临床教育工作者计划有效反馈遭遇的常用模型和方法。

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.35
Cesar Orsini, Veena Rodrigues, Jorge Tricio, Margarita Rosel
{"title":"临床教育工作者计划有效反馈遭遇的常用模型和方法。","authors":"Cesar Orsini,&nbsp;Veena Rodrigues,&nbsp;Jorge Tricio,&nbsp;Margarita Rosel","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Giving constructive feedback is crucial for learners to bridge the gap between their current performance and the desired standards of\ncompetence. Giving effective feedback is a skill that can be learned, practiced, and improved. Therefore, our aim was to explore models\nin clinical settings and assess their transferability to different clinical feedback encounters. We identified the 6 most common and accepted feedback models, including the Feedback Sandwich, the Pendleton Rules, the One-Minute Preceptor, the SET-GO model, the R2C2 (Rapport/Reaction/Content/Coach), and the ALOBA (Agenda Led Outcome-based Analysis) model. We present a handy resource describing their structure, strengths and weaknesses, requirements for educators and learners, and suitable feedback encounters\nfor use for each model. These feedback models represent practical frameworks for educators to adopt but also to adapt to their preferred style, combining and modifying them if necessary to suit their needs and context.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"19 ","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9842479/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common models and approaches for the clinical educator to plan effective feedback encounters.\",\"authors\":\"Cesar Orsini,&nbsp;Veena Rodrigues,&nbsp;Jorge Tricio,&nbsp;Margarita Rosel\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Giving constructive feedback is crucial for learners to bridge the gap between their current performance and the desired standards of\\ncompetence. Giving effective feedback is a skill that can be learned, practiced, and improved. Therefore, our aim was to explore models\\nin clinical settings and assess their transferability to different clinical feedback encounters. We identified the 6 most common and accepted feedback models, including the Feedback Sandwich, the Pendleton Rules, the One-Minute Preceptor, the SET-GO model, the R2C2 (Rapport/Reaction/Content/Coach), and the ALOBA (Agenda Led Outcome-based Analysis) model. We present a handy resource describing their structure, strengths and weaknesses, requirements for educators and learners, and suitable feedback encounters\\nfor use for each model. These feedback models represent practical frameworks for educators to adopt but also to adapt to their preferred style, combining and modifying them if necessary to suit their needs and context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9842479/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.35\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

提供建设性的反馈对学习者来说是至关重要的,它可以弥合他们目前的表现和期望的能力标准之间的差距。给予有效的反馈是一种可以学习、练习和提高的技能。因此,我们的目的是在临床环境中探索模型,并评估它们在不同临床反馈遭遇中的可转移性。我们确定了6种最常见和最被接受的反馈模型,包括反馈三明治、彭德尔顿规则、一分钟导师、SET-GO模型、R2C2(融洽/反应/内容/教练)和ALOBA(议程导向的基于结果的分析)模型。我们提供了一个方便的资源,描述了它们的结构、优点和缺点、对教育者和学习者的要求,以及适用于每个模型的适当反馈。这些反馈模型代表了教育工作者可以采用的实用框架,但也可以适应他们喜欢的风格,在必要时结合和修改它们以适应他们的需要和背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Common models and approaches for the clinical educator to plan effective feedback encounters.

Giving constructive feedback is crucial for learners to bridge the gap between their current performance and the desired standards of competence. Giving effective feedback is a skill that can be learned, practiced, and improved. Therefore, our aim was to explore models in clinical settings and assess their transferability to different clinical feedback encounters. We identified the 6 most common and accepted feedback models, including the Feedback Sandwich, the Pendleton Rules, the One-Minute Preceptor, the SET-GO model, the R2C2 (Rapport/Reaction/Content/Coach), and the ALOBA (Agenda Led Outcome-based Analysis) model. We present a handy resource describing their structure, strengths and weaknesses, requirements for educators and learners, and suitable feedback encounters for use for each model. These feedback models represent practical frameworks for educators to adopt but also to adapt to their preferred style, combining and modifying them if necessary to suit their needs and context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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