Evaluating a structured applied physics case-based course for radiation oncology and radiation physics residents

Abstract

Background We supplemented applied physics textbook learning and clinic learning with case-based discussions. The purpose of this study was to review this applied physics course, in terms of structure and teaching evaluations. Methods We reviewed the 6 year applied physics teaching experience (2016-2021) in a multi-hospital site university affiliated accredited training program. A unique component of the course is the intentional inter-professional education, due to the inclusion of both radiation oncology and medical physics learners and faculty. This course ran weekly from September to May for a total of 29 weeks. All sessions were 1 hour long and case based except for 5 didactic sessions. Each session was taught by a pair of faculty members (one radiation oncologist and one medical physicist). The cases in the syllabus were reviewed yearly by teaching faculty and adjusted for updated clinical management and technological changes. A final examination was given to each trainee consisting of 3 clinical case scenarios, with written and oral questions on applied physics concepts learned throughout the course. In 2020 and 2021, during the pandemic, the applied physics course syllabus was shortened to 8 weekly video sessions (2 hour class per week) and given from April to May. Results The number of trainees who took the course ranged from 7-14 per year. Ninety-four percent of trainees passed the final exam. Trainees who did not pass the final exam were given a supplemental exam. Feedback was given to each trainee who did not pass the first exam. All trainees who did not pass the final exam, were successful in passing the supplemental exam. For the years 2016-2021, the mean and median teaching evaluation scores were 4.65 and 5 respectively, where 1 represents the worst teaching quality and 5 represents the best. In 2020-2021, due to the covid-19 pandemic, the teaching evaluations administered included 2 questions regarding the virtual format of the course. For these 2 questions relating to the virtual format of the course, the mean and median responses were 4.14 and 5 respectively. Discussion The structured syllabus of cases, case based questions and discussions were ranked highly by the trainees for teaching effectiveness. The success of this course is also dependent on faculty who demonstrate excellent teaching skills. Our experience indicated that the nature of this course was adaptable to a virtual format and could be useful for small programs without a structured applied physics curriculum. We supplemented applied physics textbook learning and clinic learning with case-based discussions. The purpose of this study was to review this applied physics course, in terms of structure and teaching evaluations. We reviewed the 6 year applied physics teaching experience (2016-2021) in a multi-hospital site university affiliated accredited training program. A unique component of the course is the intentional inter-professional education, due to the inclusion of both radiation oncology and medical physics learners and faculty. This course ran weekly from September to May for a total of 29 weeks. All sessions were 1 hour long and case based except for 5 didactic sessions. Each session was taught by a pair of faculty members (one radiation oncologist and one medical physicist). The cases in the syllabus were reviewed yearly by teaching faculty and adjusted for updated clinical management and technological changes. A final examination was given to each trainee consisting of 3 clinical case scenarios, with written and oral questions on applied physics concepts learned throughout the course. In 2020 and 2021, during the pandemic, the applied physics course syllabus was shortened to 8 weekly video sessions (2 hour class per week) and given from April to May. The number of trainees who took the course ranged from 7-14 per year. Ninety-four percent of trainees passed the final exam. Trainees who did not pass the final exam were given a supplemental exam. Feedback was given to each trainee who did not pass the first exam. All trainees who did not pass the final exam, were successful in passing the supplemental exam. For the years 2016-2021, the mean and median teaching evaluation scores were 4.65 and 5 respectively, where 1 represents the worst teaching quality and 5 represents the best. In 2020-2021, due to the covid-19 pandemic, the teaching evaluations administered included 2 questions regarding the virtual format of the course. For these 2 questions relating to the virtual format of the course, the mean and median responses were 4.14 and 5 respectively. The structured syllabus of cases, case based questions and discussions were ranked highly by the trainees for teaching effectiveness. The success of this course is also dependent on faculty who demonstrate excellent teaching skills. Our experience indicated that the nature of this course was adaptable to a virtual format and could be useful for small programs without a structured applied physics curriculum.