Small programs, big challenges: Reimagining the evaluation of clinical teaching in genetic counseling

Abstract

Within the health professions education system, a significant proportion of teaching and learning occurs in the clinical setting. As such, the need to measure effective teaching for accreditation standards, faculty development, merit pay, academic promotion, and for monitoring the safety of the learning environment has led to numerous universities developing instruments to evaluate teaching effectiveness in this context. To date; however, these instruments typically focus on the student perspective, despite evidence demonstrating that student evaluations of teaching (SETs) lack correlation with learning outcomes and are not a true measure of teaching effectiveness. This issue is further exacerbated in small health professional training programs, such as genetic counseling, where clinical teachers may only supervise 1–3 students per year. As a result, not only are SETs more confounded due to small sample sizes, but a direct conflict exists between respecting learner anonymity and providing timely and relevant feedback to faculty. In such contexts, even using SETs to evaluate the nature of the learning environment may be unreliable due to student concerns about identifiability and fear of retaliation for unfavorable evaluation. This paper will review the literature regarding SETs, barriers to this process within the clinical setting, and the unintended downstream consequences. Options for addressing issues related to the use of SETs will be considered, with particular focus on the process of reflection and the use of teaching consultations or peer support groups as a means to improve teaching effectiveness in this learning environment.