MD Student Perceptions of ChatGPT for Reflective Writing Feedback in Undergraduate Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, a significant component of the MD curriculum involves written narrative reflections on topics related to professional identity in medicine, with written feedback provided by their in-person longitudinal facilitators (LFs). However, it remains to be understood how generative artificial intelligence chatbots, such as ChatGPT (GPT-4), augment the feedback process and how MD students perceive feedback provided by ChatGPT versus the feedback provided by their LFs. In this study, 15 MD students provided their written narrative reflections along with the feedback they received from their LFs. Their reflections were input into ChatGPT (GPT-4) to generate instantaneous personalized feedback. MD students rated both modalities of feedback using a Likert-scale survey, in addition to providing open-ended textual responses. Quantitative analysis involved mean comparisons and t-tests, while qualitative responses were coded for themes and representational quotations. The results showed that while the LF-provided feedback was rated slightly higher in six out of eight survey items, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, ChatGPT scored significantly higher in helping to identify strengths and areas for improvement, as well as in providing actionable steps for improvement. Criticisms of ChatGPT included a discernible “AI tone” and paraphrasing or misuse of quotations from the reflections. In addition, MD students valued LF feedback for being more personal and reflective of the real, in-person relationships formed with LFs. Overall, findings suggest that although skepticism regarding ChatGPT’s feedback exists amongst MD students, it represents a viable avenue for deepening reflective practice and easing some of the burden on LFs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".