Search

Feedback is considered important to acquire clinical skills. Research evidence shows that feedback does not always improve learning and its effects may be small. In many studies, a variety of variables involved in feedback provision may mask either one of their effects. E.g., there is reason to believe that the way oral feedback is framed may affect its effect if other variables are held constant. In a randomised controlled trial we investigated the effect of positively and negatively framed feedback messages on satisfaction, self-efficacy, and performance. A single blind randomised controlled between-subject design was used, with framing of the feedback message (positively-negatively) as independent variable and examination of hearing abilities as the task. First year medical students' (n = 59) satisfaction, self-efficacy, and performance were the dependent variables and were measured both directly after the intervention and after a 2 weeks delay. Students in the positively framed feedback condition were significantly more satisfied and showed significantly higher self-efficacy measured directly after the performance. Effect sizes found were large, i.e., partial ?[superscript 2] = 0.43 and ?[superscript 2] = 0.32 respectively. They showed a better performance throughout the whole study. Significant performance differences were found both at the initial performance and when measured 2 weeks after the intervention: effects were of medium size, respectively r = -0.31 and r = -0.32. Over time in both conditions performance and self-efficacy decreased. Framing the feedback message in either a positive or negative manner affects students' satisfaction and self-efficacy directly after the intervention be it that these effects seem to fade out over time. Performance may be enhanced by positive framing, but additional studies need to confirm this. We recommend using a positive frame when giving feedback on clinical skills.

This study aimed to evaluate a training programme for Dutch teachers in six institutes for nursing education to support students' reflection skills. The research question was: what are the feasibility, quality and effects of the programme? The training programme focused on four competences of teachers regarding instructing, guiding, giving feedback on and assessing students' reflection skills. The programme development was informed by research-based features of effective teacher professional development and expertise about reflection and feedback. Nineteen teachers took part in the training programme and eight teachers formed a control group. Pre-measurements concerned teachers' initial knowledge, experience, beliefs, practices and self-assessment of competences. During the programme, data were gathered about participants' appraisal of the content and activities, learning concerns and perceived results. Post-measurements concerned quality and effects of the programme, using teachers' assessment of own development, current teaching activities and repeated measurement of certain practices, beliefs and self-assessment of competences. Teachers' appraisal of the training programme was fairly positive. Results indicate that teachers can develop competences in supporting students' reflection skills and improve their practice in a relatively modest amount of time by participating in a purposeful and coherent programme including relevant content, active learning and expert feedback. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

This study investigated the effects of feedback providing improvement strategies and a reflection assignment on students' writing motivation, process, and performance. Students in the experimental feedback condition (n = 41) received feedback including improvement strategies, whereas students in the control feedback condition (n = 41) received feedback without improvement strategies. Within each feedback condition, half of the students received a reflection assignment on feedback use and the revision (experimental reflection condition), while the other half received a reflection assignment on feedback perception (control reflection condition). Results indicated that in the experimental feedback condition writing performance gained from the control reflection assignment, while in the control feedback condition it gained from the experimental reflection assignment. Improvement strategies negatively predicted self-efficacy beliefs, especially when initial self-efficacy beliefs were low, and positively predicted planning/revising. Reflections on feedback use and the revision positively predicted mastery goal when mastery goal initially was low or moderate. (Contains 9 tables and 2 figures.)

Education aiming at students' competence development asks for new assessment methods. The quality of these methods needs to be assured using adapted quality criteria and accompanying standards. As such standards are not widely available, this study sets out to examine what level of compliance with quality criteria stakeholders consider satisfactory. Two professional education programmes specified the implicit standards they applied in a self-evaluation procedure designed to evaluate the quality of their Competence Assessment Programs (CAPs). They specified similar cut-off scores, but different descriptive standards. Analysis revealed that this was due to their experience with competence-based education and the quality of their own CAP, but influences of the selected method and the understanding of the quality criteria were also found. As such, the specified standards are local, but meaningful for the programmes' quality assurance. Implications for self-evaluation and standard-setting procedures are discussed. (Contains 3 tables.)

Current international demands to strengthen the teaching profession have led to an increased development and use of professional content standards. The study aims to provide insight in the construct validity of content standards by researching experts' underlying assumptions and preferences when participating in a delphi method. In three rounds 21 experts judged and revised content standards about teaching students research skills. The method resulted in nine content standards with a high degree of consensus and support. A qualitative analysis of experts' comments and a Homals analysis on their preferences showed that they differ in the assumptions and preferences from which they judged the content standards. The value of consensus approaches for developing and validating content standards is discussed. (Contains 2 figures and 3 tables.)

The effects of progress feedback on university students' writing mastery goal, self-efficacy beliefs, and writing performance were examined in this experiment. Students in the experimental condition (n = 42) received progress feedback on their writing assignment, whereas students in the control condition (n = 44) received feedback without progress information. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was used to measure students' writing mastery goal and self-efficacy beliefs. Results showed that progress feedback did not affect students' writing mastery goal and performance but did affect students' self-efficacy beliefs. The effect depended on the number of progress comments. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.)

This study concerns the relation between teachers' beliefs towards teaching behaviour and their actual teaching behaviour in teacher portfolio assessment. We analysed the beliefs and behaviour of 18 teachers as described in their portfolios. In addition, each portfolio was independently assessed by two trained raters on eight content standards and the teachers' classroom behaviour was assessed by their own students in a questionnaire (n = 317). Linear multilevel analysis showed that part of the raters' assessments of the teachers' beliefs and their behaviour as described in their portfolios was significantly related to the students' assessments of their teachers' behaviour. Teachers with high raters' assessments on the content standard about "choosing and arguing for teaching strategies that meet students' knowledge, abilities and experience" had significantly higher student assessments than teachers who were judged low on this standard. Implications of the results and suggestions for further research are discussed. (Contains 3 figures and 1 table.)

Carries out a study into the choice of physics in secondary education against a background of disappointing percentages of students choosing exact and technical studies and the academic choice research tradition. Focuses on the predictive value of certain characteristics of the curriculum, the differences between schools, and the stability of the choice variable. (Author/SAH)

Purpose: Medical students receive feedback during clerkships from many different sources: attendings, residents, paramedics, other clerks and even patients. Not all feedback providers have similar impact on learning. One characteristic that is believed to have impact is their credibility to the recipient. This study investigates the effects of feedback provider credibility on medical student satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance with a trained skill. Methods: A single-blind randomized controlled between-subjects design was used, with feedback provider credibility (high–low) as independent variable and examination of hearing abilities as the task. First year medical students’ (n = 68) satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance were the dependent variables and were measured both directly after the intervention and after a three-week delay. Results: Credibility did not significantly affect immediate or delayed self-efficacy. Students receiving feedback from a high-credibility source were more satisfied with the feedback. They did not perform significantly better immediately after the feedback intervention, but did so three weeks after the intervention. High credibility was associated with a perception of a negative feedback message and an unsocial feedback provider. Conclusions: Feedback provider credibility impacts satisfaction with feedback and delayed performance. If feedback is not effective in clinical settings, feedback providers may reconsider their credibility. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Context Feedback is considered important in medical education. The literature is not clear about the mechanisms that contribute to its effects, which are often small to moderate and at times contradictory. A variety of variables seem to influence the impact of feedback on learning. The aim of this study was to determine which variables influence the process and outcomes of feedback in settings relevant to medical education. Methods A myriad of studies on feedback have been conducted. To determine the most researched variables, we limited our review to meta-analyses and literature reviews published in the period from January 1986 to February 2012. According to our protocol, we first identified features of the feedback process that influence its effects and subsequently variables that influence these features. We used a chronological model of the feedback process to categorise all variables found. Results A systematic search of ERIC, Psyc INFO and MEDLINE yielded 1101 publications, which we reduced to 203, rejecting papers on six exclusion criteria. Of these, 46 met the inclusion criteria. In our four-phase model, we identified 33 variables linked to task performance (e.g. task complexity, task nature) and feedback reception (e.g. self-esteem, goal-setting behaviour) by trainees, and to observation (e.g. focus, intensity) and feedback provision (e.g. form, content) by supervisors that influence the subsequent effects of the feedback process. Variables from all phases influence the feedback process and effects, but variables that influence the quality of the observation and rating of the performance dominate the literature. There is a paucity of studies addressing other, seemingly relevant variables. Conclusions The larger picture of variables that influence the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical education, shows many open spaces. We suggest that targeted studies be carried out to expand our knowledge of these important aspects of feedback in medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]