Could the R2C2 Feedback and Coaching Model Enhance Feedback Literacy Behaviors: A Qualitative Study Exploring Learner-Preceptor Feedback Conversations.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-01-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pme.1368
Subha Ramani, Heather Armson, Tessa Hanmore, Rachelle Lee-Krueger, Karen D Könings, Amanda Roze des Ordons, Marygrace Zetkulic, Joan Sargeant, Jocelyn M Lockyer
{"title":"Could the R2C2 Feedback and Coaching Model Enhance Feedback Literacy Behaviors: A Qualitative Study Exploring Learner-Preceptor Feedback Conversations.","authors":"Subha Ramani, Heather Armson, Tessa Hanmore, Rachelle Lee-Krueger, Karen D Könings, Amanda Roze des Ordons, Marygrace Zetkulic, Joan Sargeant, Jocelyn M Lockyer","doi":"10.5334/pme.1368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Feedback literacy (FBL) is a critical skill for learners encompassing four behaviors: appreciating feedback, making judgements, managing affect, and taking action. Little guidance has been available for clinical preceptors to promote FBL. The R2C2 feedback and coaching model that guides teachers through building Relationships, exploring Reactions and Reflections, discussing Content and Coaching to co-develop an action plan for follow-up may support FBL. This study sought to identify whether R2C2 conversations operationalized FBL behaviors and the factors that appeared to influence FBL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on data from a multi-institutional, qualitative study involving 15 dyads of learners (residents and medical students) and their physician preceptors, a secondary analysis of R2C2-guided feedback conversations and debriefing interviews was undertaken. A framework analysis mapped the data to FBL behaviors and explored factors that impacted behaviors in the context of the research and theories underpinning R2C2 and FBL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most elements of FBL behaviors were demonstrated in R2C2 conversations. Appreciating feedback and making judgements were most consistently noted. There was less evidence of managing affect as learners indicated acceptance of feedback. There was variability in the co-creation of action plans. Some created action plans, others had incomplete or no plan for immediate action or follow-up. FBL appeared to be impacted by learner-preceptor relationships, active learner engagement in feedback discussions, and personal characteristics.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our analysis demonstrated that effective use of the R2C2 model could enhance FBL behaviors provided attention was paid to optimizing all phases of R2C2, particularly co-creation of action plans for follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"14 1","pages":"9-19"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11740720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1368","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Feedback literacy (FBL) is a critical skill for learners encompassing four behaviors: appreciating feedback, making judgements, managing affect, and taking action. Little guidance has been available for clinical preceptors to promote FBL. The R2C2 feedback and coaching model that guides teachers through building Relationships, exploring Reactions and Reflections, discussing Content and Coaching to co-develop an action plan for follow-up may support FBL. This study sought to identify whether R2C2 conversations operationalized FBL behaviors and the factors that appeared to influence FBL.

Methods: Based on data from a multi-institutional, qualitative study involving 15 dyads of learners (residents and medical students) and their physician preceptors, a secondary analysis of R2C2-guided feedback conversations and debriefing interviews was undertaken. A framework analysis mapped the data to FBL behaviors and explored factors that impacted behaviors in the context of the research and theories underpinning R2C2 and FBL.

Results: Most elements of FBL behaviors were demonstrated in R2C2 conversations. Appreciating feedback and making judgements were most consistently noted. There was less evidence of managing affect as learners indicated acceptance of feedback. There was variability in the co-creation of action plans. Some created action plans, others had incomplete or no plan for immediate action or follow-up. FBL appeared to be impacted by learner-preceptor relationships, active learner engagement in feedback discussions, and personal characteristics.

Discussion: Our analysis demonstrated that effective use of the R2C2 model could enhance FBL behaviors provided attention was paid to optimizing all phases of R2C2, particularly co-creation of action plans for follow-up.

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
R2C2反馈与辅导模式是否能提高反馈读写行为:学习者-训导反馈对话的质性研究
导读:反馈素养(FBL)是学习者的一项关键技能,包括四种行为:欣赏反馈、做出判断、管理影响和采取行动。临床训导人员推广FBL的指导很少。R2C2反馈和指导模式通过建立关系、探索反应和反思、讨论内容和指导来指导教师共同制定后续行动计划,这可能会支持FBL。本研究旨在确定R2C2对话是否对FBL行为产生操作作用,以及影响FBL的因素。方法:基于一项涉及15对学习者(住院医师和医学生)及其医师导师的多机构定性研究数据,对r2c2引导的反馈对话和述情访谈进行二次分析。框架分析将数据映射到FBL行为,并在R2C2和FBL的研究和理论背景下探讨影响行为的因素。结果:FBL行为的大部分要素在R2C2会话中得到了体现。最常提到的是欣赏反馈和做出判断。当学习者表示接受反馈时,管理情感的证据较少。在共同制定行动计划方面存在可变性。一些公司制定了行动计划,另一些公司则没有立即采取行动或后续行动的计划。FBL似乎受到学习者-导师关系、学习者积极参与反馈讨论和个人特征的影响。讨论:我们的分析表明,如果注意优化R2C2的各个阶段,特别是共同制定后续行动计划,那么有效使用R2C2模型可以增强FBL行为。
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
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO). Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
期刊最新文献
Implementing IPE in a Workplace Setting: Educational Design Research Promotes Transformative Participation. Seeing Ourselves in Others: Understanding and Addressing Biases in Medical School Admissions Processes. Could the R2C2 Feedback and Coaching Model Enhance Feedback Literacy Behaviors: A Qualitative Study Exploring Learner-Preceptor Feedback Conversations. Introducing the Next Era in Assessment. Breaking Bad News to Learners: How Well Does the SPIKES Clinical Model Translate?
×
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