Anat Cell Biol.  2018 Jun;51(2):98-104. 10.5115/acb.2018.51.2.98.

A mixed method study to validate a two-way feedback between student and faculty to improve learning of anatomy

• Eladl MA
• Abdalla ME
• Ranade A

• KMID: 2421173
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2018.51.2.98

Abstract

Although the students are subjected to some formative exams throughout the problem based learning units, feedback is not given appropriately and timely. Students want to know and use the reasoning behind judgments and always complain that assessment criteria need to be explained. The aim of this project is to implement a two-way feedback delivery (TWFD), in which both faculty and students have an opportunity to discuss their reflections on learning and examination processes. An Anatomy formative assessment is introduced to 100 students followed by implementation of TWFD. Faculty members provided the students with a structured and timely feedback on their performance. Also, the students reflected on the whole learning process, including real examination experience. The reaction was measured using quantitative and qualitative instruments through a questionnaire, focus group discussion, and semi-structured interviews. Ninety students (90%) participated in the questionnaire with high satisfaction toward implementation of TWFD. Ninety-four percent (n=85) admitted that the time of the session was appropriate. Ninety percent (n=81) of the students demonstrated that the TWFD helped them to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Eighty-five percent (n=77) of the students admitted that TWFD promotes active reflection on the effectiveness of teaching. Most of the students and teachers' comments in the focus group discussions and the interviews supported these results. TWFD seems to be a good approach to implement an effective and timely feedback process between the faculty and the students. Students and the faculty recommended the implementation of this session in different courses and units.

Keyword

Two-way feedback; Medical education; Feedback; Problem based learning

MeSH Terms

Education, Medical
Focus Groups
Humans
Judgment
Learning*
Methods*
Problem-Based Learning

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Questionnaire used to measure the extent of satisfaction of the students and faculty after the two-way feedback delivery session.

Reference

1. Cooper C. Student performance outcomes as related to cognitive levels of formative assessment questioning via clickers and its associated feedback. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University;2015.

2. Popham WJ. Timed tests for tykes? Educ Leadersh. 2008; 65:867.

3. Morris J. Formative assessment in practice learning: is it “always about testing” or a more collaborative approach between learner and educator? Physiotherapy. 2015; 101:Suppl 1. e1039.

4. Muralidharan K, Sundararaman V. The impact of diagnostic feedback to teachers on student learning: experimental evidence from India. Econ J. 2010; 120:F187–F203.

5. Boudett KP, City EA, Murnane RJ. Data wise: a step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press;2013.

6. Furey P. Not just talk: real feedback. London: Karnac Books;2014.

7. Morais A, Barragues JI, Guisasola J. Using a classroom response system for promoting interaction to teaching mathematics to large groups of undergraduate students. J Comput Math Sci Teach. 2015; 34:249–271.

8. Akers CE, Flann K. Effects of in-class discussion with pre and post lecture quizzing on retention. FASEB J. 2016; 30:1 Suppl. 776.13.

9. Etkina E. Weekly reports: a two-way feedback tool. Sci Educ. 2000; 84:594–605.

10. Lawrence HV, Wiswell AK. Feedback is a two-way street. Train Dev. 1995; 49:49–53.

11. Al Wahbi AM, Tamimi MA. Huge infra renal abdominal aortic aneurysm presented with concomitant divirticular abscess: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2015; 7C:39–41.

12. Al-Mously N, Nabil NM, Al-Babtain SA, Fouad Abbas MA. Undergraduate medical students' perceptions on the quality of feedback received during clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2014; 36:Suppl 1. S17–S23.

13. Brookhart SM, Nitko AJ. Providing formative feedback. Educational assessment of students. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education;2015. p. 153–165.

14. Llorens AC, Vidal-Abarca E, Cerdan R. Formative feedback to transfer self-regulation of task-oriented reading strategies. J Comput Assist Learn. 2016; 32:314–331.

15. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012; 34:787–791.

16. Ward AE. Satisfying students needs for timely, informative feedback with the constraints and issues of time, quality and consistency. In : Proceedings of 24th CEEMAN Annual Conference; 2016 Sep 28–30; Tanlinn, Estonia. Ceeman;p. 59–61.

17. Slipper L, Border S, Cecot T. How important is personalised and timely feedback in formative assessment? J Anat. 2014; 224:750–751.

18. Zehra T, Tariq M, Ali SK, Motiwala A, Boulet J. Challenges of providing timely feedback to residents: Faculty perspectives. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015; 65:1069–1074.

19. O'Farrell C. A enhancing student learning through assessment: a toolkit approach. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology;2016.

20. Bain LZ. How students use technology to cheat and what faculty can do about it. Inf Syst Educ J. 2015; 13:92–99.

21. Arnold IJ. Cheating at online formative tests: does it pay off? Internet High Educ. 2016; 29:98–106.

22. Arghode V, Brieger T, McLean GN. Adult learning theories: implications for online instruction. Eur J Train Dev. 2017; 41:593–609.

23. Dudek NL, Dojeiji S, Day K, Varpio L. Feedback to supervisors: is anonymity really so important? Acad Med. 2016; 91:1305–1312.

24. Browne G, Bjelogrlic P, Issberner J, Jackson C. Undergraduate student assessors in a formative OSCE station. Med Teach. 2013; 35:170–171.

25. Al Wahbi A. The need for faculty training programs in effective feedback provision. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014; 5:263–268.

26. Sabzghabaei A, Shojaee M, Alimohammadi H, Derakhshanfar H, Kashani P, Nassiriabrishamchi S. The effect of emergency department overcrowding on efficiency of emergency medicine residents' education. Emerg (Tehran). 2015; 3:146–149.

27. Cleary LM, Peacock TD. Collected wisdom: American Indian education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon;1998.

28. Diaz DP, Cartnal RB. Students' learning styles in two classes: online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. Coll Teach. 1999; 47:130–135.

29. Andersson C, Palm T. The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: a study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learn Instr. 2017; 49:92–102.

30. Faber JM, Luyten H, Visscher AJ. The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: results of a randomized experiment. Comput Educ. 2017; 106:83–96.

31. Kirkpatrick DL. Great ideas revisited. Train Dev. 1996; 50:54–59.