Challenging feedback myths: Values, learner involvement and promoting effects beyond the immediate task.

Clicks: 155
ID: 45677
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #24 of 29 articles by views in Medical education

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Research suggests that feedback in the health professions is less useful than we would like. In this paper, we argue that feedback has become reliant on myths that perpetuate unproductive rituals. Feedback often resembles a discrete episode of an educator "telling," rather than an active and iterative involvement of the learner in a future-facing process. With this orientation towards past events, it is not surprising that learners become defensive or disengaged when they are reminded of their deficits.We tackle three myths of feedback: (a) feedback needs praise-criticism balancing rules; (b) feedback is a skill residing within the teacher; and (c) feedback is an input only. For each myth we provide a reframing with supporting examples from the literature.Equipping learners to engage in feedback processes may reduce the emotional burden on both parties, rendering techniques such as the feedback sandwich redundant. We also highlight the benefits for learners and teachers of conceptualising feedback as a relational activity, and of tracing the effects of information exchanges. These effects may be immediate or latent, and may manifest in different forms such as changes in learner evaluative judgement or professional identity.
Reference Key
molloy2019challengingmedical Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Molloy, Elizabeth;Ajjawi, Rola;Bearman, Margaret;Noble, Christy;Rudland, Joy;Ryan, Anna;
Journal Medical education
Year 2019
DOI
10.1111/medu.13802
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.