A change of mind: Error motivation is shaped by error perceptions in different learning environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The medical profession has traditionally had a culture of “blame and shame,” despite the importance errors have for learning, motivation, and improvement of clinical skills. This study aimed to explore how medical students and newly graduated doctors perceive errors across different learning contexts and levels of expertise, and how error perceptions influence motivation and engagement in learning activities.Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Survey questions were developed based on the themes. The final survey included 27 questions divided into three sections. The survey was distributed via RedCap to medical students in year 1, year 4, and year 6 together with newly graduated doctors in Denmark.Results Of the 541 respondents, a majority anticipated making errors in both non-clinical (77.4%) and clinical (61.5%) learning situations, finding them motivating for participation (91.9% and 96.2%, respectively). A psychologically safe learning environment was seen to enhance the perception of errors as learning opportunities (96.9%) and increase risk willingness (96.3% non-clinical, 97.7% clinical). Respondents focused on the specific errors they made (86.0%), and their supervisors were perceived to focus more on correct handling of errors (70.7%). Respondents expected to conduct fewer errors in non-clinical learning situations in PGY-1 compared to medical students in year 1 (F(3529) = 3.0, adjusted p = 0.03). They showed an increase in risk willingness in clinical learning situations from year 6 to PGY-1 (F(3520) = 2.7, adjusted p-value 0.006) as long as the learning situations were considered psychologically safe.Conclusion The study suggests that a psychologically safe learning environment mitigates the “shame and blame culture” associated with errors. Respondents generally embraced errors as valuable learning experiences but noted a lack of specific error-related feedback. These findings underscore the nuanced relationship between errors, explicit learning activities, and supervisor support in medical education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".