W. Tavares is assistant professor and scientist at both The Wilson Centre and the Post-MD Education Office, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and scientist, Paramedic and Senior Services, Community Health Services Department, Regional Municipality of York, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8267-9448. W. Eppich is associate professor of pediatrics-emergency medicine and medical education, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. A. Cheng is associate professor of pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. S. Miller is associate professor of emergency medicine and medical education, Department of Emergency Medicine, and assistant dean, undergraduate medical education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. P.W. Teunissen is professor, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and maternal fetal medicine specialist, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. C.J. Watling is professor, Departments of Clinical Neurological Sciences and Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. J. Sargeant is professor, Continuing Professional Development Program and Division of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Acad Med. 2020 Jul;95(7):1020-1025. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002932.
Feedback and debriefing are experience-informed dialogues upon which experiential models of learning often depend. Efforts to understand each have largely been independent of each other, thus splitting them into potentially problematic and less productive factions. Given their shared purpose of improving future performance, the authors asked whether efforts to understand these dialogues are, for theoretical and pragmatic reasons, best advanced by keeping these concepts unique or whether some unifying conceptual framework could better support educational contributions and advancements in medical education.The authors identified seminal works and foundational concepts to formulate a purposeful review and analysis exploring these dialogues' theoretical roots and their manifestations. They considered conceptual and theoretical details within and across feedback and debriefing literatures and traced developmental paths to discover underlying and foundational conceptual approaches and theoretical similarities and differences.Findings suggest that each of these strategies was derived from distinct theoretical roots, leading to variations in how they have been studied, advanced, and enacted; both now draw on multiple (often similar) educational theories, also positioning themselves as ways of operationalizing similar educational frameworks. Considerable commonality now exists; those studying and advancing feedback and debriefing are leveraging similar cognitive and social theories to refine and structure their approaches. As such, there may be room to merge these educational strategies as learning conversations because of their conceptual and theoretical consistency. Future scholarly work should further delineate the theoretical, educational, and practical relevance of integrating feedback and debriefing.
反馈和剖析是经验导向对话，学习的经验模型通常依赖于此。尽管人们在很大程度上分别努力理解这两个概念，但这两个概念却彼此割裂，导致它们分成了可能有问题的和效率较低的两个部分。鉴于它们都有提高未来表现的共同目的，作者询问，从理论和实践的角度来看，最好是通过保持这些概念的独特性来进一步理解这些对话，还是通过一些统一的概念框架来更好地支持医学教育中的教育贡献和发展。
作者确定了开创性的著作和基础概念，以有针对性的回顾和分析探索这些对话的理论根源及其表现形式。他们考虑了反馈和剖析文献中的概念和理论细节，并追溯了发展路径，以发现潜在的和基础的概念方法以及理论上的相似和不同。
研究结果表明，这些策略中的每一种都源自不同的理论根源，导致它们在研究、推进和实施方面存在差异；两者现在都借鉴了多种（通常相似）的教育理论，也将自己定位为实施类似教育框架的方式。现在已经存在相当多的共性；那些研究和推进反馈和剖析的人正在利用类似的认知和社会理论来完善和构建他们的方法。因此，由于这些教育策略在概念和理论上具有一致性，它们可能有融合为学习对话的空间。未来的学术工作应该进一步阐明整合反馈和剖析的理论、教育和实践相关性。
