CONTEXT: Learners can focus on mastery (i.e. task orientation) or on learning relative to others (i.e. ego orientation). Previous research suggests task orientations are optimal for learning, a benefit usually linked to the suggestion that qualitative comments are better for learning than quantitative comparisons (i.e. grades). Yet, it is not clear if the observed effects are attributable to the feedback orientation (i.e. task versus ego), feedback format (i.e. comments versus numerical scores), or an interaction between the two. Here, we aimed to clarify the effects of feedback orientation and feedback format during simulation-based training in endotracheal intubation. METHODS:Forty-one medical students were randomly assigned to four feedback conditions: Task-oriented Numerical; Ego-oriented Numerical; Task-oriented Comment, and Ego-oriented Comment. Participants performed a total of 20 trials of endotracheal intubation. Pre-test, post-test and retention test assessments included the use of hand motion analysis and a global rating scale (GRS). Participants rated feedback credibility, self-assessment and self-confidence using Likert-type scales. Analyses of variance were used to examine group differences. RESULTS: Participants' performance did not differ significantly on the easiest (p > 0.2) or two complex variations of intubation (p > 0.3). For the moderately difficult variation, analyses of hand motion and GRS data revealed significant group differences at post-test (p < 0.05), but no differences on the retention test. Analysis of participants' perceptions showed significant interactions whereby the Ego-oriented Numerical group rated feedback credibility (p < 0.01) higher than the Task-oriented Numerical group; the two Comment groups did not differ. Some participants recounted negative experiences with the feedback they received. CONCLUSIONS:Medical students responded to feedback in ways that challenge previous education research. Specifically, students preferred and improved more in the short term (but not at retention) when receiving Ego-oriented feedback in Numerical form. Although learning retention did not differ significantly across feedback conditions, students' perceptions of themselves and of the teacher and training environment did differ and the implications for trainees' future learning must be considered.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Learners can focus on mastery (i.e. task orientation) or on learning relative to others (i.e. ego orientation). Previous research suggests task orientations are optimal for learning, a benefit usually linked to the suggestion that qualitative comments are better for learning than quantitative comparisons (i.e. grades). Yet, it is not clear if the observed effects are attributable to the feedback orientation (i.e. task versus ego), feedback format (i.e. comments versus numerical scores), or an interaction between the two. Here, we aimed to clarify the effects of feedback orientation and feedback format during simulation-based training in endotracheal intubation. METHODS: Forty-one medical students were randomly assigned to four feedback conditions: Task-oriented Numerical; Ego-oriented Numerical; Task-oriented Comment, and Ego-oriented Comment. Participants performed a total of 20 trials of endotracheal intubation. Pre-test, post-test and retention test assessments included the use of hand motion analysis and a global rating scale (GRS). Participants rated feedback credibility, self-assessment and self-confidence using Likert-type scales. Analyses of variance were used to examine group differences. RESULTS:Participants' performance did not differ significantly on the easiest (p > 0.2) or two complex variations of intubation (p > 0.3). For the moderately difficult variation, analyses of hand motion and GRS data revealed significant group differences at post-test (p < 0.05), but no differences on the retention test. Analysis of participants' perceptions showed significant interactions whereby the Ego-oriented Numerical group rated feedback credibility (p < 0.01) higher than the Task-oriented Numerical group; the two Comment groups did not differ. Some participants recounted negative experiences with the feedback they received. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students responded to feedback in ways that challenge previous education research. Specifically, students preferred and improved more in the short term (but not at retention) when receiving Ego-oriented feedback in Numerical form. Although learning retention did not differ significantly across feedback conditions, students' perceptions of themselves and of the teacher and training environment did differ and the implications for trainees' future learning must be considered.
Authors: Ebbe Thinggaard; Jakob Kleif; Flemming Bjerrum; Jeanett Strandbygaard; Ismail Gögenur; E Matthew Ritter; Lars Konge Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Louise Preisler; Morten Bo Søndergaard Svendsen; Bo Søndergaard; Lene Brink; Tyge Nordentoft; Lars Bo Svendsen; Lars Konge Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-11-17