Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33029557›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development

Improving Student Feedback Quality: A Simple Model Using Peer Review and Feedback Rubrics.

Troy Camarata, Tony A Slieman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Troy CamarataDepartment of Basic Sciences, New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7628-2716
Tony A SliemanDepartment of Basic Sciences, New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Constructive feedback is an important aspect of medical education to help students improve performance in cognitive and clinical skills assessments. However, for students to appropriately act on feedback, they must recognize quality feedback and have the opportunity to practice giving, receiving, and acting on feedback. We incorporated feedback literacy into a case-based concept mapping small group-learning course. Student groups engaged in peer review of group-constructed concept maps and provided written peer feedback. Faculty also provided written feedback on group concept maps and used a simple rubric to assess the quality of peer feedback. Groups were provided feedback on a weekly basis providing an opportunity for timely improvement. Precourse and postcourse evaluations along with peer-review feedback assessment scores were used to show improvement in both group and individual student feedback quality. Feedback quality was compared to a control student cohort that engaged in the identical course without implementing peer review or feedback assessment. Student feedback quality was significantly improved with feedback training compared to the control cohort. Furthermore, our analysis shows that this skill transferred to the quality of student feedback on course evaluations. Feedback training using a simple rubric along with opportunities to act on feedback greatly enhanced student feedback quality.

Indexed as

collaborative learningConstructive feedbackfeedback qualityfeedback rubricpeer review

Identifiers

PMID33029557
PMCPMC7522828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.