A Novel, Combined Student and Preceptor Professional Development Session for Optimizing Feedback: Protocol for a Multimethod, Multisite, and Multiyear Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing feedback to medical learners is a critical educational activity. Despite the recognition of its importance, most research has focused on training preceptors to give feedback, which neglects the role of learners in receiving feedback. Delivering a combined professional development session for both preceptors and students may facilitate more effective feedback communication and improve both the quality and quantity of feedback. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our research project is to examine the impact of a relational feedback intervention on both preceptors and students during a longitudinal integrated clerkship. METHODS: Students and preceptors will attend a 2.5-hour combined professional development session, wherein they will be provided with educational tools for giving and receiving feedback within a coaching relationship and practice feedback giving and receiving skills together. Before the combined professional development session, students will be asked to participate in a 1-hour preparation session that will provide an orientation on their role in receiving feedback and their participation in the combined professional development session. Students and preceptors will be asked to complete a precombined professional development session survey and an immediate postcombined professional development session survey. Preceptors will be asked to complete a follow-up assessment survey, and students will be asked to participate in a follow-up, student-only focus group. Anonymized clinical faculty teaching evaluations and longitudinal integrated clerkship program evaluations will also be used to assess the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: As of March 1, 2022, a total of 66 preceptors and 29 students have completed the baseline and follow-up measures. Data collection is expected to conclude in December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is designed to contribute to the literature on the feedback process between preceptors and students within a clinical setting. Including both the preceptors and the students in the same session will improve on the work that has already been conducted in this area, as the students and preceptors can further develop their relationships and coconstruct feedback conversations. We will use social learning theory to interpret the results of our study, which will help us explain the results and potentially make the work generalizable to other fields. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32829.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".