Motivation Strategies for Learning and Their Influences in Students' Feedback Literacy During Undergraduate Medical School: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study.

Ligia Cordovani, Susan M Jack, Anne Wong, Sandra Monteiro

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ligia CordovaniDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada.

Susan M JackSchool of Nursing, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada.

Anne WongDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada.

Sandra MonteiroDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feedback from educators to students is considered an important and essential element of effective learning in medical education. Feedback literacy is the process in which a student receives, comprehends, accepts, and makes use of feedback. Factors affecting medical students' feedback literacy include students' characteristics, motivation, abilities in self-assessment, emotional reactions to feedback, and maturity. To generate a deeper understanding of this phenomenon, a sequential explanatory mixed methods study was conducted to measure students' motivational orientations and explore their strategies towards learning, how these orientations and strategies are related to students' feedback literacy, and how this relationship changes as students progress through a Canadian medical school. In the first quantitative phase, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was administered to first- and last-year medical students at a Canadian university to measure their motivational orientations for learning and learning strategies. Using the quantitative results ( Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02310-1.

Indexed as

FeedbackFeedback literacyLearning motivationLearning strategiesUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID40625955

DOI10.1007/s40670-025-02310-1

PMCPMC12228613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.