Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Giving Feedback to Students

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Teaching Anatomy

Abstract

In a student-centered teaching and learning environment, successful achievement of competencies is strongly dependent on a dynamic exchange of performance-related communication. Students cannot be expected to know what they do or don’t know if they have nothing to measure it against. The use of formative feedback, as it relates to student performance, is no longer an optional exercise but rather an essential element in helping students achieve successful learning outcomes. Formative feedback provides students with meaningful commentary relating to performance for the purpose of improving performance. Literature pertaining to formative feedback is abundant in the field of education and business but only recently introduced in medical education. This chapter distinguishes two types of feedback that may be applied in the anatomy course assessment structure: (i) “directive feedback” used to provide students with information on knowledge deficits that may place them at risk for achieving required grades and (ii) “facilitative feedback” used to provide students with verbal or written commentary on their performance relating to nontraditional discipline-independent skills with the intention of guiding them through their professional development. Anatomy teachers should capitalize on their ability to influence students early in the medical curriculum and incorporate the practice of providing regular formative feedback while teaching anatomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Clynes MP, Raftery SEC. Feedback: an essential element of student learning in clinical practice. Nurse Educ Pract. 2008;8:405–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harlena W, James M. Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1997;4(3):365–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Garrison C, Ehringhaus M. Formative and summative assessments in the classroom. http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/Web_Exclusive/Formative_Summative_Assessment.pdf

  4. Brophy JE. Teacher praise: a functional analysis. Rev Educ Res. 1981;51(1):5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz F, White K. Making sense of it all: giving and getting online course feedback. In: White KW, Weight BH, editors. The online teaching guide: a handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2000. p. 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cleary ML, Walter G. Giving feedback to learners in clinical and academic settings: practical considerations. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2010;41(4):153–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kruidering-Hall M, O'Sullivan PS, Chou CL. Teaching feedback to first-year medical students: long-term skill retention and accuracy of student self-assessment. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):721–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bienstock JL, Katz NT, Cox SM, Hueppchen N, Erickson S, Puscheck EE. For the association of professors of gynecology and obstetrics undergraduate medical education committee. To the point: medical education reviews—providing feedback. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:508–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. J Am Med Assoc. 1983;12:777–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. London M. Job feedback: giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hewson MG, Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended techniques. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(2):111–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McKimm J. Giving effective feedback. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2009;70(3):158–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas JD, Arnold RM. Giving feedback. J Palliative Med. 2011;14(2):233–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Teaching rounds: giving feedback in clinical settings. Br Med J. 2008;337(7681):1292–4.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lachman N, Pawlina W. Basic sciences and curriculum outcomes. In: Dent J, Harden R, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. Churchill Livingstone: Paperback; 2009. p. 260–64.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Black P, William D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 1998;5(1):7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shute V. Focus on formative feedback. Educational Testing Service. 2007. http://www.ets.org/research/contact.html

    Google Scholar 

  18. Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):160–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazur E. Farewell, lecture? Science. 2009;323:50–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Premkumar K, Coupal C. Rules of engagement—12 tips for successful use of “clickers” in the classroom. Med Teach. 2008;30:146–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rubio EI, Bassignani MJ, White MA, Brant WE. Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:319–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meyers C, Jones TB. Promoting active learning. Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Horowitz HM. Student response systems: interactivity in a classroom environment. New York, IBM Corporation, Corporate Education Center, Thornwood, NY. http://www.einstruction.com/News/index.cfm?fuseaction5News.display&Menu5newsroom&content5FormalPaper&id5210

  24. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik CC, Kulik JA, Morgan MT. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res. 1991;61(2):213–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pridemore DR, Klein JD. Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemp Educ Psychol. 1995;20:444–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nelson AJ, Nelson SV, Linn AM, Raw LE, Kildea HB, Tonkin AL. Tomorrow’s educators … today? Implementing near-peer teaching for medical students. Med Teach. 2013;35(2):156–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lachman N, Christensen KN, Pawlina W. Anatomy teaching assistants: facilitating teaching skills for medical students through apprenticeship and mentoring. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):e919–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Camp CL, Gregory JK, Lachman N, Chen LP, Juskewitch JE, Pawlina W. Comparative efficacy of group and individual feedback in gross anatomy for promoting medical student professionalism. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(2):64–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hofer RE, Nikolaus OB, Pawlina W. Using checklists in a gross anatomy laboratory improves learning outcomes and dissection quality. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(5):249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Corbett AT, Anderson JR. Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001 conference on human factors in computing systems. New York, NY: ACM Press; 2001. p. 245–52.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Harden RM, Laidlaw JM. Be FAIR to students: four principles that lead to more effective learning. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):27–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. DiLullo C, McGee P, Kriebel RM. Demystifying the millennial student: a reassessment in measures of character and engagement in professional education. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(4):214–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jonas-Dwyer D, Pospisil R. The millennial effect: implications for academic development. In Transforming knowledge into wisdom: holistic approaches to teaching and learning HERDSA Conference Proceedings. 2004, p. 195−207.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fisher SL, Ford JK. Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Person Psychol. 1998;51:397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Glover C, Brown E. Written feedback for students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Biosci Educ E-J. 2006:7 http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.pdf

  36. Branch Jr WT, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77:1185–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Varlander S. The role of student emotions in formal feedback situation. Teach High Educ. 2008; 13:2, 145−6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. DeLisa JA, Lindenthal JJ. Commentary: reflections on diversity and inclusion in medical education. Acad Med. 2012;87(11):1461–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hawala-Druy S, Hill MH. Interdisciplinary: cultural competency and culturally congruent education for millennials in health professions. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(7):772–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brinko KT. The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: what is effective? J High Educ. 1993;64(5):574–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vickery AW, Lake FR. Teaching on the run tips 10: giving feedback. Med J Aust. 2005;183(5):267–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Nirusha Lachman PhD

Authors
  1. Nirusha Lachman PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nirusha Lachman PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical and Health Sciences Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Lap Ki Chan

  2. Department of Anatomy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

    Wojciech Pawlina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lachman, N. (2015). Giving Feedback to Students. In: Chan, L., Pawlina, W. (eds) Teaching Anatomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08929-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08930-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation