Feedback in action within bedside teaching encounters: a video ethnographic study
Feedback in action within bedside teaching encounters: a video ethnographic study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/medu.12498
复制
发表时间：
2014-09-01
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Monrouxe, Lynn V.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rizan, Chantelle;Elsey, Christopher;Monrouxe, Lynn V.
与教学活动相关的反馈通常与对行动的反思同义，后者包括脱离其原始背景对表现的评价性评估。反馈的行动（作为纠正在临床遇到）是一个欠开发，补充资源，促进学生的理解和learning.AccurativesThe本研究的目的是探讨的intermittenance模式和纠正模式，利用在反馈序列之间的医生和学生在一般的实践为基础的床边教学遭遇（BTEs）。参与者被记录在他们的自然环境中，以便根据背景探索干预实践。我们检查了12个BTE记录在四个一般的做法，涉及12名患者，四个全科医生和fourmedical学生（209分20秒的数据）从一个更大的语料库。数据分析，促进了Transana视频分析软件，并告知以前的会话分析研究在普通的会话，教室和医疗settings.RESULTS一系列的纠正策略，在一个频谱的潜在的明确性。在这个规模的极端极点（高或低显式）分类的纠正策略被认为是互动效果较差。例如，那些使用突然关闭的主题（高明确性）或intermittent歧义（低明确性）被认为是不太有效的比嵌入式的纠正策略，使学生达到正确的答案support.CONCLUSIONS我们相信，教育工作者明确教导的语言策略，如何管理反馈BTE可能会更有效地管理学习。例如，临床医生可以通过避免突然或模糊的反馈实践来最大限度地提高BTE期间的学习时间。嵌入式纠错策略可以通过引导学生走向正确答案来提高学生的参与度。临床医生的纠正可以敏感地管理学生的面子，最大限度地减少学生的错误暴露给病人。此外，我们认为，我们的分析所强调的有效做法可能有助于成功地将行动中的反馈转化为行动反馈。
CONTEXT Feedback associated with teaching activities is often synonymous with reflection on action, which comprises the evaluative assessment of performance out of its original context. Feedback in action (as correction during clinical encounters) is an underexplored, complementary resource facilitating students' understanding and learning.OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to explore the interactional patterns and correction modalities utilised in feedback sequences between doctors and students within general practice-based bedside teaching encounters (BTEs).METHODS A qualitative video ethnographic approach was used. Participants were recorded in their natural settings to allow interactional practices to be contextually explored. We examined 12 BTEs recorded across four general practices and involving 12 patients, four general practitioners and fourmedical students (209 minutes and 20 seconds of data) taken from a larger corpus. Data analysis was facilitated by Transana video analysis software and informed by previous conversation analysis research in ordinary conversation, classrooms and health care settings.RESULTS A range of correction strategies across a spectrum of underlying explicitness were identified. Correction strategies classified at extreme poles of this scale (high or low explicitness) were believed to be less interactionally effective. For example, those using abrupt closing of topics (high explicitness) or interactional ambiguity (low explicitness) were thought to be less effective than embedded correction strategies that enabled the student to reach the correct answer with support.CONCLUSIONS We believe that educators who are explicitly taught linguistic strategies for how to manage feedback in BTEs might manage learning more effectively. For example, clinicians might maximise learning moments during BTEs by avoiding abrupt or ambiguous feedback practices. Embedded correction strategies can enhance student participation by guiding students towards the correct answer. Clinician corrections can sensitively manage student face-saving by minimising the exposure of student error to patients. Furthermore, we believe that the effective practices highlighted by our analysis might facilitate successful transformation of feedback in action into feedback for action.