1 / 23

Approaches to Feedback in Graduate Entry Medicine

Approaches to Feedback in Graduate Entry Medicine. Phil Newton Nov 7 th 2012. Feedback in the College of Medicine. The Feedback cycle Collection of and responses to weekly feedback from students Turning Point http://salt.swan.ac.uk/conference2012/?page_id=144 Post-exam feedback

melba
Download Presentation

Approaches to Feedback in Graduate Entry Medicine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Approaches to Feedback in Graduate Entry Medicine Phil Newton Nov 7th 2012

  2. Feedback in the College of Medicine • The Feedback cycle • Collection of and responses to weekly feedback from students • Turning Point • http://salt.swan.ac.uk/conference2012/?page_id=144 • Post-exam feedback • Evaluation and improvement of feedback provided for written assignments

  3. Post-exam feedback • Director of Assessment – Dr Steve Capey • Students invited to a session after every written examination (EMQs and SBAs) • Steve runs through every question • Correct answers • Common incorrect answers • Directs to teaching leads for specific questions • Students have their scripts available • Check their scoring

  4. Student Selected Clinical ProjectsARE TRANSFERABLE SKILLS PROJECTS

  5. InterventionDesign and Evaluation • Redesign form • Structured, so markers are guided towards providing constructive feedback • Pair of questions for each domains • What was done well? • Changes which would improve the assignment? • Improve quantity + quality of feedback? • Evaluate feedback provision • For oral (Y1) and poster (Y2) presentation • Before (2009) + After (2010)

  6. All studies the same?

  7. Did we write more? Words Statements

  8. The ‘Marker 2’ effect • Marker 2.....you’re just as important!

  9. Is it any good though? http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.aspx

  10. TYPES OF WRITTEN FEEDBACKGLOVER AND BROWN 2006 • NEGATIVE • TYPE 1 “This is bad” • (This IS bad!) • TYPE 2 “This is bad because” • Student learns what not to do next time • TYPE 3 “This is bad because and would have been better if” • Student learns how to improve • POSITIVE • TYPE 1 “This is good” • Thanks...... But why? Is weakly reinforcing • TYPE 2 “This is good because” • Student learns what to keep doing next time • TYPE 3 “This is good because and would be better if” • Student learns how to improve • NEUTRAL – “this is”

  11. TYPES OF WRITTEN FEEDBACKGLOVER AND BROWN 2006 • NEGATIVE • TYPE 1 “This is bad” • (This IS bad!) • TYPE 2 “This is bad because” • Student learns what not to do next time • TYPE 3 “This is bad because and would have been better if” • Student learns how to improve • POSITIVE • TYPE 1 “This is good” • Thanks...... But why? Is weakly reinforcing • TYPE 2 “This is good because” • Student learns what to keep doing next time • TYPE 3 “This is good because and would be better if” • Student learns how to improve • NEUTRAL – “this is”

  12. Example Feedback on a neuroscience presentation • A well chosen topic presented with clear and accurate slides.However, the presentation was let down by a shaky delivery, reading from the slides/notes and poor timekeeping. Also, the structure of the talk was a little difficult to follow.

  13. Example Feedback on a neuroscience presentation • A well chosen topic (P1)presented with clear (P2) and accurate (P2) slides.However, the presentation was let down by a shaky delivery (N2), reading from the slides/notes (N3) and poor timekeeping (N3). Also, the structure of the talk was a little difficult to follow (N2).

  14. Qualitybefore restructuring - it’s alright!

  15. Form restructuring affect Quality?

  16. Yeah, but • No proof that changing the form structure causes the improvements in feedback • Different cohorts, slightly different markers • Mean marks not differe2x assignments, independent evaluator • Useful exercise for all • Feedback quality is actually good • Quantity? No comparator • Clear guidance and training

  17. Do they like it?Markers and students? • Follow up study • Royal College of Surgeons • Student research posters judged by panel of 11 markers • Each marker had mix of blank + structured forms allocated for use on specific posters • Each student received 1 blank and 1 structured • No detailed analysis of feedback yet

  18. Markers Rating Preference

  19. Students

  20. Summary • Careful structuring of a feedback proforma is associated with an increase in the quality and quantity of feedback provided to medical students completing written assignments • Students like the structured form • Markers like everything!

  21. Published p.newton@swansea.ac.uk @newtonsneurosci http://jeehp.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/0144JEEHP/jeehp-9-10.pdf

More Related