Discovering social learning ecosystems during clinical clerkship from United States medical students’ feedback encounters: a content analysis.

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-28 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.5
Anna Therese Cianciolo, Heeyoung Han, Lydia Anne Howes, Debra Lee Klamen, Sophia Matos
{"title":"Discovering social learning ecosystems during clinical clerkship from United States medical students’ feedback encounters: a content analysis.","authors":"Anna Therese Cianciolo, Heeyoung Han, Lydia Anne Howes, Debra Lee Klamen, Sophia Matos","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We examined United States medical students’ self-reported feedback encounters during clerkship training to better understand in situ feedback practices. Specifically, we asked: Who do students receive feedback from, about what, when, where, and how do they use it? We explored whether curricular expectations for preceptors’ written commentary aligned with feedback as it occurs naturalistically in the workplace.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study occurred from July 2021 to February 2022 at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. We used qualitative survey-based experience sampling to gather students’ accounts of their feedback encounters in 8 core specialties. We analyzed the who, what, when, where, and why of 267 feedback encounters reported by 11 clerkship students over 30 weeks. Code frequencies were mapped qualitatively to explore patterns in feedback encounters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clerkship feedback occurs in patterns apparently related to the nature of clinical work in each specialty. These patterns may be attributable to each specialty’s “social learning ecosystem”—the distinctive learning environment shaped by the social and material aspects of a given specialty’s work, which determine who preceptors are, what students do with preceptors, and what skills or attributes matter enough to preceptors to comment on.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comprehensive, standardized expectations for written feedback across specialties conflict with the reality of workplace-based learning. Preceptors may be better able—and more motivated—to document student performance that occurs as a natural part of everyday work. Nurturing social learning ecosystems could facilitate workplace-based learning such that, across specialties, students acquire a comprehensive clinical skillset appropriate for graduation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"21 ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10948917/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We examined United States medical students’ self-reported feedback encounters during clerkship training to better understand in situ feedback practices. Specifically, we asked: Who do students receive feedback from, about what, when, where, and how do they use it? We explored whether curricular expectations for preceptors’ written commentary aligned with feedback as it occurs naturalistically in the workplace.

Methods: This study occurred from July 2021 to February 2022 at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. We used qualitative survey-based experience sampling to gather students’ accounts of their feedback encounters in 8 core specialties. We analyzed the who, what, when, where, and why of 267 feedback encounters reported by 11 clerkship students over 30 weeks. Code frequencies were mapped qualitatively to explore patterns in feedback encounters.

Results: Clerkship feedback occurs in patterns apparently related to the nature of clinical work in each specialty. These patterns may be attributable to each specialty’s “social learning ecosystem”—the distinctive learning environment shaped by the social and material aspects of a given specialty’s work, which determine who preceptors are, what students do with preceptors, and what skills or attributes matter enough to preceptors to comment on.

Conclusion: Comprehensive, standardized expectations for written feedback across specialties conflict with the reality of workplace-based learning. Preceptors may be better able—and more motivated—to document student performance that occurs as a natural part of everyday work. Nurturing social learning ecosystems could facilitate workplace-based learning such that, across specialties, students acquire a comprehensive clinical skillset appropriate for graduation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从美国医科学生的反馈遭遇中发现临床实习期间的社会学习生态系统:内容分析。
目的:我们研究了美国医科学生在实习培训期间自我报告的反馈情况,以更好地了解现场反馈实践。具体来说,我们询问学生从谁那里获得反馈,反馈的内容、时间、地点以及他们如何使用反馈?我们探讨了课程对实习指导教师书面评语的期望是否与工作场所自然发生的反馈一致:本研究于 2021 年 7 月至 2022 年 2 月在南伊利诺伊大学医学院进行。我们使用基于定性调查的经验抽样,收集了学生在 8 个核心专业中遇到的反馈情况。我们分析了 11 名实习学生在 30 周内报告的 267 次反馈中的 "谁"、"什么"、"何时"、"何地 "和 "为什么"。我们对代码频率进行了定性映射,以探索反馈遭遇的模式:结果:实习反馈的模式显然与各专业临床工作的性质有关。这些模式可能归因于每个专科的社会学习生态系统--由特定专科工作的社会和物质方面所形成的独特的学习环境,这些方面决定了谁是实习医生、学生与实习医生一起做了什么,以及哪些技能或特质对实习医生来说足够重要,以至于需要进行评论:结论:各专业对书面反馈的全面、标准化要求与基于工作场所的学习现实相冲突。作为日常工作的自然组成部分,实习医生可能更有能力、也更有动力记录学生的表现。培养社会学习生态系统可以促进以工作场所为基础的学习,从而使不同专业的学生获得适合毕业的全面临床技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
期刊最新文献
The irtQ R package: a user-friendly tool for item response theory-based test data analysis and calibration. Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Importance, performance frequency, and predicted future importance of dietitians’ jobs by practicing dietitians in Korea: a survey study Presidential address 2024: the expansion of computer-based testing to numerous health professions licensing examinations in Korea, preparation of computer-based practical tests, and adoption of the medical metaverse. Development and validity evidence for the resident-led large group teaching assessment instrument in the United States: a methodological study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1