利用Hattie和Timperley的反馈水平探索反馈。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kelsey Compagna, Shelley Ross, Ann Lee
{"title":"利用Hattie和Timperley的反馈水平探索反馈。","authors":"Kelsey Compagna, Shelley Ross, Ann Lee","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2025.362243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Effective feedback is recognized as essential to clinical training. Hattie and Timperley conducted a comprehensive review of feedback to develop their Model of Feedback to Enhance Learning (MFEL). The MFEL proposes that effective feedback can focus on any of four levels: task, process, self-regulation, and self. While Hattie and Timperley are frequently cited for their review, few studies in medical education have used the MFEL to explore feedback. We used the MFEL to examine the content of documented workplace-based feedback to explore how this model applies in a family medicine residency program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted this retrospective cross-sectional observational secondary data analysis (learning analytics) study in a Canadian university-based family medicine residency program. Our data source was de-identified field notes (a tool to document workplace-based feedback) for residents at two teaching sites. We coded the feedback using the levels from the MFEL. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the frequencies of each level and combinations of levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2,250 field notes examined, 422 (18%) were excluded because they contained no feedback. The majority (1,105; 60%) included a single feedback level, while 705 (38%) contained two levels, and 17 (1%) included three levels. No field notes included all four levels. Of the field notes containing one feedback level, the most common levels were task (835; 76%) and process (248; 22%). The most common combination of levels was process and task (649; 92.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hattie and Timperley's MFEL offers a way to explore feedback documented in medical education programs and may help programs identify opportunities for faculty development to improve feedback effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Exploration of Feedback Using Hattie and Timperley's Feedback Levels.\",\"authors\":\"Kelsey Compagna, Shelley Ross, Ann Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.22454/FamMed.2025.362243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Effective feedback is recognized as essential to clinical training. Hattie and Timperley conducted a comprehensive review of feedback to develop their Model of Feedback to Enhance Learning (MFEL). The MFEL proposes that effective feedback can focus on any of four levels: task, process, self-regulation, and self. While Hattie and Timperley are frequently cited for their review, few studies in medical education have used the MFEL to explore feedback. We used the MFEL to examine the content of documented workplace-based feedback to explore how this model applies in a family medicine residency program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted this retrospective cross-sectional observational secondary data analysis (learning analytics) study in a Canadian university-based family medicine residency program. Our data source was de-identified field notes (a tool to document workplace-based feedback) for residents at two teaching sites. We coded the feedback using the levels from the MFEL. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the frequencies of each level and combinations of levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2,250 field notes examined, 422 (18%) were excluded because they contained no feedback. The majority (1,105; 60%) included a single feedback level, while 705 (38%) contained two levels, and 17 (1%) included three levels. No field notes included all four levels. Of the field notes containing one feedback level, the most common levels were task (835; 76%) and process (248; 22%). The most common combination of levels was process and task (649; 92.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hattie and Timperley's MFEL offers a way to explore feedback documented in medical education programs and may help programs identify opportunities for faculty development to improve feedback effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.362243\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.362243","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:有效的反馈被认为是临床培训的必要条件。Hattie和Timperley对反馈进行了全面的回顾,以发展他们的反馈促进学习模型(MFEL)。MFEL提出有效的反馈可以集中在四个层面:任务、过程、自我调节和自我。虽然Hattie和Timperley的评论经常被引用,但很少有医学教育研究使用MFEL来探索反馈。我们使用MFEL来检查基于工作场所的反馈文件的内容,以探索该模型如何应用于家庭医学住院医师计划。方法:我们在加拿大一所大学的家庭医学住院医师项目中进行了回顾性横断面观察性二次数据分析(学习分析)研究。我们的数据来源是两个教学点居民的去识别现场笔记(一种记录工作场所反馈的工具)。我们使用来自MFEL的关卡编码反馈。我们使用描述性统计来分析每个水平和水平组合的频率。结果:在被检查的2250份现场记录中,有422份(18%)被排除,因为它们没有反馈。多数人(1105人;60%)包含单个反馈水平,而705(38%)包含两个反馈水平,17(1%)包含三个反馈水平。没有实地记录包括所有四个级别。在包含一个反馈级别的现场笔记中,最常见的级别是任务(835;76%)和过程(248;22%)。最常见的等级组合是过程和任务(649;92.1%)。结论:Hattie和Timperley的MFEL提供了一种探索医学教育项目中记录的反馈的方法,并可能帮助项目确定教师发展的机会,以提高反馈的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Exploration of Feedback Using Hattie and Timperley's Feedback Levels.

Background and objectives: Effective feedback is recognized as essential to clinical training. Hattie and Timperley conducted a comprehensive review of feedback to develop their Model of Feedback to Enhance Learning (MFEL). The MFEL proposes that effective feedback can focus on any of four levels: task, process, self-regulation, and self. While Hattie and Timperley are frequently cited for their review, few studies in medical education have used the MFEL to explore feedback. We used the MFEL to examine the content of documented workplace-based feedback to explore how this model applies in a family medicine residency program.

Methods: We conducted this retrospective cross-sectional observational secondary data analysis (learning analytics) study in a Canadian university-based family medicine residency program. Our data source was de-identified field notes (a tool to document workplace-based feedback) for residents at two teaching sites. We coded the feedback using the levels from the MFEL. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the frequencies of each level and combinations of levels.

Results: Of the 2,250 field notes examined, 422 (18%) were excluded because they contained no feedback. The majority (1,105; 60%) included a single feedback level, while 705 (38%) contained two levels, and 17 (1%) included three levels. No field notes included all four levels. Of the field notes containing one feedback level, the most common levels were task (835; 76%) and process (248; 22%). The most common combination of levels was process and task (649; 92.1%).

Conclusions: Hattie and Timperley's MFEL offers a way to explore feedback documented in medical education programs and may help programs identify opportunities for faculty development to improve feedback effectiveness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信