MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019173226

Exploring Feedback Literacy in the Undergraduate Medical Education Context

2024· dissertation· en· W7019173226 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)LiteracyPsychological interventionPeer feedbackHealth literacyHigher educationActive learning (machine learning)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feedback has long been used and studied in medical education. To acknowledge the complexity of the feedback process, the term feedback literacy has been introduced into the medical education literature. This thesis attempted to explore feedback literacy in the undergraduate medical education context by aggregating a comprehensive body of evidence and using different research methodologies. It focused on providing a more complete understanding of feedback literacy, identifying factors and learning strategies that could improve medical students’ feedback literacy skills, and direct further research on this topic. Results showed that little is known on how to teach feedback literacy and educational interventions to increase students’ feedback literacy skills are still not well established. When exploring factors that could improve students’ feedback literacy skills, this thesis’ results identified that being more intrinsically goal oriented, having strong self-regulated learning traits, and seeking help when needed were positively associated to having better feedback literacy skills. Strategies that students could use to improve their own feedback literacy included self-reflection about the feedback received and how to be more proactive in the feedback process, take small steps when applying the feedback received, and actively discuss the feedback with the giver. Additionally, self-reflections on ones’ motivational beliefs and interests, combined with actions such as creating and implementing strategies to manage motivations, could help students to adjust their learning goal orientation and, consequently, improve their feedback literacy skills. Students should encourage themselves to regulate their learning in the areas of planning, monitoring, and making adjustments in learning strategies to adapt to new situations whenever needed. Lastly, students should seek assistance from others by bringing concerns up, asking questions, and asking clarifications about the feedback received. Taken together, the findings of this thesis support students’ empowerment in the feedback process to help them to make the most of their feedback opportunities in medical school.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207