Freire, dialogic feedback, and power issues

The centrality of feedback is undeniable in education. However, not all feedback effectively encourages learning or improves performance due to predicaments in feedback delivery and receptivity. Several studies suggest other ways where feedback is offered in a dialogic fashion instead of a monologic one. Nevertheless, few papers do so in the context of medical education, especially when the learning processes involve marginalized people such as disaster-affected patients. This paper draws on autoethnographic experiences of providing dialogic feedback for medical students using Paolo Freire's dialogue concepts. This feedback was given during reflective sessions in community-based medical education at post-disaster areas in Aceh, Indonesia. The findings show that Freire's dialogue concepts help assess dialogic feedback quality and offer insights into power relations between teachers and students. To achieve the aim of providing dialogic feedback --obtaining new understandings-- educators need to establish a more equal position in teacher-student relationships. In sum, the findings highlight the applicability of Freire's concept of dialogue in offering feedback for students especially when the training takes place in a context of marginalized people.

Development of the Feedback Quality Instrument: a guide for health professional educators in fostering learner-centred discussions

Background Face-to-face feedback plays an important role in health professionals’ workplace learning. The literature describes guiding principles regarding effective feedback but it is not clear how to enact these. We aimed to create a Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI), underpinned by a social constructivist perspective, to assist educators in collaborating with learners to support learner-centred feedback interactions. In earlier research, we developed a set of observable educator behaviours designed to promote beneficial learner outcomes, supported by published research and expert consensus. This research focused on analysing and refining this provisional instrument, to create the FQI ready-to-use. Methods We collected videos of authentic face-to-face feedback discussions, involving educators (senior clinicians) and learners (clinicians or students), during routine clinical practice across a major metropolitan hospital network. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the video data were used to refine the provisional instrument. Raters administered the provisional instrument to systematically analyse educators’ feedback practice seen in the videos. This enabled usability testing and resulted in ratings data for psychometric analysis involving multifaceted Rasch model analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Parallel qualitative research of the video transcripts focused on two under-researched areas, psychological safety and evaluative judgement, to provide practical insights for item refinement. The provisional instrument was revised, using an iterative process, incorporating findings from usability testing, psychometric testing and parallel qualitative research and foundational research. Results Thirty-six videos involved diverse health professionals across medicine, nursing and physiotherapy. Administering the provisional instrument generated 174 data sets. Following refinements, the FQI contained 25 items, clustered into five domains characterising core concepts underpinning quality feedback: set the scene, analyse performance, plan improvements, foster learner agency, and foster psychological safety. Conclusions The FQI describes practical, empirically-informed ways for educators to foster quality, learner-centred feedback discussions. The explicit descriptions offer guidance for educators and provide a foundation for the systematic analysis of the influence of specific educator behaviours on learner outcomes.

Exploring the Feedback Quality of an Automated Writing Evaluation System Pigai

The study made an exploration of the feedback quality of an Automated Writing Evaluation system (AWE) Pigai, which has been widely applied in English teaching and learning in China. The study not only focused on the diagnostic precision of the feedback but also investigated the students’ perceptions of the feedback use in their daily writing practices. Taking 104 university students’ final exam essays as the research materials, the paired sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean number of errors identified by Pigai and professional teachers. It was found that Pigai feedback could not so well diagnose the essays as the human feedback given by the experienced teachers, however, it was quite competent in identifying lexical errors. The analysis of students’ perceptions indicated that most students thought Pigai feedback was multi-functional, but it was inadequate in identifying the collocation errors and giving suggestions in syntactic use. The implications and limitations of the study were discussed at the end of the paper.

Supporting Peer Feedback on Learning Strategies: Effects on Self-Efficacy and Feedback Quality

The study focused on supporting the distinct processes of assessment and providing feedback within a peer feedback setting in teacher education and investigates the effects on student teachers’ self-efficacy and feedback quality in a quasi-experiment. Student teachers ( n = 129) were asked to repeatedly provide peer feedback on learning strategies and were supported by a digital tool. The support was varied: support in assessment (A; realized by rubrics), in formulating the feedback (F; by providing sentence starters), in both components (A+F), or no support (Control). We conducted a 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) to measure the effect on feedback quality and 2 × 2×2 mixed ANOVAs to investigate the effects on self-efficacy. Results revealed that student teachers perceived higher self-efficacy regarding assessing learning strategies and giving feedback after repeatedly giving and receiving peer feedback. While supporting feedback-writing (F) was immediately beneficial for students’ self-efficacy, the combination (A + F) was most advantageous in the long run. In addition, feedback quality was higher when students were supported in writing the feedback. The findings show that competencies to assess and to give feedback seem to be distinct components that should be fostered individually. The developed support by the digital tool seems to be one beneficial approach here.