No abstract

Materials/Methods: All applicants provided demographic information and specific mentorship need requests. Pairings occurred periodically based on a personalized pairing process. This year, due to COVID-19, all sessions were held virtually. A questionnaire was designed in Google Forms based on the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology (SWRO) annual survey to evaluate the mentorship program. Data were collected and analysis was conducted using JMP version 15(SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Results: Since June 2020, 78 individuals enrolled: 28 to become a mentor, 38 to become a mentee; 12 were interested in both. The mentor group consisted of radiation oncology residents (47.5%), academic faculty (40%) and private practice physicians (12.5%). 57.5% of the mentors were males and 4% associated with the LGBTQI+ community. Geographic distribution of mentors: 40% Midwest, 27.5% South/Southeast, 15% Northeast, 12.5% West Coast and 5% international. Among resident mentors, 58% were Junior (PGY1-3) and 42% were senior (PGY4-5) residents. Among mentees, 50% were residents, followed by medical students (46%) and new practitioners (4%). There were equal number of males and females. The geographic distribution was: 32% Midwest, 22% South/Southeast, 36% Northeast, 2% West Coast, and 8% international. The distribution across residency training years was: 57% Junior (PGY1-3) and 43% Senior (PGY4-5). The survey was sent out in January 2021 and we currently have 29/78, 37% response rate. This survey showed the most common method of communication was email (59%), followed by video call (52%) and phone (48%). 62% had at least 2 interactions since being paired. Both parties set up the interactions in 59% of pairs, followed by mentees being responsible in 24%. Mentors reported experiencing mutual respect (94%), a personal connection (67%), clear expectations (44%), and shared values (44%). Mentees similarly reported mutual respect (94%), shared values (76%), a personal connection (59%) and clear expectations (47%). 96% had mentor/mentee relationship outside ACRO program; however, 62% felt that a formal program is more beneficial than informal opportunities. Conclusion:The results of our mentorship program highlight the continued interest and need for formal radiation oncology mentorship programs. The major strength of the program has been the high rates of interaction which is based on mutual respect, shared values and personal connection. Areas of future focus includes recruiting more new practitioners and private practice radiation oncologists to help enrich and diversify the mentorship program.

BACKGROUND The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) course designed to ensure radiation oncology residents were equipped with the knowledge and skillset to use radiation therapy techniques properly. The ARC Bootcamp was proven to be a useful educational intervention for improving learners’ knowledge of anatomy and radiology and contouring ability. An online version of the course was created to increase accessibility to the ARC Bootcamp and provide a flexible, self-paced learning environment. This study aimed to describe the instructional design model used to create the online offering and report participants’ motivation to enroll in the course and the online ARC Bootcamp's strengths and improvement areas. METHODS The creation of the online course followed the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) framework. The course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules consisting of radiology and contouring lectures, anatomy labs, and integrated evaluations. RESULTS The online course launched on the platform Teachable in November 2019, and by January 2021, 140 participants had enrolled in the course, with 27 participants completing all course components. The course had broad geographic participation with learners from 19 different countries. Of the participants enrolled, 34% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (56%), followed by other programs (24%), such as medical physics residents or medical students. The primary motivator for participants to enroll was to improve their subject knowledge/skill (44%). The most common strength identified by participants was the course's quality (41%), and the most common improvement area was to incorporate more course content (41%). CONCLUSIONS The creation of the online ARC Bootcamp using the ADDIE framework was feasible. The course is accessible to diverse geographic regions and programs and provides a flexible learning environment; however, the course completion rate was low. Participants’ feedback regarding their experiences will inform future offerings of the online course.

Introduction The flipped classroom approach (FCA) is a growing instructional method in higher education. In the flipped classroom, students’ first exposure to content is prior to class, commonly in the form of two learning modalities (LMs): a textbook reading, or a video recording. Class time then focuses on the application of knowledge. This approach has been implemented in many lecture‐based courses; however, it has yet to be fully evaluated in the anatomical laboratory (lab). It remains unclear whether students prefer traditional or flipped instruction for anatomy lab sessions and, with a FCA, which LM provides anatomical content exposure that most aligns with student preferences. Thus, the aims of this cross‐over study were: (i) to determine students’ preferred instruction type for anatomy lab sessions, (ii) to determine students’ rank‐order of learning modalities for anatomical content exposure from most to least preferred, and (iii) to establish the reasons for learning modality preferences. Methods Undergraduate students (n=59) were recruited from a systemic human anatomy course at the University of Western Ontario and were placed in one of four study groups. The groups were exposed to three flipped and one traditional lab sessions, with each session focused on a different musculoskeletal region. The flipped lab sessions used one of the following LMs for content exposure before the in‐lab component of the session: a textbook reading, a video recording, or a three‐dimensional (3D) anatomy application (app). The traditional lab sessions did not have content exposure before the in‐lab component but consisted of a lab talk during the in‐lab session using cadaveric specimens. An open‐ended questionnaire determined student’s preferred instruction type and rank‐order preference for the LMs. Open‐ended questions were coded and analyzed for themes to establish the reasons for the student’s rank‐order of the LMs. Results (i) The majority of students (57.6%) preferred a LM associated with flipped instruction compared to that associated with the traditional instruction. (ii) The average ranking of the LMs from most to least preferred were lab talk, 3D anatomy app, video recording, and textbook reading, with the textbook reading most often ranked as the least preferred LM (p < 0.05). (iii) Based on responses to the open‐ended questions, many students preferred LMs that allowed for representational visualization of the anatomical structures. Majority of students also preferred LMs, which allowed them to control their pace of learning. Inadequate visualization of the structures and lack of engagement were the main reasons the textbook reading was predominately ranked as the least preferred LM. Conclusion The FCA relies heavily on student’s gaining a baseline of knowledge before class time; therefore, it is important to determine the LMs that enhance engagement, and most align with student learning preferences to promote completion of content exposure before class. This study revealed that anatomy students prefer LMs that...

No abstract