MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073862483 · doi:10.1111/medu.12407

Learning culture and feedback: an international study of medical athletes and musicians

2014· article· en· W2073862483 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesPsychologyMedical educationPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Feedback should facilitate learning, but within medical education it often fails to deliver on its promise. To better understand why feedback is challenging, we explored the unique perspectives of doctors who had also trained extensively in sport or music, aiming to: (i) distinguish the elements of the response to feedback that are determined by the individual learner from those determined by the learning culture, and (ii) understand how these elements interact in order to make recommendations for improving feedback in medical education. METHODS: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 doctors or medical students who had high-level training and competitive or performance experience in sport (n = 15) or music (n = 12). Data were analysed iteratively using constant comparison. Key themes were identified and their relationships critically examined to derive a conceptual understanding of feedback and its impact. RESULTS: We identified three essential sources of influence on the meaning that feedback assumed: the individual learner; the characteristics of the feedback, and the learning culture. Individual learner traits, such as motivation and orientation toward feedback, appeared stable across learning contexts. Similarly, certain feedback characteristics, including specificity, credibility and actionability, were valued in sport, music and medicine alike. Learning culture influenced feedback in three ways: (i) by defining expectations for teachers and teacher-learner relationships; (ii) by establishing norms for and expectations of feedback, and (iii) by directing teachers' and learners' attention toward certain dimensions of performance. Learning culture therefore neither creates motivated learners nor defines 'good feedback'; rather, it creates the conditions and opportunities that allow good feedback to occur and learners to respond. CONCLUSIONS: An adequate understanding of feedback requires an integrated approach incorporating both the individual and the learning culture. Our research offers a clear direction for medicine's learning culture: normalise feedback; promote trusting teacher-learner relationships; define clear performance goals, and ensure that the goals of learners and teachers align.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it