Maturational differences in undergraduate medical students’ perceptions about feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although medical students receive varied feedback throughout their training programmes, research demonstrates that they frequently perceive it as insufficient. However, supervisors tend to perceive that it is adequate. Students' responses to, and use of, feedback are not clearly understood. The purposes of this study were to investigate how medical students recognise, respond to and utilise feedback, and to determine whether there are maturational differences in understandings of the role of feedback across academic years in medical school. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study collecting qualitative (focus group and open-ended questionnaire items) and quantitative (questionnaire) data across the 5 years of an undergraduate programme. RESULTS: A total of 68 students participated in 10 focus groups. The questionnaire response rate was 46% (564/1233). Data analysis investigated the students' perceptions of feedback and explored patterns of responses across the continuum of undergraduate medical school stages. Maturational differences among the year cohorts within the programme emerged in three general areas: (i) student perceptions of the purpose of feedback; (ii) student recognition of feedback, and (iii) student perceptions regarding the credibility of feedback providers. CONCLUSIONS: Junior students generally perceived the receiving of feedback as a passive activity and preferred positive feedback that confirmed their progress and provided reassurance. More senior students viewed feedback as informing their specific learning needs and personal development. They valued immediate informal verbal feedback and feedback from peers and others, as well as that from senior teachers. Exploring students' progressive degrees of engagement with feedback and its relationship with self-esteem are subjects for further study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".