Impact of peer feedback on the performance of lecturers in emergency medicine: a prospective observational study

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Felix Walcher³  Ingo Marzi¹  Michael P Müller⁴  Christian Byhahn⁵  Matthias Knobe²  Anna Schill¹  Faidra Kalozoumi-Paizi¹  Miriam Ruesseler¹ 

[1] Department of Trauma Surgery, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, Frankfurt, 60590, Germany;Department of Trauma Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelstr. 30, Aachen, 52047, Germany;Department of Trauma Surgery, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Leipziger Street 44, Magdeburg, 39120, Germany;Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Carl Gustav Carus University Hospital, Fetscherstr. 74, Dresden, 01307, Germany;Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Therapy and Intensive Care Medicine, European Medical School Oldenburg-Groningen, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Steinweg 13-17, Oldenburg, 26122, Germany

关键词: Undergraduate education;    Emergency medicine;    Faculty development;    Lecture;    Peer feedback;   

Others  :  1151682
DOI  :  10.1186/s13049-014-0071-1

 received in 2014-07-15, accepted in 2014-11-12,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although it is often criticised, the lecture remains a fundamental part of medical training because it is an economical and efficient method for teaching both factual and experimental knowledge. However, if administered incorrectly, it can be boring and useless.

Feedback from peers is increasingly recognized as an effective method of encouraging self-reflection and continuing professional development. The aim of this observational study is to analyse the impact of written peer feedback on the performance of lecturers in an emergency medicine lecture series for undergraduate students.

Methods

In this prospective study, 13 lecturers in 15 lectures on emergency medicine for undergraduate medical students were videotaped and analysed by trained peer reviewers using a 21-item assessment instrument. The lecturers received their written feedback prior to the beginning of the next years’ lecture series and were assessed in the same way.

Results

In this study, we demonstrated a significant improvement in the lecturers’ scores in the categories ‘content and organisation’ and ‘visualisation’ in response to written feedback. The highest and most significant improvements after written peer feedback were detected in the items ‘provides a brief outline’, ‘provides a conclusion for the talk’ and ‘clearly states goal of the talk’.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the significant impact of a single standardized written peer feedback on a lecturer’s performance.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ruesseler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Brown G, Manogue M: AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 22: refreshing lecturing: a guide for lecturers. Med Teach 2001, 23(3):231-244.
• [2]Charlton BG: Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit evolved human psychology to improve learning. Med Hypotheses 2006, 67(6):1261-1265.
• [3]Bligh DA: What’s the use of Lectures. Jossey-Bass, San Franciscio, CA; 2000.
• [4]Graffam B: Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach 2007, 29(1):38-42.
• [5]Charlton BG: Science school and culture school: improving the efficiency of high school science teaching in a system of mass science education. Med Hypotheses 2006, 67(1):1-5.
• [6]Kessler CS, Dharmapuri S, Marcolini EG: Qualitative analysis of effective lecture strategies in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2011, 58(5):482-489.
• [7]Copeland HL, Longworth DL, Hewson MG, Stoller JK: Successful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med 2000, 15(6):366-371.
• [8]Visioli S, Lodi G, Carrassi A, Zannini L: The role of observational research in improving faculty lecturing skills. A qualitative study in an Italian dental school. Med Teach 2009, 31(8):e362-e369.
• [9]Beckman TJ, Lee MC, Rohren CH, Pankratz VS: Evaluating an instrument for the peer review of inpatient teaching. Med Teach 2003, 25(2):131-135.
• [10]Wilkerson L, Irby DM: Strategies for improving teaching practices: a comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med 1998, 73(4):387-396.
• [11]Irby DM: Peer review of teaching in medicine. J Med Educ 1983, 58(6):457-461.
• [12]Irby D, DeMers J, Scher M, Matthwes D: A model for the improvement of medical faculty lecturing. J Med Educ 1976, 51(5):403-409.
• [13]Nelson MS: Peer evaluation of teaching: an approach whose time has come. Acad Med 1998, 73(1):4-5.
• [14]Newman LR, Lown BA, Jones RN, Johansson A, Schwartzstein RM: Developing a peer assessment of lecturing instrument: lessons learned. Acad Med 2009, 84(8):1104-1110.
• [15]Lochner L, Gijselaers WH: Improving lecture skills: a time-efficient 10-step pedagogical consultation method for medical teachers in healthcare professions. Med Teach 2011, 33(2):131-136.
• [16]McLeod P, Steinert Y, Capek R, Chalk C, Brawer J, Ruhe V, Barnett B: Peer review: an effective approach to cultivating lecturing virtuosity. Med Teach 2013, 35(4):e1046-e1051.
• [17]Ruesseler M, Weinlich M, Muller MP, Byhahn C, Marzi I, Walcher F: Simulation training improves ability to manage medical emergencies. Emerg Med J 2010, 27(10):734-738.
• [18]Walcher F, Russeler M, Nurnberger F, Byhahn C, Stier M, Mrosek J, Weinlich M, Marzi I: Mandatory elective course in emergency medicine with instructions by paramedics improves practical training in undergraduate medical education. Unfallchirurg 2011, 114(4):340-344.
• [19]Gelula MH: Effective lecture presentation skills. Surg Neurol 1997, 47(2):201-204.
• [20]Cantillon P: Teaching large groups. BMJ 2003, 326(7386):437.
• [21]Williams RG, Klamen DA, McGaghie WC: Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2003, 15(4):270-292.
• [22]Newman LR, Brodsky DD, Roberts DH, Pelletier SR, Johansson A, Vollmer CM Jr, Atkins KM, Schwartzstein RM: Developing expert-derived rating standards for the peer assessment of lectures. Acad Med 2012, 87(3):356-363.
• [23]Govaerts MJ, van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Muijtjens AM: Broadening perspectives on clinical performance assessment: rethinking the nature of in-training assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2007, 12(2):239-260.
• [24]Branch WT Jr, Paranjape A: Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med 2002, 77(12):1185-1188.
• [25]Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DM: Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach 2006, 28(2):117-128.