Abstract
Background
The residency application process has become increasingly complex, with constant updates to the Electronic Residency Application Service (MyERAS), the introduction of the Residency Common Application Service (RCAS), and changes to specialty-specific processes like the Urology and Plastic Surgery Matches. Even advisors struggle to provide consistent guidance, leaving students overwhelmed by program signaling, application customization, and other challenges. To address this, we developed and integrated into our curriculum a Residency Application Bootcamp, providing students with a standardized, structured approach to confidently navigate this high-stakes and ever-evolving process.
Methods
We integrated a Residency Application Bootcamp into a 2-week Intersessions course at the end of core clerkships. The workshop began with a 2-h didactic covering essential application topics, followed by 1 day of interactive breakout sessions. Students rotated through interactive breakout sessions led by Student Affairs Deans, focusing on key application components such as personal statements, curriculum vitaes (CVs), noteworthy characteristics (NWCs), and an overview of residency application platforms. This structured format emphasized personalized guidance and iterative feedback to prepare students for residency applications.
Results
Two hundred forty-two students participated in three iterations of the workshop. Groups of 21–22 students rotated through the interactive breakout sessions. Students felt it was “the best part of Intersessions,” “super helpful,” and made other positive comments. Averaging the 3 years’ scores together, the breakout sessions scored 4.27 out of 5. In addition, Student Affairs Deans who led the session felt it was an effective way to gain more personal exposure to students, provide individualized advising, and plant the seeds for upcoming MSPE meetings. Student Affairs Deans also reported that NWCs showed notable improvement after this session compared to last year.
Discussion
The Residency Application Bootcamp was successfully implemented at our institution. The flexible format of this workshop allows for improvement and incorporation of student feedback. Although developed within a single institution, the Bootcamp’s structure is readily adaptable to other medical schools. Further innovation and research should be pursued to better support students during this critical phase of medical school.
Keywords: Residency application preparation, Medical student career advising, Student affairs, Specialty advising, Electronic residency application service, ResidencyCAS, Residency application bootcamp
Introduction
Applying to residency programs is complex and stressful (Russel et al., 2021). Medical students are tasked with identifying programs that will not only provide them with specialty training, but also find a program that will promote their personal career goals. Students are then instructed to advertise their personality, interests, and qualifications within one application (Katsufrakis, Uhler & Jones, 2016) in hopes that their desired programs will extend them an interview.
The application process can be arduous and may require multiple advising meetings to ensure students are on track. Students may struggle to eloquently and succinctly explain why they are pursuing their specialty of choice and why they are strong candidates for residency programs. Medical students and faculty advisors commonly report stress, uncertainty, and difficulty navigating the residency application process, including managing complex timelines and increasing application volumes (Weiner & AAMCNEWS, 2022; Joshi et al., 2024). In addition to being lengthy and multifaceted, changes to the application process occur annually, depending on the specialty (Spatz, Olaf & Ellison, 2024). Of the 21 residency specialties in 2024–2025, there were five distinct application platforms for students to navigate, each with its own requirements and annual changes. Each application platform provides information only for its own application process, leaving students and advisors to learn about the others on their own (AAMC, 2025; ResidencyCAS, 2025; CentralApp by ACCESSGME, 2025; SF Match, 2025; American Urological Association, 2025).
Prior work describes a range of approaches to support this residency application phase, including structured advising programs, career development curricula, mentoring models, and targeted workshops (Len et al., 2020; Codispoti et al., 2024; Harvard Medical School, 2026). However, many interventions are delivered inconsistently, occur late in the timeline, or depend heavily on individualized advising capability, contributing to variability in student preparedness (Codispoti et al., 2024). There remains a need for scalable, structured, and earlier preparation embedded within required coursework to support students as they transition from core clerkships into the residency application process. The Residency Application Bootcamp described here was developed to address this gap by providing a standardized, skills-based curriculum that combines didactics and guided workshops for navigation of resources.
Materials and Methods
Study design
This was a single-center cross-sectional study conducted at an academic medical center. This study was reviewed by the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board (Submission ID: STUDY00006705) and approved as a Quality Improvement (QI) study, which does not constitute human subjects research. The study participants were rising fourth-year medical students at the end of their core clerkship year, preparing to begin the residency application cycle. Data were collected in three consecutive annual sessions. The session evaluations were designed as a mixed-methods, descriptive program evaluation. Quantitative survey data were summarized using descriptive statistics, with Likert-scale responses summarized as mean scores in each cohort. No inferential statistical analyses were planned or conducted, as the primary aim was to assess feasibility and learner perceptions rather than test hypotheses. Open-ended survey responses were reviewed and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and illustrate examples of learner experiences.
Study protocol
As part of the curriculum for medical students at our institution, third-year medical students have periodic breaks from clinical rotations in which they meet as a group in the classroom setting. Themes are chosen for these week-long sessions, and a multi-disciplinary team of physicians provides didactics, workshops, and lectures designed to synthesize clinical information gained on rotations and provide opportunities for reflection. A two-part educational intervention, termed Residency Application Bootcamp, focusing on residency application content, was integrated into the 2-week Intersession two session, for rising fourth-year medical students entering the residency application season. Instructors for this course were Assistant or Associate Deans from the Office of Student Affairs.
Educational curriculum
The Bootcamp was designed as a comprehensive educational intervention to prepare students for the residency application process. The first session included a 2.5-h interactive lecture that provided an overview of the application process (Table 1). Topics covered included formatting and creating a curriculum vitae (CV), writing a personal statement, interview preparation strategies, an introduction to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC, 2025) Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) and other application platforms, and drafting Noteworthy Characteristics (NWCs). The lecturers were all Student Affairs Deans who are trained in undergraduate medical career advising, stay current with the latest advising statistics, and participate in national meetings on medical student career advising.
Table 1. First part of Residency Application Bootcamp: topics and description of 2-h didactic session.
| Topic | Topic description |
|---|---|
| Residency application timeline |
|
| Medical student performance evaluations (Dean’s letters) |
|
| Resources for choosing programs |
|
| Curriculum vitae template overview |
|
| Noteworthy characteristics (NWCs) |
|
| Residency application preparation |
|
| Personal statement |
|
To supplement the live sessions, students were given asynchronous resources, including written guides on personal statement writing, examples of NWCs, and standardized CV templates. They were instructed to review these materials independently and develop outlines or drafts of their CVs, NWCs, and personal statements as preparatory work. This approach allowed students to engage with the material at their own pace and arrive at the workshop prepared to receive targeted feedback.
The second component of the Bootcamp was a 4-h, round-robin-style workshop (Table 2) held 1 week later, so students had time to prepare CVs, personal statement ideas, and NWCs drafts for the workshop. Students rotated through four individual skill stations, each lasting 1 h, conducted in breakout rooms. These stations, led by medical school career advisors, focused on completing the MyERAS worksheet and other application platforms, generating personal statement ideas, refining NWCs, and editing CVs. Students were divided into four groups, starting at different stations to ensure an equitable distribution of time and resources. Each session offered personalized and group-based feedback tailored to the specific needs of the students.
Table 2. Second part of Residency Application Bootcamp: description of the four stations.
| Station | Station description |
|---|---|
| Curriculum vitae (1 h) |
|
| Personal statement (1 h) |
|
| Residency application platforms (1 h) |
|
| Noteworthy characteristics (1 h) |
|
Multiple modifications were made across the three iterations (Years 1–3) in response to advisor and student feedback. From Year 1 to 2, we added information regarding ResidencyCAS to the application platform station, adding to MyERAS worksheet overview and CentralApp introduction. From Year 2 to 3, instead of each advisor running their stations eight times (four rotations in the morning for half the class and four rotations in the afternoon for the second half of the class), the whole class had all four stations in the morning. We also specifically requested fourth-year medical students who were off-cycle to be excused from their clinical rotations for one morning to attend this Residency Application. These changes can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Modifications to Residency Application Bootcamp across academic years.
| Academic year transition | Modification implemented | Rationale/Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 → Year 2 | Expanded the application platform station to include information on ResidencyCAS, in addition to the MyERAS worksheet overview and introduction to CentralApp | Responded to advisor and student feedback regarding the growing complexity and diversity of residency application platforms |
| Year 2 → Year 3 | Reorganized session structure so that all students attended all four stations during a single morning session rather than rotating through stations in separate morning and afternoon groups | Improved efficiency, reduced faculty repetition, and enhanced consistency of content delivery |
| Year 2 → Year 3 | Requested that fourth-year medical students who were off-cycle be excused from clinical duties for one morning to attend the bootcamp | Increased accessibility and attendance by reducing scheduling barriers for eligible students |
Assessment
Assessment consisted of an anonymous course evaluation. The post-curriculum survey allowed students to rate their satisfaction and provide comments for improvements. The questionnaire was administered upon completion of the 2-week Intersessions 2 block. The questionnaire included questions regarding all the courses, using a six-point Likert scale, with 0 being “Very Poor” and 5 being “Outstanding”.
While certain materials (e.g., institutional templates and advising workflows) were developed locally to fit our setting, the Bootcamp structure and content categories are transferable and adaptable across medical schools. The specifics of this are noted in Table 4.
Table 4. Core components vs. adaptable elements for replication.
Core (transferable):
|
Adaptable (site-specific):
|
Results
The Residency Application Bootcamp has undergone three iterations with a total of 242 students participating. The students scored the initial didactic session an average of 4.36 out of 5 and scored the round-robin style interactive sessions an average of 4.27 out of 5 over 3 years. A breakdown of the mean scores is shown in Table 5. Across the 3 years of implementation, mean ratings for both the pre-Bootcamp didactic sessions and the Bootcamp sessions remained consistently high, with modest variation across cohorts (Table 5). These data are presented descriptively, as the evaluation was not designed to assess statistical significance between years.
Table 5. Residency Application Bootcamp workshop evaluation results.
| Year | Number of student evaluators | Pre-Bootcamp didactic sessions mean score [0 (Very poor)–5 (Outstanding)] | Bootcamp session average score [0 (Very poor)–5 (Outstanding)] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 82 | 4.34 | 4.15 |
| 2024 | 73 | 4.33 | 4.26 |
| 2025 | 87 | 4.40 | 4.41 |
Analysis of free-text student comments revealed several recurring themes. First, students consistently described the Bootcamp as useful and relevant, with many identifying it as one of the most valuable components of the greater Intersessions curriculum in which the sessions are embedded. Learners highlighted the benefit of structured time to initiate residency application materials, noting that the sessions “forced” early engagement with ERAS requirements and reduced uncertainty about next steps. Second, individualized feedback, particularly on noteworthy characteristics, was frequently cited as the most valuable aspect of the Bootcamp, with multiple students reporting completion or near-completion of application components during the sessions. Third, students appreciated the small-group, round-robin format and opportunities for direct interaction with advisors.
Suggestions for improvement focused on session structure and timing, including requests for shorter sessions, additional independent work time, optional follow-up opportunities, and consideration of scheduling relative to Step 2 preparation. A minority of comments expressed concern about competing priorities or information overload. Overall, qualitative feedback supported the Bootcamp’s acceptability and perceived value while identifying actionable areas for improvements in future iterations.
The career advisors who led the session also felt it was an effective way to gain more personal exposure to students, provide individualized advising, and plant the seeds for upcoming Medical Student Performance Evaluation meetings.
Discussion
The constant changes occurring to the residency application have made the process of applying complex for both students completing their application and for advisors providing guidance (Russel et al., 2021). Staying up to date on routine alterations to the application is manageable. However, in recent years, there have been drastic changes, such as the 2023 application cycle with the addition of the supplemental application and switching to the MyERAS application in the following cycle (AAMC, 2025). Furthermore, with the introduction of various new residency application platforms such as ResidencyCAS and CentralApp, there is a crucial need for a structured application education program.
Students have many responsibilities during the application cycle, including studying for USMLE Step 2, performing well on acting internships in their desired specialties, obtaining letters of recommendation, and pursuing extracurricular activities. A medical student advisor can aid in the development of a student’s career plans and provide specialty-specific advice that can have a dramatic impact on a student’s application (Sims et al., 2023). Unfortunately, medical students finding an advisor who can help them navigate the complex application process can be challenging (Joshi et al., 2024). This approach aligns with best practices in medical education, where multimodal interventions improve learning outcomes and support students in achieving their goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
To our knowledge, Residency Application Bootcamp is the first undergraduate medical education event for rising fourth-year medical students of its kind. The Residency Application Bootcamp was developed to provide students with a streamlined and up-to-date advising plan, as well as direct access to advisors with a strong background in career development. The Bootcamp was implemented with a staggered structure to accomplish this goal. Session 1 introduced recent updates to the residency application process, emphasized the most critical sections, and allowed students to ask questions and clarify expectations. By holding this session in advance of the small-group workshop, students had time to draft their CVs, identify noteworthy characteristics, and write personal statements, which they then refined with real-time feedback from advisors.
The small group breakout sessions take place several days after the initial didactic session, giving students time to work on their application components. Students are encouraged to bring rough drafts to these sessions and, due to the smaller group sizes, can receive personalized feedback. The small group sessions enable students to narrow their focus and break down the entire residency application into manageable sections, as students are concerned about the ever-evolving application platforms and strategies (Chen et al., 2024). The advisor leading each session guides the application completion process and reassures them of their capabilities.
Qualitative analysis of learner feedback provided important context for the descriptive quantitative findings and supported the perceived value of the Residency Application Bootcamp. Students frequently described the sessions as useful in reducing uncertainty surrounding the residency application process and facilitating early completion or review of required application components. In particular, learners highlighted the benefit of structured time to begin drafting materials and the opportunity to receive individualized advisor feedback, especially regarding noteworthy characteristics, which is a common concern among medical students (Beery, 2023). The small-group, station-based format was commonly cited as effective for fostering focused interaction with multiple advisors and for promoting notable progress during the sessions.
Although the Bootcamp is directed towards students, the process is also beneficial for advisors. The most common questions are discussed and answered during the initial didactic session and each breakout session. This allows future one-on-one meetings with students and advisors to run more efficiently and be tailored to each individual student. Additionally, by having drafts or completed versions of personal statements and noteworthy characteristics, advisors can discuss more thoroughly with students during their preparatory meetings for their MSPEs. The format of our Bootcamp provides accessibility to faculty advisors for residency application advising, which is a known challenge for students during application season (Joshi et al., 2024; Lareau et al., 2019).
The medical student residency application cycle can be overwhelming. Students have unique needs and require a combination of generalized and personalized advising. The Residency Application Bootcamp was created out of necessity for structure and organization revolving around this crucial time for medical students. The model of the Residency Application Bootcamp presented in this report can be applied to any medical program, benefitting students, advisors, and deans.
There are several limitations. We have only undergone three iterations of the Bootcamp, so lessons are continuously learned. Feedback from the career advisors was that there was too much repetition on the part of the advisors; they ran eight sessions for the first two iterations, repeating themselves eight times in 1 day. This is resource-intensive, as you need four advisors to run multiple sessions in 1 day. For the third iteration, we conducted four sessions in 1 day, with slightly larger groups, resulting in increased satisfaction among advisors. Because session structure changed across the past 3 years, direct comparison of outcomes between years should be interpreted with caution. Although we made modifications to our sessions over the 3 years, the student ratings remained high, and the advisors’ satisfaction with their invested time improved.
Students who did not or could not take the Intersessions 2 course (making up a clerkship rotation, illness, etc.) did not participate in the first two iterations, and these off-cycle students may need more support. This was also rectified in the third iteration, as the course director requested that the students be excused for half a day to attend these sessions.
Student feedback from evaluations reflected variability in learner needs and priorities. While most comments were strongly positive, some students noted concerns regarding session length, timing relative to Step 2 preparation, and information overload. Suggestions included shorter or more flexible sessions, optional follow-up opportunities, and additional independent work time. These comments underscore the challenge of balancing residency application preparation with competing academic demands and highlight areas for iterative refinement. Consistent with the study’s design as a descriptive, mixed-methods program evaluation, these findings are interpreted as indicators of feasibility and acceptability rather than evidence of causal, statistically significant impact, and they inform future program adjustments and directions for more rigorous evaluation.
Data were predominantly qualitative and descriptive, which limits the ability to draw conclusions regarding causal or correlational relationships between specific intervention components and outcomes. Additionally, quantitative results were summarized descriptively without statistical significance testing. These limitations are appropriate to the study’s purpose as an initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability, but should be addressed in future studies with stronger analytical designs.
Although this program was implemented within a single institution with locally developed tools, the core intervention components are not proprietary and can be adapted by other medical schools. Essential elements include: a structured didactic introducing residency application timelines and expectations, and a guided workshop in which learners review application platforms and draft/revise core application aspects using structured prompts. Institutions may tailor templates, advising roles, and specialty-specific guidance to local contexts while maintaining the intervention’s general structure. Our findings highlight the potential value of structured curricula for residency application preparation across diverse educational contexts. Future work could include inter-institutional collaborations to examine reproducibility, compare implementation strategies, and assess outcomes using standardized survey tools and shared evaluation frameworks with more robust analyses.
Conclusions
We designed and implemented our Residency Application Bootcamp for our fourth-year medical students entering the residency application season to provide much-needed guidance during a stressful and ever-changing landscape. Based on the extensive feedback from our medical students, they have found this incredibly helpful. These sessions supported both students and their career advisors in simplifying the residency application process. Core components of our Bootcamp can be replicated at other institutions to meet the universal need of residency application advising for medical students entering this stressful phase. Our future directions are to add more resources to our workshop, including integrating AI tools to decrease resource utilization, such as introducing students to interview practice with ChatGPT instead of scheduling multiple live sessions with busy faculty. We will continue to adapt our workshop to the needs of our students to ensure a successful Match year after year. Future work could also include collaborating with other medical schools to assess the impact of this Bootcamp intervention in other institutions.
Supplemental Information
Raw data provided to us from our course evaluation team with breakdown of the evaluation scores to calculate the means.
Acknowledgments
Grammarly AI was used solely for editing, such as correcting typos, language, and grammar.
Funding Statement
The authors received no funding for this work.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Elaine Situ-LaCasse conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Daniel C. Butler performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Katie Kowalek performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Timothy Marshall Jr analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Richard Amini conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
This study was reviewed by the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board (Submission ID: STUDY00006705) and approved as a Quality Improvement (QI) study, which does not constitute human subjects research.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
This raw data is available in the Supplemental File.
References
- AAMC (2025).AAMC Apply to residencies with the ERAS® system. 2025. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residencies-eras/apply-residencies-eras-system https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residencies-eras/apply-residencies-eras-system Association of American Medical Colleges.
- American Urological Association (2025).American Urological Association Urology and specialty matches. AUA. 2025. https://www.auanet.org/meetings-and-education/for-residents/urology-and-specialty-matches. [26 December 2025]. https://www.auanet.org/meetings-and-education/for-residents/urology-and-specialty-matches
- Beery (2023).Beery JM. American College of Cardiology; 2023. [18 January 2026]. An approach to stress management during residency applications. [Google Scholar]
- CentralApp by ACCESSGME (2025).CentralApp by ACCESSGME CentralApp: residency centralized application platform. ACCESSGME. 2025. https://centralapp.accessgme.com/ [26 December 2025]. https://centralapp.accessgme.com/
- Chen et al. (2024).Chen KT, Royce CS, Baecher-Lind L, Bhargava R, Fleming A, Morgan HK, Morosky CM, Schaffir JA, Sims SM, Sonn T, Sutton JM, Stephenson-Famy A. Undergraduate medicine education committee; association of professors of gynecology and obstetrics. Changes and challenges in the residency application process in obstetrics and gynecology. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2024;231(5):475–479. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Codispoti et al. (2024).Codispoti N, Southworth E, Wagner SA, Graziano SC, Gruener G. Bridge to M4 (B2M4): an innovative residency application preparation curriculum. Clinical Teacher. 2024;21(4):e13728. doi: 10.1111/tct.13728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harvard Medical School (2026).Harvard Medical School Career planning. 2026. https://hms.harvard.edu/education-admissions/md-program/advising-academic-support/career-planning. [11 January 2026]. https://hms.harvard.edu/education-admissions/md-program/advising-academic-support/career-planning
- Hattie & Timperley (2007).Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007;77(1):81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Joshi et al. (2024).Joshi S, Moreci R, Daniel Y, Seenivasan A, Baker JE, Ibarra MP, Shehirian R, Kwakye G. Residency application advising: medical student & faculty advisor perceived barriers & expectations. Journal of Surgical Research. 2024;293:670–675. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Katsufrakis, Uhler & Jones (2016).Katsufrakis PJ, Uhler TA, Jones LD. The residency application process: pursuing improved outcomes through better understanding of the issues. Academic Medicine. 2016;91(11):1483–1487. doi: 10.1097/acm.0000000000001411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lareau et al. (2019).Lareau S, Blumstein H, Hopson L, Keller BL, Haydel MJ, Cheaito MA, Hitti EA, Epter M, Kazzi A. Selecting a medical school advisor. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2019;56(5):e91–e93. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Len et al. (2020).Len KA, Gavero GC, Savala MC, Hishinuma ES. Multi-specialty boot camp: enhancing student confidence in residency preparation. Medical Science Educator. 2020;30(1):187–195. doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00848-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- ResidencyCAS (2025).ResidencyCAS ResidencyCAS | Centralized medical residency application platform. Liaison International. 2025. https://residencycas.com/ [26 December 2025]. https://residencycas.com/
- Russel et al. (2021).Russel SM, Geraghty JR, Renaldy H, Thompson TM, Hirshfield LE. Training for professional uncertainty: socialization of medical students through the residency application process. Academic Medicine. 2021;96(11S):S144–S150. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- SF Match (2025).SF Match SF match—residency and fellowship matching services. Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) 2025. https://sfmatch.org/ [26 December 2025]. https://sfmatch.org/
- Sims et al. (2023).Sims SM, Cox SM, Bhargava R, Everett EN, Fleming A, Graziano S, Morgan HK, Baecher-Lind L, Royce C, Sonn TS, Sutton JM, Morosky CM. Clerkship director confidence in medical student career advising in obstetrics and gynecology. AJOG Global Reports. 2023;3(2):100187. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spatz, Olaf & Ellison (2024).Spatz C, Olaf M, Ellison H. Practical tips for undergraduate medical education advisors in residency application signaling. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development. 2024;11(3):23821205241253230. doi: 10.1177/23821205241253230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weiner & AAMCNEWS (2022).Weiner S, AAMCNEWS Applying to residency is stressful. Here’s how experts hope to change that. 2022. https://www.aamc.org/news/applying-residency-stressful-here-s-how-experts-hope-change. [16 January 2026]. https://www.aamc.org/news/applying-residency-stressful-here-s-how-experts-hope-change
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Raw data provided to us from our course evaluation team with breakdown of the evaluation scores to calculate the means.
Data Availability Statement
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
This raw data is available in the Supplemental File.