FEEDBACK THAT AFFECTS FIRST YEAR MEDICAL STUDENT’S LEARNING IN HIGH POWER DISTANCE & COLLECTIVISM CULTURE

Ida Ayu Triastuti, Gandes Retno Rahayu, Yoyo Suhoyo

Abstract


Background: Constructive feedback is an essential component of learning for medical undergraduate. Communication culture of high-power distance and collectivism might have influence in shaping students' perception of the benefit of feedback.
Aim: This study is aimed to identify feedback characteristic which associated with students' perception of learning benefit, and further explored the mechanism feedback influence on students learning process.
Method: This is a mixed method study, with explanatory sequential approach. The setting is first-year medical undergraduate students at FK UKDW who enrolled in skill lab class (pulmonary physical examination). The first phase is a quantitative study using questionnaire on feedback characteristics and student’s perception of feedback benefits, further analysed with linear regression methods. The next phase is an interview study on selected students with semi-structured questions, and further analysed with thematic analysis.
Result: There are 82 students who returned the questionnaire. Quantitative analysis showed that feedback including comparison to standard (B=2,26; p = 0,003) and follow-up planning (B=3,47; p < 0,001) are associated with perceived benefit by students. Further interview of 11 students discovered that students have received clear and concise outline through the feedback process. On the other hand, the communication culture, poor execution of feedback process, and interconnectedness between each characteristic may influence the students' perception of benefits.
Conclusion: Feedback is beneficial for medical undergraduate students in high power distance and collectivist culture, specifically feedback with comparison to standard and follow-up planning.

Keywords


Feedback, Clinical Skills, High Powter Distance Low Individualism, Collectivism, Early Year

Full Text:

PDF

References


Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. 2008;337:a1961.

Norcini J. The power of feedback. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):16-17.

Dent JA, Harden RM. A practical guide for medical teachers. London; New York: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2013.

Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777-781.

van de Ridder JM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OT. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42(2):189-197.

Gordon J. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: one to one teaching and feedback. BMJ. 2003;326(7388):543-545.

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. Med Teach. 2006;28(2):117-128.

Nicholson S, Cook V, Naish J, Boursicot K. Feedback: its importance in developing medical students’ clinical practice. The Clinical Teacher. 2008;5(3):163-166.

Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):101-108.

Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):787-791.

Hewson MG, Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended techniques. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(2):111-116.

Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119(2):254-284.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007;77(1):81-112.

Suhoyo Y, Van Hell EA, Kerdijk W, et al. Influence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning value of feedback in clerkships: does culture matter? BMC Medical Education. 2017;17(1):69.

Baron RA. Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. J Appl Psychol. 1988;73(2):199-207.

Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, et al. 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.

Tekian A, Watling CJ, Roberts TE, Steinert Y, Norcini J. Qualitative and quantitative feedback in the context of competency-based education. Med Teach. 2017;39(12):1245-1249.

Suhoyo Y, van Hell EA, Prihatiningsih TS, Kuks JB, Cohen-Schotanus J. Exploring cultural differences in feedback processes and perceived instructiveness during clerkships: replicating a Dutch study in Indonesia. Med Teach. 2014;36(3):223-229.

Hofstede G. Culture's consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage; 2013.

Swanwick T, Association for the Study of Medical E. Understanding medical education : evidence, theory, and practice. 2014.

Al-Kadri HM, Al-Moamary MS, Roberts C, Van der Vleuten CP. Exploring assessment factors contributing to students' study strategies: literature review. Med Teach. 2012;34 Suppl 1:S42-50.

Pratt DD, Kelly M, Wong WSS. Chinese conceptions of 'effective teaching' in Hong Kong: towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 1999;18(4):241-258.

Wong AK. Culture in medical education: comparing a Thai and a Canadian residency programme. Med Educ. 2011;45(12):1209-1219.

Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review. 1991;98(2):224-253.

Ramani S, Konings KD, Ginsburg S, van der Vleuten CPM. Twelve tips to promote a feedback culture with a growth mind-set: Swinging the feedback pendulum from recipes to relationships. Med Teach. 2019;41(6):625-631.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21460/bikdw.v4i2.149

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran Duta Wacana

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.