Educational Philosophy

[Janders]

---

Members do not see this ad.

While I've been studying for step II I've been taking a monthlong course my school offers on becoming an "effective resident educator". We've been reading some texts on educational theory, and have had videotaped roleplaying sessions with various situations that residents and students get themselves into. Its been a very useful course (while giving me time to study), especially because I am interested in academic medicine.

One assignment we had was to interview attendings and residents who we thought were good teachers about their personal educational philosophy, and how they learned to be teachers. It seems like there is very little formal education on how to become an educator in the field of medicine. Anyway, I've learned some great things from this assignment, and thought it might be fun to talk about on this board. Any thoughts on the following questions?

Do you have an "educational philosophy"? If so, what is it?

How did you learn to teach? Was it all on the job mentoring, or was it formal? Any tips to future residents/attendings on the subject of clinical teaching?

 

[basementbeastie]

see one -> do one -> teach one! 👎

just kidding, this only serves to forever replicate bad habits...

 

[GeneralVeers]

I don't think you can teach people how to teach. It comes down to your personality, and desire to help others.

I actually like teaching med students (passing on my cynicism to others). I've found that one style of teaching does not fit all. Some med students already have the book-learning down, and want to go see patients, so that's what I have them do (the more they see the better). Some med students need more of the theory, like developing differential diagnoses for abdominal pain, chest pain etc. Other med students are weak or strong in both. You will be the most effective teacher if you adjust your teaching style to fit the learner.

Never make fun of, or berate your med students. Even if they make idiotic mistakes use it as a learning opportunity (surgery residents take note!).

 

[Hard24Get]

I appreciate those like you. Many times the medical student ego (or at least mine) is so fragile that this type of support makes all the difference in learning. There were times when we had to open another Foley because of me or my suture really sucked and the residents (surgery residents!) would just encourage and teach me instead of making me feel even less competent than I already felt. When residents treat me this way I do anything I can to make their life easier. 😍

I don't think you can teach people how to teach. It comes down to your personality, and desire to help others.

I actually like teaching med students (passing on my cynicism to others). I've found that one style of teaching does not fit all. Some med students already have the book-learning down, and want to go see patients, so that's what I have them do (the more they see the better). Some med students need more of the theory, like developing differential diagnoses for abdominal pain, chest pain etc. Other med students are weak or strong in both. You will be the most effective teacher if you adjust your teaching style to fit the learner.

Never make fun of, or berate your med students. Even if they make idiotic mistakes use it as a learning opportunity (surgery residents take note!).

 

[GeneralVeers]

They key is that you remember what it was like to be a med student when you're a resident. Remember the things that helped you, and the residents who were successful teachers.

 

[basementbeastie]

a true professional and humanitarian is confident enough that they find no need to berate or undermine others....

 

[basementbeastie]

man that sounds cheesy......but i do get really sick of the petty crap that passes for medicine these days....

 

[roja]

There is plenty of formal education for adult educators. And many people who are interested in this topic across the field of medicine.

Assignments of 'what is your educational philosophy' are a great start. Much of critical theory and transformative theory are based on this exact relflecting process. However, it is difficult for many people to do wihtout context. There are actual formal educational philosophies.

Unfortunately, there are dozens of lectures and course on 'how to be a good teacher' which amount to many individuals who are good teachers trying to teach others thier 'tricks'. However, these are ultimately pointless (IMO) without appropriate educator development and an understanding of educational goals- something hugely lacking in medical education.

People are not born good teachers. Yes, some come to it easier than others. Interest is also key. But there is much much more to it. You can absolutely teach people how to teach adn be effective.

Remember, being loved isn't the same thing as affecting learning- a concept many people confuse.


/schpiel as I just came out of four hours of similar discussions....

 

[Janders]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Roja-- I appreciate your insight. I agree that most of the "how to be a teacher" writings I have seen in medicine mostly consist of a series of tips-n-tricks, or a quick-and-easy technique for teaching. Among the later I've seen the "microskills" of teaching-- in five easy steps-- promoted a number of times. SAEM has a six part module to teach EM residents a bit about teaching, which seems rather progressive.

I'm interested in a bit more in-depth understanding of this topic. I know you're devoting a lot of energy to this... any suggestions for further reading? Something more philosophical/theoretical, not necessarily about medicine, but about adult education? I've about exhausted wikipedia on the topic😉 Thanks for any input.

 

[Apollyon]

People are not born good teachers. Yes, some come to it easier than others. Interest is also key. But there is much much more to it. You can absolutely teach people how to teach and be effective.

I can point you to 5 PhD's in education that will disagree with you. I've spent many more than 4 hours in discussions of educational theory, and there are people that are "born" good teachers (although, in reality, they've learned the skills and adapted them before they've actually been utilized or needed), in that 'teaching', as transmission of knowledge, has an innate connection to communication, and people that are better communicators will have a subset of them that are innately good teachers. It is consummately true, though, that you can teach people to teach - that's why there are so many teacher's colleges. But, just like playing basketball or the piano, you can teach anyone to shoot the ball or hit the keys, and be technically good to excellent, but there will be prodigies that, for unknown reasons, can make more accurate shots or organize the piano keys with more art or inspiration. Likewise, everyone who has been a resident knows that there are people that do NOT have a teaching skill - which, as you've pointed out, comes frequently from a lack of desire or interest.

Another thing about being born good teachers - it's instinct, as carnivorous/omnivorous mammals teach hunting behavior to their young, and by the very fact that the young survive independently shows that the teaching was good, and a lion or a bear has never taken a class.

 

[beyond all hope]

Obviously, Scutwork is filled with academics and pre-academics, so education is a hot topic. I too am a Medical Education fellow, and have endured many hours of lecture as to educational philosophy.

Mine is simple: create an fun, enriched environment where learning can take place. I can't really 'teach' anything. I can show you a patient, have you interview and examine them, review the case and the differential, talk to the patient together, show you physical findings and radiologic findings. It's up to you to absorb them.

The learning takes place from doing (seeing the patient), modeling (watching how I see patients), Socratic questioning (What's your differential?) and straight-up lecture (this is how to formulate DDx for Chest pain).

I like to delve into the social, psychological aspects of medicine. How is this homeless patient going to get his meds? How do you feel about seeing that abusive alcoholic?

I would agree with previous poster in that a good teacher creates a human bond between teacher and student which engenders learning. However, a good student can learn no matter how crappy the teacher is. In that case, the student becomes his/her own teacher.

Just ranting...

 

[roja]

I can point you to 5 PhD's in education that will disagree with you. I've spent many more than 4 hours in discussions of educational theory, and there are people that are "born" good teachers (although, in reality, they've learned the skills and adapted them before they've actually been utilized or needed), in that 'teaching', as transmission of knowledge, has an innate connection to communication, and people that are better communicators will have a subset of them that are innately good teachers. It is consummately true, though, that you can teach people to teach - that's why there are so many teacher's colleges. But, just like playing basketball or the piano, you can teach anyone to shoot the ball or hit the keys, and be technically good to excellent, but there will be prodigies that, for unknown reasons, can make more accurate shots or organize the piano keys with more art or inspiration. Likewise, everyone who has been a resident knows that there are people that do NOT have a teaching skill - which, as you've pointed out, comes frequently from a lack of desire or interest.

Another thing about being born good teachers - it's instinct, as carnivorous/omnivorous mammals teach hunting behavior to their young, and by the very fact that the young survive independently shows that the teaching was good, and a lion or a bear has never taken a class.

So because you know 5 PhD's that disagree, its a fact? I can find you 6 that agree with me, but it still doesn't mean I am right. The n would be very small.

And I have spent more than four hours in discussion of Adult Education Theory, but I had just come from two of my masters classes on exactly this subject and so for that evening I had been in 4 hours of discussion.

As you will note, good teachers ARENT born. Please show me an infant that just popped out of the womb that is a good teacher. It is a skill that some adept to quite easily and who have natural traits that make it easier. However, many adult theorists- Dewey, Mezirow, Cranton, Brookfield, will tell you that in fact, it is something that can be taught.

It doesn't involve tricks and tips. It is a skill. It requires desire and interest and caring and then it requires exploration and learning more about it.
If you don't care about learning the skill- like many residents and attendings- then you end up a crappy teacher. They can't learn it not because it is impossible but because they don't want to.

To the OP:

There are a number of books/authors you can read. If you want a generalized Adult Learning text to start, I would recommend starting with Adult Learning Methods (http://************/yxgvlr)

Some other outstanding authors and leaders in adult ed are Mezirow, Stephen Brookfield, Cranton (particularly amazing is Professional development as Transformative Learning- http://************/y99u96), Dewey.

Feel free to PM me.


Also, if this is a field you are interested in, check out the concensus confrence at SAEM this coming year on Knowledge Translation.

 

[Apollyon]

So because you know 5 PhD's that disagree, its a fact? I can find you 6 that agree with me, but it still doesn't mean I am right. The n would be very small.

And I have spent more than four hours in discussion of Adult Education Theory, but I had just come from two of my masters classes on exactly this subject and so for that evening I had been in 4 hours of discussion.

Ouch. Never mind.

 

[roja]

Ouch. Never mind.

Next time before you try to demean someones ideas by tossing about #'s of Phd's or assuming that they are unknowledgeablehe subject or haven't devoted time to it, try just making your arguement-instead of trying to make someone look unknowledgeable.


There are many educational theories and beliefs. There is no 'one' awnser. Discussion is important. Denegration isn't.

 

[Apollyon]

Next time before you try to demean someones ideas by tossing about #'s of Phd's or assuming that they are unknowledgeable about the subject or haven't devoted time to it, try just making your argument - instead of trying to make someone look unknowledgeable.

My point was to show that your position is not the only one, and that some education scholars hold a different viewpoint.

Education theory is alive and kicking, and discussion is indeed a great thing. I'm sorry if you felt demeaned or denigrated, as that certainly was NOT my intention, by any means.

 

[roja]

For anyone interested, one of the most established Philosphy of Ed exams is below.

I would recommend taking the exam first before looking at the different types to avoid biasing your results. The other thing to keep in mind when awnsering questions is to not awnser based on how you are forced to teach, but how in an ideal situation (allowed to teach on your own, with no constraints) how you would awnser.

There are two links:

online version: http://www25.brinkster.com/educ605/paei_howtouse.htm

and here is a link that has a lot of general information and PDF form that will allow you to download it and take it.

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee523/class2.html

 

[mikecwru]

Next time before you try to demean someones ideas by tossing about #'s of Phd's or assuming that they are unknowledgeablehe subject or haven't devoted time to it, try just making your arguement-instead of trying to make someone look unknowledgeable.


There are many educational theories and beliefs. There is no 'one' awnser. Discussion is important. Denegration isn't.

In his defense, I've had plenty of teachers that have completed courses, graduate degrees in education who have been horrible teachers. And plenty of fantastic teachers that haven't.

The things people quoted here like a good sense of humor, passion about teaching, and the ability to communicate, are not fluff things and are as important as being able to quote learning theorists.

I think the "truth" is probably somewhere in the middle of both your arguments: you can improve someone skills, but there is some degree of innate talent.

mike

 

[Apollyon]

I think we're coming together to a point here where you have to figure out what your strengths are, and play to them. For example, think about those with whom you like to work, and try to figure out why. There was one attending I worked with who was efficient, and his teaching was more by emulation than discussion/sit down. I have always had a talent for similes and analogies. To make one, here's a story: years ago, there was one of those mall places like Cinnabon. They were hiring for a pastry chef. The sister-in-law of a guy I worked with was a manager, and said that they didn't hire this one person who made these mouth-watering pastries, but not that they weren't good - she just couldn't do it the store way; her way wasn't wrong, but it wasn't the standard.

The purpose of that story is because we had an attending the same way - his M.O. was to (barely) let you start a procedure, him to stop you, then him to do it HIS way, which wasn't wrong, per se, but wasn't the way everyone else does it. Thus, the educational opportunity - time after time - was a bust. Compounding that is that he thinks that he is an educator par excellence, unparalleled and unmatched by any of his colleagues. He hasn't found his strong suit.

Find what works for you - don't fit your square peg into a round hole, but, instead, find the square hole, and then make the most of it.