Presentation Description
Kelsey Compagna1
Shelley Ross1 and Ann Lee1
1 University of Alberta
Shelley Ross1 and Ann Lee1
1 University of Alberta
Background
Hattie and Timperley (2007) systematically investigated published research about feedback’s influence on learning. They found that the effectiveness of feedback to learning is determined by the type of feedback and the way that feedback is shared. Hattie and Timperley proposed a feedback model that included four major ‘levels’. Each level refers to the focus of feedback: Task, Process, Self-regulation, and Self. While many feedback researchers in health professions education (HPE) cite Hattie and Timperley, few authors have explored the actual levels of feedback in the HPE context. In this study, we used FieldNotes (brief documentation of feedback) to explore levels of feedback in our program.
Hattie and Timperley (2007) systematically investigated published research about feedback’s influence on learning. They found that the effectiveness of feedback to learning is determined by the type of feedback and the way that feedback is shared. Hattie and Timperley proposed a feedback model that included four major ‘levels’. Each level refers to the focus of feedback: Task, Process, Self-regulation, and Self. While many feedback researchers in health professions education (HPE) cite Hattie and Timperley, few authors have explored the actual levels of feedback in the HPE context. In this study, we used FieldNotes (brief documentation of feedback) to explore levels of feedback in our program.
Summary of work
Our family medicine postgraduate program uses formative workplace-based assessments called FieldNotes. Each FieldNote includes a brief summary of the feedback conversation between teacher and learner. We coded feedback levels in de-identified FieldNotes. Frequency counts and descriptives were calculated for the four feedback levels.
Results
Of the FieldNotes examined (N=2250), 422 (5%) were excluded (no feedback). For the remainder of the FieldNotes, 1105 (60%) included only one feedback level, 705 (38%) included two, 17 (1%) included three, and none included four. The majority of the feedback included Task (835; 46%), Process (248; 13%), or Process and Task (649; 35%).
Discussion
Our findings indicate that feedback shared with learners predominantly focused on either Hattie and Timperley’s levels of Task, Process, or both. Only 1% of the FieldNotes included three
levels of feedback. However, it is also possible that narrative summaries of feedback conversations do not capture all levels of feedback that occurred in the actual conversation.
Conclusions
Our findings enhance our understanding of feedback in our program, and offer potential directions for improving feedback effectiveness.
Take home message
Hattie and Timperley’s feedback model offers a novel way to examine feedback effectiveness in HPE.
References (maximum three)
1. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
2. Ross S, Lawrence K, Bethune C, van der Goes T, Pélissier-Simard L, Donoff M, Crichton T, Laughlin T, Dhillon K, Potter M, Schultz K. Development, implementation, and meta- evaluation of a national approach to programmatic assessment in family medicine residency training. Academic Medicine 2023; 98(2):188-198 DOI 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004750