Feedback conversations: First things first?

OBJECTIVE: This study explores medical students' perceptions regarding the order in which feedback is given and its impact on how that feedback is received. METHODS: Medical students were interviewed regarding their feedback experiences during medical school and preferred order in which to receive feedback. Thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts to identify salient themes in students' comments related to feedback order. RESULTS: Twenty-five students entering their second, third, and fourth years of medical school participated in the study. Students indicated that the order in which feedback was conveyed influenced their receptivity to its content, but varied in their specific order preferences. Most students indicated that they preferred feedback conversations that started with positive observations. Only the most senior students expressed a preference for feedback based on self-assessment. CONCLUSION: Feedback conversations are complicated interactions. Students' responses to feedback are influenced by a variety of factors, including the order in which feedback is delivered. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educators should recognize that students' feedback needs may be influenced by a variety of factors, and should aim to tailor feedback and the order of its delivery to the learner.

Self-Assessment in Feedback Conversations: A Complicated Balance.

PURPOSE: Learner-centered feedback models encourage educators to ask learners to self-assess at the start of feedback conversations. This study examines how learners perceive and respond to self-assessment prompts during feedback conversations and assesses medical students' perceptions of and approach to self-assessment used as the basis for these conversations. METHOD: All rising second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students at a midwestern U.S. medical school were invited to participate in this study. Students participated in 1-on-1 interviews between June and August 2019 during which they were asked open-ended questions about their experiences with self-assessment and feedback during medical school. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, and comments related to self-assessment in feedback conversations were extracted. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurrent ideas and patterns within the transcripts, and all excerpts were reviewed and coded to ensure that the identified themes adequately captured the range of student responses. RESULTS: A total of 25 students participated in the study. Although some students noted improvement in their self-assessment abilities with increasing experience, no consistent gender, race, or training-level differences were found in reported attitudes or preferences. Students identified many benefits of self-assessment and generally appreciated being asked to self-assess before receiving feedback. Students had varied responses to specific self-assessment prompts, with no clear preferences for any particular self-assessment questions. Students described weighing multiple factors, such as image concerns and worries about impact on subsequent evaluations, when deciding how to respond to self-assessment prompts. CONCLUSIONS: The process by which learners formulate and share self-assessments in feedback conversations is not straightforward. Although educators should continue to elicit self-assessments in feedback discussions, they should recognize the limitations of these self-assessments and strive to create a safe environment in which learners feel empowered to share their true impressions.

Dissection and dissection-associated required experiences improve student performance in gross anatomy: Differences among quartiles.

To promote student learning, educational strategies should provide multiple levels of engagement with the subject matter. This study investigated examination data from five first year medical gross anatomy class cohorts (692 students) to determine if enhanced student performance was correlated with learning through dissection in a course that used a rotating dissection schedule coupled with peer teaching and other associated experiences. When students performed two of five weekly dissections for a given unit, their average scores on both laboratory and written examinations tended to increase as compared to when they had completed only one week of dissection (P < 0.01). However, these performance gains differed across the class strata and were related to the amount of dissection completed. Students in the upper quartile (UQS) of the class benefited when they had dissected once (92.8%) or twice (92.4%), and these scores were significantly higher than those attained when learning from peers (90.3%, P < 0.01). Students in the lower quartile (LQS) benefited most from the dissection experiences, where practical examination performance was better (77.8% and 80.5%) than when these students learned material from their peers (73.7%, P < 0.01). Although UQS benefited from dissection, LQS benefited to a greater extent in both the practical and written examinations with dissection. Although limited, these data suggest that dissection, coupled with associated educational activities, is an effective pedagogical strategy for learning. Further investigation is required to evaluate the concomitant benefits of peer teaching that are associated with the dissection experience. Anat Sci Educ 9: 238-246. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

The overall impact of testing on medical student learning: quantitative estimation of consequential validity.

Given medical education's longstanding emphasis on assessment, it seems prudent to evaluate whether our current research and development focus on testing makes sense. Since any intervention within medical education must ultimately be evaluated based upon its impact on student learning, this report seeks to provide a quantitative accounting of the learning gains attained through educational assessments. To approach this question, we estimate achieved learning within a medical school environment that optimally utilizes educational assessments. We compare this estimate to learning that might be expected in a medical school that employs no educational assessments. Effect sizes are used to estimate testing's total impact on learning by summarizing three effects; the direct effect, the indirect effect, and the selection effect. The literature is far from complete, but the available evidence strongly suggests that each of these effects is large and the net cumulative impact on learning in medical education is over two standard deviations. While additional evidence is required, the current literature shows that testing within medical education makes a strong positive contribution to learning.

Increasing departmental and college-wide faculty development opportunities through a teaching scholars program.

The University of Iowa Teaching Scholars Program was initiated in 1999 at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine (CCOM) with the overall goal of promoting leadership in faculty development related to teaching skills. Specific goals of this program are (1) to promote the development of a cadre of faculty members who have the skills to implement faculty development within their departments and the CCOM; (2) to increase departmental involvement in faculty development efforts; (3) to increase resources available for dissemination of college-wide faculty development efforts; and (4) to acknowledge the extra effort faculty put into developing their skills and knowledge in medical education and in providing continuing education to their faculty colleagues. All clinical and basic science departments in the CCOM are given the opportunity to have a faculty member participate in the program. Unlike other programs reported in the literature, competitive decisions for program participation are made at the departmental level. The three-year program combines monthly meetings and other activities to train faculty to provide faculty development in teaching skills. Each scholar develops and implements a project to address departmental faculty development needs as well as needs of other departments in the CCOM. To date (2006), 50 faculty members from 19 different departments have participated in the program with an average of 12 scholars per class. The program has resulted in a substantial increase in departmental and college-wide faculty development programming and has had a positive impact on individual scholars' teaching skills and leadership roles.

Outcomes of a teaching scholars program to promote leadership in faculty development.

BACKGROUND: Provision of adequate opportunities for faculty to receive training in teaching skills requires persons with faculty development expertise to provide this training. PURPOSE: In this study, we examined outcomes of a teaching scholars program (TSP) aimed at promoting leaders in faculty development in teaching skills in individual departments and throughout the institution. METHOD: A 3-year TSP, established in 1999, combines monthly meetings and other activities to train faculty representing departments throughout the College of Medicine to provide faculty development in teaching skills. Analysis of program participants' curriculum vitae was conducted to compare preprogram and postprogram faculty development activities. RESULTS: There was substantial increase in program participants' facilitation of teaching skills workshops and development of teaching improvement systems within their home departments. Participants also facilitated an increased number of college-wide workshops. Secondary outcomes included increases in educational leadership positions and education-related presentations and publications. CONCLUSION: The TSP is a successful local model for increasing the resources available for teaching improvement.