Center for Innovation in Medical Education, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jun 8;21(1):332. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02755-z.
Teaching is an important professional skill for physicians and providing feedback is an important part of teaching. Medical students can practice their feedback skills by giving each other peer feedback. Therefore, we developed a peer feedback training in which students observed a peer that modelled the use of good feedback principles. Students then elaborated on the modelled feedback principles through peer discussion. This combination of peer modelling and discussing the modelled feedback principles was expected to enhance emulation of the feedback principles compared to (1) only peer modelling and (2) discussing the feedback principles without previous modelling.
In a quasi-experimental study design, 141 medical students were assigned randomly to three training conditions: peer modelling plus discussion (MD), non-peer modelled example (NM) or peer modelling without discussion (M). Before and after the training, they commented on papers written by peers. These comments served as a pre- and a post-measure of peer feedback. The comments were coded into different functions and aspects of the peer feedback. Non-parametrical Kruskall-Wallis tests were used to check for pre- and post-measure between-group differences in the functions and aspects.
Before the training, there were no significant between-group differences in feedback functions and aspects. After the training, the MD-condition gave significantly more positive peer feedback than the NM-condition. However, no other functions or aspects were significantly different between the three conditions, mainly because the within-group interquartile ranges were large.
The large interquartile ranges suggest that students differed substantially in the effort placed into giving peer feedback. Therefore, additional incentives may be needed to motivate students to give good feedback. Teachers could emphasise the utility value of peer feedback as an important professional skill and the importance of academic altruism and professional accountability in the peer feedback process. Such incentives may convince more students to put more effort into giving peer feedback.
教学是医生的一项重要专业技能,提供反馈是教学的重要组成部分。医学生可以通过相互给予同伴反馈来练习他们的反馈技能。因此,我们开发了一种同伴反馈培训,学生观察同伴示范使用良好的反馈原则。然后,学生通过同伴讨论来详细说明所示范的反馈原则。与(1)仅同伴示范和(2)在没有先前示范的情况下讨论反馈原则相比,这种同伴示范和讨论所示范的反馈原则的组合预计会增强对反馈原则的模仿。
在一项准实验设计研究中,将 141 名医学生随机分配到三种培训条件:同伴示范加讨论(MD)、非同伴示范示例(NM)或无讨论的同伴示范(M)。在培训之前和之后,他们对同伴撰写的论文进行了评论。这些评论作为同伴反馈的前测和后测。这些评论被编码为同伴反馈的不同功能和方面。使用非参数 Kruskal-Wallis 检验检查功能和方面的前测和后测之间的组间差异。
在培训之前,不同功能和方面的反馈没有明显的组间差异。培训后,MD 条件比 NM 条件给予的积极同伴反馈明显更多。然而,在三种条件之间,没有其他功能或方面存在显著差异,主要是因为组内四分位距较大。
较大的四分位距表明,学生在给予同伴反馈方面的努力程度存在很大差异。因此,可能需要额外的激励措施来激励学生提供良好的反馈。教师可以强调同伴反馈作为一项重要的专业技能的实用价值,以及学术利他主义和专业问责制在同伴反馈过程中的重要性。这些激励措施可能会说服更多的学生投入更多的精力来提供同伴反馈。