A qualitative study of medical students' perceptions of resident feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Residents play a pivotal role in medical students' clinical education. From a feedback lens, the near-peer relationship between student and resident holds the potential to foster an educational alliance that could influence learning. We undertook the current qualitative study to explore medical students' perceptions of feedback experiences with residents, addressing when, how and why (and conversely when not and why not) resident feedback plays a role in their clinical education. METHODS: Our methodology was qualitative interpretive description, informed by phenomenology. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with third and fourth year medical students at one institution. The interviews aimed to foster rich discussion about students' feedback experiences with residents during clinical rotations. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively. Initial interviews were independently open-coded by three investigators and then collaboratively refined. Codes were applied to subsequent interviews, and new codes were developed. During the final stages of analysis, we organised our themes by drawing on a sociocultural perspective to examine students' perceptions of relationship-building with residents and when and how this influenced feedback and learning. RESULTS: From the students' perspectives, when residents contributed to building interpersonal relationships with students, this in turn influenced students' receptivity to both encouraging and constructive feedback conversations. In the context of resident-student relationships that were perceived as supportive, resident feedback influenced how students approached learning and working in the clinical environment, as well as students' visions of their future selves. In unsupportive relationships, students were less inclined to engage in feedback with residents and students noted resident behaviours that they wanted to avoid in themselves. CONCLUSION: Residents are uniquely positioned to create a strong educational alliance with students in which feedback conversations can flourish. Focusing educational efforts on resident feedback conversations has the potential to significantly impact the feedback culture of our clinical environments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.000 |
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.
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".