Qualitative study about the ways teachers react to feedback from resident evaluations

BMC Medical Education

Chris van Weel⁵  Albert Scherpbier⁴  Ben Bottema¹  Henk Mokkink¹  Marie-Louise Schreurs²  Thea van Roermund³ 

[1]Department Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Post Graduate Training for Family Medicine, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

[2]Institute for Medical Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands

[3]Department Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Route number 166, Postbus 9101, Nijmegen 6500HB, the Netherlands

[4]Dean Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands

[5]Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

关键词: Role modeling;    Feedback;    Professional development;    Teachers;   

Others  :  1138856
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-98

 received in 2012-08-08, accepted in 2013-07-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Currently, one of the main interventions that are widely expected to contribute to teachers’ professional development is confronting teachers with feedback from resident evaluations of their teaching performance. Receiving feedback, however, is a double edged sword. Teachers see themselves confronted with information about themselves and are, at the same time, expected to be role models in the way they respond to feedback. Knowledge about the teachers’ responses could be not only of benefit for their professional development, but also for supporting their role modeling. Therefore, research about professional development should include the way teachers respond to feedback.

Method

We designed a qualitative study with semi-structured individual conversations about feedback reports, gained from resident evaluations. Two researchers carried out a systematic analysis using qualitative research software. The analysis focused on what happened in the conversations and structured the data in three main themes: conversation process, acceptance and coping strategies.

Results

The result section describes the conversation patterns and atmosphere. Teachers accepted their results calmly, stating that, although they recognised some points of interest, they could not meet with every standard. Most used coping strategies were explaining the results from their personal beliefs about good teaching and attributing poor results to external factors and good results to themselves. However, some teachers admitted that they had poor results because of the fact that they were not “sharp enough” in their resident group, implying that they did not do their best.

Conclusions

Our study not only confirms that the effects of feedback depend first and foremost on the recipient but also enlightens the meaning and role of acceptance and being a role model. We think that the results justify the conclusion that teachers who are responsible for the day release programmes in the three departments tend to respond to the evaluation results just like human beings do and, at the time of the conversation, are initially not aware of the fact that they are role models in the way they respond to feedback.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 van Roermund et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Litzelman DK, Stratos GA, Marriott DJ, Lazaridis EN, Skeff KM: Beneficial and harmful effects of augmented feedback on physicians’ clinical-teaching performances. Acad Med 1998, 73(3):324-332.
• [2]Hattie J, Timperley H: The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007, 77(1):81-112.
• [3]Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Eva K, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Sargeant J: Tensions in informed self-assessment: how the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Acad Med 2011, 86(9):1120-1127.
• [4]van de Ridder JM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OT: What is feedback in clinical education? Medical education 2008, 42(2):189-197.
• [5]Butler DL, Winne PH: Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev Educ Res 1995, 65(3):245-281.
• [6]Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, Van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J: Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008, 13(3):275-288.
• [7]Kluger AN, DeNisi A: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 1996, 119(2):254-284.
• [8]Kluger AN, DeNisi A: Feedback interventions: toward the understanding of a double-edged sword. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1998, 7(3):67-72.
• [9]Jussim L, Soffin S, Brown R, Ley J, Kohlhepp K: Understanding reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 1992, 62(3):402-421.
• [10]Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, Sargeant J: Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2012, 17(1):15-26.
• [11]Atwater L, Brett J: Feedback format: does it influence manager’s reactions to feedback? J Occup Organ Psychol 2006, 79(4):517-532.
• [12]Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB: Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance*: BEME Guide No. 7. Medical teacher 2006, 28(2):117-128.
• [13]Malling B, Bonderup T, Mortensen L, Ringsted C, Scherpbier A: Effects of multi-source feedback on developmental plans for leaders of postgraduate medical education. Medical education 2009, 43(2):159-167.
• [14]Sargeant J, McNaughton E, Mercer S, Murphy D, Sullivan P, Bruce DA: Providing feedback: exploring a model (emotion, content, outcomes) for facilitating multisource feedback. Medical teacher 2011, 33(9):744-749.
• [15]L’Hommedieu R, Menges RJ, Brinko KT: Methodological explanations for the modest effects of feedback from student ratings. J Educ Psychol 1990, 82(2):232-241.
• [16]Van Eekelen I, Vermunt J, Boshuizen H: Exploring teachers’ will to learn. Teach Teach Educ 2006, 22(4):408-423.
• [17]Higgins JE, Endler NS: Coping, life stress, and psychological and somatic distress. Eur J Personal 1995, 9(4):253-270.
• [18]Lazarus RS: Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. Am Psychol 1991, 46(8):819-834.
• [19]Parker PD, Martin AJ: Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: understanding their effects on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement. Teach Teach Educ 2009, 25(1):68-75.
• [20]Parker PD, Martin AJ, Colmar S, Liem GA: Teachers’ workplace well-being: exploring a process model of goal orientation, coping behavior, engagement, and burnout. Teach Teach Educ 2012, 28(4):503-513.
• [21]Dewe P, Trenberth L: Work stress and coping: drawing together research and practice. Br J Guid Couns 2004, 32(2):143-156.
• [22]Folkman S, Lazarus RS: Coping as a mediator of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988, 54(3):466-475.
• [23]Runhaar P, Sanders K, Yang H: Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback asking: an interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teach Teach Educ 2010, 26(5):1154-1161.
• [24]DeShon RP, Gillespie JZ: A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. J Appl Psychol 2005, 90(6):1096-1127.
• [25]Seifert TL: Academic goals and emotions: results of a structural equation model and a cluster analysis. Br J Educ Psychol 1997, 67(3):323-338.
• [26]Crosby R, Harden J: AMEE guide no 20: the good teacher is more than a lecturer - the twelve roles of the teacher. Medical teacher 2000, 22(4):334-347.
• [27]Lombarts KM, Heineman MJ, Arah OA: Good clinical teachers likely to be specialist role models: results from a multicenter cross-sectional survey. PLoS One 2010, 5(12):e15202.
• [28]Byszewski A, Hendelman W, McGuinty C, Moineau G: Wanted: role models–medical students’ perceptions of professionalism. BMC Med Educ 2012, 12:115.
• [29]Arah OA, Heineman MJ, Lombarts KM: Factors influencing residents’ evaluations of clinical faculty member teaching qualities and role model status. Medical education 2012, 46(4):381-389.
• [30]Butani L, Paterniti DA, Tancredi DJ, Li ST: Attributes of residents as teachers and role models - a mixed methods study of stakeholders. Medical teacher 2013, 35(4):e1052-e1059.
• [31]Stenfors-Hayes T, Hult H, Dahlgren LO: What does it mean to be a good teacher and clinical supervisor in medical education? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011, 16(2):197-210.
• [32]der Leeuw HG J-v, van Dijk N, van Etten-Jamaludin FS, Wieringa-de Waard M: The attributes of the clinical trainer as a role model: a systematic review. Acad Med 2013, 88(1):26-34.
• [33]Boerebach BC, Lombarts KM, Keijzer C, Heineman MJ, Arah OA: The teacher, the physician and the person: how faculty’s teaching performance influences their role modeling. PLoS One 2012, 7(3):e32089.
• [34]LJMCA S: Basics of Qualitative Research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. In Thousand Oaks. 91320 edition. CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2008.
• [35]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ (Clinical research ed 2000, 320(7226):50-52.
• [36]Bleakley A: Stories as data, data as stories: making sense of narrative inquiry in clinical education. Medical education 2005, 39(5):534-540.
• [37]Holloway I, Todres L: The status of method: flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research 2003, 3(3):345-357.
• [38]Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2001, 322(7294):1115-1117.
• [39]GH M: Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1967.
• [40]Blumer H: Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley CA, USA: University Of California; 1986.
• [41]Hermans HJ: The construction and reconstruction of dialogical self. J Constr Psychol 2003, 16(2):89-130.
• [42]Hermans H, Salgado J, et al.: The dialogical self as a minisociety. In The sociocultural turn in psychology: the contextual emergence of mind and self. Edited by Kirschner S. New York, USA: Colombia University Press; 2010.
• [43]Bandura A: Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol 1993, 28(2):117-148.
• [44]Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Asian J Soc Psychol 1999, 2(1):21-41.
• [45]Schon DS: The reflective practitioner. New York, USA: Basic Books Inc; 1987.
• [46]Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW: Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teach Teach Educ 2001, 17(7):783-805.
• [47]Darling-Hammond L, et al.: Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan 93(6):8-15.