Evaluasi Proses Pemberian Feedback di Tutorial Problem-Based Learning di Fakultas Kedokteran

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.25320

Tezar Samekto Darungan(1*), Gandes Retno Rahayu(2), Mora Claramita(3)

(1) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara
(2) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: Feedback constitutes one of the important components in student Since feedback is not solely limited to student assignments, it can also be given during student learning, including tutorials. Therefore, the institution should pay particular attention to the process of feedback provision one of which is through evaluations on the process of providing feedback in tutorials. This study aimed to evaluate the process of providing feedback on the Problem-Based Learning tutorials in the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara.

Method: This study used mixed methods with a quantitative method performed first, followed by a qualitative method with a phenomenology approach. The subjects were the undergraduate medical students of the class of 2012 and tutors of the Problem-Based Learning tutorials. The quantitative data analysis was done by the descriptive analysis while the qualitative data analysis was done through verbatim analysis, coding, categorization and conclusion.

Results: The students had received feedback but not routinely. Both the students and the tutors had perceived that feedback was important and gave them many benefits. In practice, feedback was given on the basis of tutors’ direct observation results. Action ;plan was often given but rarely involved discussion. Self-assessment/reflection was also not a matter of routine and the tutors did not know that it was part of the feedback. The contents of feedback were more often in the form of general comments. Feedback was often communicated in one direction. The students’ response to feedback varied. In giving and receiving feedback, the students, the tutors, the tutorial activities and the content of the feedback itself could influence one another. The students had  preferences so feedback can be more easily accepted and they focused on the structural aspects of feedback (the frequency of giving feedback, the detail and spesific feedback, two way communication in giving feedback and the feedback target). Tutors expected more trainings in giving feedback provided by institution to tutors and students.

Conclusion: Despite its valuable benefits, tutorial feedback in the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara,is still not in accordance with the principle of providing feedback and many factors have affected this condition.


Keywords


evaluation, feedback, tutorials

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Ende J. Feedback in medical education. JAMA 1983; 250(6); 777-81.
  2. Brodksy WT, Doherty EG. Providing effective feedback. NeoReviews 2010; 11(3): 117-22.
  3. Hamid Y, Mahmood S. Understanding constructive feedback: a commitment between teachers and students for academic and professional development. J Pak Med Assoc 2010; 60(3): 224-7.
  4. Branch WT, Paranjape A. Feedback & reflection: teaching methods for clinical teaching. Academic Medicine 2002; 77(12): 1185-8.
  5. Murphy C, Cornell J. Student perception of feedback: seeking a coherent flow. Practitioner Research in Higher Education 2010; 4(1): 41-51.
  6. Rowe AD, Wood LN. Student perception and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Sciences 2008; 4(3): 78-88.
  7. Nicol DJ, Macfarlene-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 2006; 31(2): 199-218.
  8. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback.Review of Educational Research 2007); 77(1): 81-112.
  9. Kaprielian VS, Gradison M. Effective use of feedback. Fam Med 1998; 30(6): 406-7.
  10. Miser WF. Giving effective feedback. [Online] 2006 [cited 2010 Apr 26]. Available from URL : http://www.ohioafp.org/pdfs/member/educatorresources/GivingEffectiveFeedback.pdf
  11. Carr S. The foundation programme assessment tools: an opportunity to enhance feedback & trainers. Postgrad Med 2006; 82: 576-9.
  12. Chowdurry RR, Kalu G. Learning to give feedback in medical education. Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 2004; 6: 243-7.
  13. Harsono. Pengantar problem-based learning. Yogyakarta: Medika FK UGM; 2008.
  14. Walsh A. The Tutor in PBL; a novice’s guide. Canada: Program for Faculty Development.McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences; 2005.
  15. Azer S. Navigating Problem-based learning. Australia: Elsevier; 2008.
  16. Naylor R, Baik C, Asmar C, Watty K. Good feedback practice. [Online] 2014 [cited 2015 Apr 18]. Availble from URL : http://ww.cshe.unimelb.edu.au
  17. Bing-You RG, Trowbridge RL. Why medical educators may be failed at feedback. JAMA 2009; 301(12): 1330-1.
  18. Boehler ML, Roger DA, Schwind CJ, Mayforth R, Qui n J, Williams RG, Dunnington G. An investugarion of medicl students reaction to feedback: A randomized controlled trial. Medical Education 2006; 40: 746-9.
  19. Duncan N. Feed-forward: improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2007; 32(3): 271-83.
  20. Hesketh EA, Laidlaw JM. 1: Feedback. Medical Teacher 2002; 245-8.
  21. Kruidering-Hall M, O’Sullivan PS, Chou CL. Teaching feedback to first year medicl students: long term skill retention and accuracy of student self-assessment. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24(6): 721-6.
  22. Patton. Qualitative evaliuation and research method. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publication; 1990.
  23. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex intervention: medical research council guidance. The BMJ 2015; 350:1528.
  24. Johnson B, Christian L. Educational research: Quantitaive, qualitative and mixed approaches. 4th ed. USA: SAGE; 2011.
  25. Butler DL, Winne PH. Feedback and self-regulated elarning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research 1995: 65(3): 245-81.
  26. Scarparo S, Gracia L. Conceptualising feedback-mapping the student experience as a first stage of feedback development. [Online] 2011 [cited 2015 Dec 1]. Available from URL : http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross.fac/iatl/funding/fundedprojects/fellowships/scarparo_and_gracia_interim_report.pdf
  27. Eva KW, Regehr G. “I’ll never play professional football” and other fallacies of self-assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Proffession 2008; 28(1): 14-9.
  28. Algiraigri AH. Ten tips for receiving feedback effectively in clinical practice. Med Educ Online 2014;19.
  29. Orsmond P, Merry S, Reiling K. The student use of formative feedback. [Online] 2002 [cited 2015 Dec 1]. Available from URL : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002233.htm
  30. Amin Z, Khoo HE. Basic in Medical Education. Singapore: World Scientific; 2009.
  31. De Grave WS, Dolmans DHJM, Van der Vleuten CPM. Profiles of effective tutor in problem-based learning, scaffolding student learning. Medical Education 1999; 33: 901-6.
  32. Oliffe J. Facilitation in problem-based learning-espoused theory versus theory in use: reflections of a first time user. Australian Electronic Journal of Nursing Education 2000; 5(2).
  33. Harden RM, Crosby J. AMEE guide no 20: the good teacher is mpre than a lecturer-the twelve roles of the teacher. Medical Teacher 2000; 22(4): 334-47.
  34. Price M, Handley K, Millar J. Feeback: focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education 2011; 36(8): 879-96.
  35. Yang M, Carless D. The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback process. Teaching in Higher Education 2013; 18(3): 285-97.
  36. Hewson MG, Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended technique. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13: 111-6.
  37. Pekrun R, Cusack A, Murayama K, Elliot AJ, Thomas K. The power of anticipated feedback: effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotion. Learning and Instructions 2010; 29: 115-24.
  38. Brookhart SM. How to give effective feedback to your students. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develoment; 2008.
  39. 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 in Health Sci Educ 2012; 17: 15-26.
  40. Chung YB, Yuen M. The role of feedback in enhancing students’ self-regulation in inviting school. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practise 2011; 17: 22-7.
  41. Carless D, Salter D, Yang M, lam J. Developing sustainable feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 2010; 1: 1-13.
  42. Liu N-F, Carless D. Peer-feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 11(3): 279-90.
  43. Farmer EA. Faculty development for problem-based learning. Eur J Denr Educ2004; 8: 59-66.
  44. Baroffio A, Nendaz MR, Perrier A, Vu NV. Tutor training, evaluation criteria and teaching environment influence students’ ratimgs of tutor feedback in problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education (2007); 12: 427-39.
  45. Brukner H, Atlkorn DL, Cook S, Quinn MT, McNabb WL. Giving effective feedback to medical students: a workshop for faculty and house staff. Medical Teacher 1999; 21(2):161-5.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.25320

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 5890 | views : 12035

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Tezar Samekto Darungan, Gandes Retno Rahayu, Mora Claramita

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

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:

  

 JPKI Stats