on what/who helped or hindered your learning.

Your summary of this information helps OMS and your school to improve aspects of the student experience that are not necessarily specific to, or within the control of, any single module.

GUIDE NOTE 6: What’s working for you that others could learn from? Identify any good practice that could have a wider relevance. Also any approaches, developments or innovations that have proven successful and may be of interest to other staff. Examples could include comments regarding:• promoting student engagement and motivation• promoting student achievement and progression• promoting learning of transferable skills• effective classroom teaching/learning techniques• effective use of electronic resources.

GUIDE NOTE 7: Area(s) identified for, and strategies to address, improvement State any areas/aspects of the module that require improvement including learning delivery, assessment, and resourcing. Examples could include posting to Moodle, alignment of assessment to learning opportunities, staff and equipment resources and accommodation. Outline the strategies intended to address those areas.

GUIDE NOTE 8: Requests for support (resources: physical, human, other) Please state and briefly outline any requests for development support, including who requires the support (e.g., “Staff would like a general intro session on Moodle”).

GUIDE NOTE 9: Head of Department responseBefore submitting your summary to your local CSC, please ask your HoD to identify aspects of the module (rather than programme) that they may wish to commend in addition to those that may require support at the Departmental level. HoD responses are required before the summary can be considered by the CSC.

GUIDE NOTE 10: CSC discussion points, to be completed at meetingThis may include both points you highlight for your CSC discussion, and points which arise from that CSC discussion. We suggest that this section is completed at the CSC meeting.

NOTE This document will be presented to the local CSC (which has representation from both staff and students) and as such should be considered a public document. Comments regarding specific individuals or groups should be done in a general manner avoiding the use of names. Contact your Education Adviser if you require further information about this report.

GENERAL Please keep your responses brief, summarizing results rather than including raw data.

GuidelinesAppendix 3

12

Please note that the template and guidelines for evaluation are updated annually, so may vary from the sample report provided to indicate how module conveners have responded in the past.

Guide notes

MB ChB Evaluation and Education Research Sub-Committee ConvenerDr Linda Gulliver linda.gulliver@otago.ac.nz

For further information

Christchurch Anthony Ali Education Adviser University of Otago, Christchurch PO Box 4345 Christchurch 8140 Tel 64 3 378 6295 Email: anthony.ali@otago.ac.nz

Dunedin - ALMMegan Anakin Lecturer in Medical Education & Education AdviserDunedin School of MedicineUniversity of OtagoPO Box 56Dunedin 9016 Tel 64 3 470 9843 Email: megan.anakin@otago.ac.nz

Wellington Tehmina Gladman Education Adviser University of Otago, Wellington PO Box 7343 Wellington South Tel 64 4 918 6749 Email: tehmina.gladman@otago.ac.nz

Dunedin – ELM (years 2-3)Jon Cornwall Education Adviser, Centre for Early Learning in Medicine Otago Medical SchoolUniversity of OtagoPO Box 56 Dunedin 9016 Tel 64 3 471 6378 Email: jon.cornwall@otago.ac.nz

Associate Deans for Medical EducationELM Grant Butt grant.butt@otago.ac.nz BMS Ivan Sammut ivan.sammut@otago.ac.nzDunedin Ralph Pinnock ralph.pinnock@otago.ac.nz Christchurch Lutz Beckert lutz.beckert@cdhb.health.nz Wellington Rebecca Grainger rebecca.grainger@otago.ac.nz

Module ConvenersGuide to Evaluation

OMSMBChB

OTAGO MEDICAL SCHOOLTe Kura Hauora o Ōtākou

February 2021