Dataset Information

Micro-feedback skills workshop impacts perceptions and practices of doctoral faculty.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Doctoral supervision is a distinct form of supervision with clearly defined responsibilities. One of these is the delivery of effective face-to-face feedback to allow supervisees to improve upon their performances. Unfortunately, doctoral supervisors, especially of health sciences, are often not trained in supervisory skills and therefore practice mostly on a trial and error basis. Lack of understanding of the feedback process leads to incongruence in how supervisors and supervisees perceive feedback. However, standardized training practices like microteaching can allow supervisors to acquire effective feedback practices. In this study we employed a schematic approach of microteaching, that is micro-feedback, in a workshop to develop feedback skills of doctoral supervisors, and assessed the overall effectiveness of this training using the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework. METHODOLOGY:This was a Quasi-experimental study with a repeated measures and a two-group separate sample pre-post test design. A micro-feedback skills workshop was organized to enhance feedback skills of doctoral supervisors using microteaching technique. The first two levels of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model were used to determine the workshop's effectiveness. An informal Objective Structured Teaching Exercise (OSTE) was used to assess feedback skills of the supervisors, both before and after the workshop. A questionnaire was developed to compare pre-and post-workshop perceptions of the supervisors (n =?17) and their corresponding supervisees (n =?34) regarding the ongoing feedback practice. RESULTS:Despite the hectic schedule, most doctoral supervisors (17 of 24, 71%) were willing to undertake faculty development training. Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the workshop. A learning gain of 56% was observed on pre-post OSTE scores. Prior to the workshop, perceptions of how supervisees should be given the feedback differed significantly between supervisors and supervisees with an effect size difference of r =?0.30. After the workshop there was a negligible difference in perceptions between supervisors and supervisees (r =?.001). Interestingly, supervisors shifted their perceptions more toward those that were originally held by the supervisees. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that well-designed and properly assessed structured programs such as micro-feedback workshops can improve how doctoral supervisors provide feedback to their supervisees and align supervisors' perceptions of that feedback with those of their supervisees.

SUBMITTER: Baseer N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6995071 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Micro-feedback skills workshop impacts perceptions and practices of doctoral faculty.

Baseer Najma N Degnan James J Moffat Mandy M Mahboob Usman U

BMC medical education 20200131 1

<h4>Background</h4>Doctoral supervision is a distinct form of supervision with clearly defined responsibilities. One of these is the delivery of effective face-to-face feedback to allow supervisees to improve upon their performances. Unfortunately, doctoral supervisors, especially of health sciences, are often not trained in supervisory skills and therefore practice mostly on a trial and error basis. Lack of understanding of the feedback process leads to incongruence in how supervisors and super ...[more]

PMID: 32005229

Similar Datasets

Project description:Standardized patients are widely used in training of medical students, both in teaching and assessment. They also frequently lead complete training sessions delivering physical examination skills without the aid of faculty teaching staff-acting as "patient instructors" (PIs). An important part of this training is their ability to provide detailed structured feedback to students which has a strong impact on their learning success. Yet, to date no study has assessed the quality of physical examination related feedback by PIs. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled study comparing feedback of PIs and faculty staff following a physical examination assessed by students and video assessors.14 PIs and 14 different faculty staff physicians both delivered feedback to 40 medical students that had performed a physical examination on the respective PI while the physicians observed the performance. The physical examination was rated by two independent video assessors to provide an objective performance standard (gold standard). Feedback of PI and physicians was content analyzed by two different independent video assessors based on a provided checklist and compared to the performance standard. Feedback of PIs and physicians was also rated by medical students and video assessors using a questionnaire consisting of 12 items.There was no statistical significant difference concerning overall matching of physician or PI feedback with gold standard ratings by video assessment (p = .219). There was also no statistical difference when focusing only on items that were classified as major key steps (p = .802), mistakes or parts that were left out during physical examination (p = .219) or mistakes in communication items (p = .517). The feedback of physicians was significantly better rated than PI feedback both by students (p = .043) as well as by video assessors (p = .034).In summary, our study demonstrates that trained PIs are able to provide feedback of equal quantitative value to that of faculty staff physicians with regard to a physical examination performed on them. However, both the students and the video raters judged the quality of the feedback given by the physicians to be significantly better than that of the PIs.

Dataset Information

Micro-feedback skills workshop impacts perceptions and practices of doctoral faculty.

Publications

Micro-feedback skills workshop impacts perceptions and practices of doctoral faculty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets