Agra Dilshani Hunukumbure1,2, Philippa Jane Horner3,4, Jonathan Fox3,4, Viral Thakerar3,4. 1. Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Pield Heath Road, Uxbridge, UB8 3NN, UK. d.hunukumbure@ic.ac.uk. 2. Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 2BX, UK. d.hunukumbure@ic.ac.uk. 3. Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Pield Heath Road, Uxbridge, UB8 3NN, UK. 4. Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 2BX, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Student evaluation is an essential component in feedback processes in faculty and learner development. Ease of use and low cost have made paper evaluation forms a popular method within teaching programmes, but they are often seen as a formality, offering variable value towards the improvement of teaching. Students report poor motivation to engage with existing feedback tools whilst teachers describe receiving vague, contradicting, or irrelevant information. We believe that feedback for teachers needs to be a two-way process, similar to feedback for students, for it to be effective. An online feedback tool has been implemented for third-year medical students from Imperial College London to promote open discussion between teachers and students. The feedback tool is accessible throughout students' clinical attachment with the option of maintaining anonymity. We aim to explore the benefits and challenges of this online feedback tool and assess its value as a method for teacher feedback. METHODS: Qualitative data was obtained from both volunteer third-year medical students of Imperial College London and Clinical Teaching Fellows using three focus groups and a questionnaire. Data was analysed through iterative coding and thematic analysis to provide over-arching analytical themes. RESULTS: Twenty-nine students trialled this feedback tool with 17 responding to the evaluative questionnaire. Four over-arching themes were identified: reasons for poor participation with traditional feedback tools; student motivators to engage with 'open feedback'; evaluative benefits from open feedback; concerns and barriers with open feedback. CONCLUSION: This feedback tool provides a platform for two-way feedback by encouraging open, transparent discussion between teachers and learners. It gives a unique insight into both teachers and peers' perspectives. Students engage better when their responses are acknowledged by the teachers. We elaborate on the benefits and challenges of public open feedback and approaches to consider in addressing the self-censorship of critical comments.
BACKGROUND: Student evaluation is an essential component in feedback processes in faculty and learner development. Ease of use and low cost have made paper evaluation forms a popular method within teaching programmes, but they are often seen as a formality, offering variable value towards the improvement of teaching. Students report poor motivation to engage with existing feedback tools whilst teachers describe receiving vague, contradicting, or irrelevant information. We believe that feedback for teachers needs to be a two-way process, similar to feedback for students, for it to be effective. An online feedback tool has been implemented for third-year medical students from Imperial College London to promote open discussion between teachers and students. The feedback tool is accessible throughout students' clinical attachment with the option of maintaining anonymity. We aim to explore the benefits and challenges of this online feedback tool and assess its value as a method for teacher feedback. METHODS: Qualitative data was obtained from both volunteer third-year medical students of Imperial College London and Clinical Teaching Fellows using three focus groups and a questionnaire. Data was analysed through iterative coding and thematic analysis to provide over-arching analytical themes. RESULTS: Twenty-nine students trialled this feedback tool with 17 responding to the evaluative questionnaire. Four over-arching themes were identified: reasons for poor participation with traditional feedback tools; student motivators to engage with 'open feedback'; evaluative benefits from open feedback; concerns and barriers with open feedback. CONCLUSION: This feedback tool provides a platform for two-way feedback by encouraging open, transparent discussion between teachers and learners. It gives a unique insight into both teachers and peers' perspectives. Students engage better when their responses are acknowledged by the teachers. We elaborate on the benefits and challenges of public open feedback and approaches to consider in addressing the self-censorship of critical comments.
Authors: Joan M Sargeant; Karen V Mann; Cees P van der Vleuten; Job F Metsemakers Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2008-06-05 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Doreen M Olvet; Joanne M Willey; Jeffrey B Bird; Jill M Rabin; R Ellen Pearlman; Judith Brenner Journal: Med Teach Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Michael Hessler; Daniel M Pöpping; Hanna Hollstein; Hendrik Ohlenburg; Philip H Arnemann; Christina Massoth; Laura M Seidel; Alexander Zarbock; Manuel Wenk Journal: Med Educ Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 6.251