Explorando la alfabetización en feedback en la formación de profesionales de la salud: un estudio cualitativo

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rmclc.2024.10.004
Javiera Fuentes-Cimma MSc , Francisca Rammsy , Alanis Molina-Obreque , Valentina Murga-Alfaro , Catalina Neira-Silva , Daniela Olivares-Maturana , Ignacio Villagrán MSc
{"title":"Explorando la alfabetización en feedback en la formación de profesionales de la salud: un estudio cualitativo","authors":"Javiera Fuentes-Cimma MSc ,&nbsp;Francisca Rammsy ,&nbsp;Alanis Molina-Obreque ,&nbsp;Valentina Murga-Alfaro ,&nbsp;Catalina Neira-Silva ,&nbsp;Daniela Olivares-Maturana ,&nbsp;Ignacio Villagrán MSc","doi":"10.1016/j.rmclc.2024.10.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Feedback is recognized as a process in which students make sense of information from various sources and use it to improve performance. Several studies have shown dissatisfaction from students about this process, which could mean there is no conceptual consensus about this process.</div><div>Feedback literacy refers to the understanding and capacities to make sense of the information received and use it to improve performance, which is considered essential for an effective feedback process. Despite its importance, the implications that student feedback literacy has in teaching and course design have not been sufficiently taken into account, and uncertainty persists about engaging them effectively, especially in clinical settings.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>Cross-sectional study with a pragmatic approach and qualitative methods. First and fourth-year students from health-related careers at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile were invited to participate. Six focus groups were organized, and thematic analysis was used.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Three themes guided the findings. Differences exist between first- and fourth-year students regarding their capacity to recognize feedback instances and how they make sense of their experiences with this educational strategy. Students perceive feedback as a one-way process. Higher-level students recognize more instances of feedback.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Understanding students’ feedback literacy will enable future educational interventions on feedback processes in Health Sciences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":31544,"journal":{"name":"Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes","volume":"35 5","pages":"Pages 484-490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0716864024000798","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Feedback is recognized as a process in which students make sense of information from various sources and use it to improve performance. Several studies have shown dissatisfaction from students about this process, which could mean there is no conceptual consensus about this process.
Feedback literacy refers to the understanding and capacities to make sense of the information received and use it to improve performance, which is considered essential for an effective feedback process. Despite its importance, the implications that student feedback literacy has in teaching and course design have not been sufficiently taken into account, and uncertainty persists about engaging them effectively, especially in clinical settings.

Methodology

Cross-sectional study with a pragmatic approach and qualitative methods. First and fourth-year students from health-related careers at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile were invited to participate. Six focus groups were organized, and thematic analysis was used.

Results

Three themes guided the findings. Differences exist between first- and fourth-year students regarding their capacity to recognize feedback instances and how they make sense of their experiences with this educational strategy. Students perceive feedback as a one-way process. Higher-level students recognize more instances of feedback.

Conclusions

Understanding students’ feedback literacy will enable future educational interventions on feedback processes in Health Sciences.
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
探索卫生专业人员培训中的反馈素养:一项定性研究
导言反馈被认为是学生理解各种来源的信息并将其用于提高成绩的一个过程。一些研究表明,学生对这一过程并不满意,这可能意味着在这一过程的概念上还没有达成共识。反馈素养指的是对所收到的信息进行理解并将其用于提高成绩的理解和能力,这被认为是有效的反馈过程所必不可少的。尽管反馈素养很重要,但学生反馈素养对教学和课程设计的影响尚未得到充分考虑,如何有效地让学生参与其中,尤其是在临床环境中,仍存在不确定性。邀请智利天主教主教大学健康相关专业的一年级和四年级学生参加。研究组织了六个焦点小组,并采用了主题分析法。一年级学生和四年级学生在识别反馈实例的能力以及如何理解这一教育策略的经验方面存在差异。学生认为反馈是一个单向的过程。结论 了解学生的反馈素养将有助于未来在健康科学中对反馈过程进行教育干预。
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
Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes
Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
81 days
期刊最新文献
EDITORIAL Predictores del éxito académico en estudiantes de pregrado de la carrera de Nutrición y Dietética de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Autorregulación del aprendizaje en estudiantes chilenos de nivel técnico superior de Odontología: diferencias entre género y semestre de estudio Módulo de promoción del uso responsable de antimicrobianos en odontología: diseño instruccional guiado por la teoría de carga cognitiva La toma de decisiones durante las prácticas clínicas: análisis desde la neuroeducación
×
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