Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Written Feedback in Health Sciences Education: “What You Write May Be Perceived as Banal”

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Clinical Education for the Health Professions

  • 95 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews salient literature on the use of written feedback and distils some advice from the research to guide teachers in the health sciences as to what might work best for them. There are contradictions in this field, both in the research findings and in theoretical perspectives. There are two ways to use this chapter. Some readers may be interested in the points raised in the studies reviewed as well as in practical advice, because these studies cover a wide range of contexts, and some advice may not work in all settings. Other readers may go straight to the distillation, and if they hit a concept that requires explanation may go back to find it in the discussion.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abraham RM, Singaram VS. Third-year medical students’ and clinical teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment feedback in the simulated clinical setting. Afr J Health Prof Educ. 2016;8(1Suppl 1):121–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham RM, Singaram VS. Using deliberate practice framework to assess the quality of feedback in undergraduate clinical skills training. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agius NM, Wilkinson A. Students’ and teachers’ views of written feedback at undergraduate level: a literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(4):552–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajjawi R, Boud D. Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach. Assess Eval High Educ. 2017;42(2):252–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ. 2010;44:101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arluke A. Roundsmanship: inherent control on a medical teaching ward. Soc Sci Med. 1980;14A:297–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awang Besar MN, Kamruddin MA, Siraj HH, Yaman MN, Bujang SM, Karim J, Jaafar AS. Evaluation of lecturer’s feedback in mini clinical evaluation exercise assessment (Mini-CEX). Educ Med J. 2018;10(4):31–41. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2018.10.4.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babovič M, Fu RH, Monrouxe LV. Understanding how to enhance efficacy and effectiveness of feedback via e-portfolio: a realist synthesis protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e029173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett M, Georgoff P, Matusko N, Leininger L, Reddy RM, Sandhu G, Hughes DT. The effects of feedback fatigue and sex disparities in medical student feedback assessed using a minute feedback system. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(5):1245–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett M, Crossley J, McKinley R. Improving the quality of written feedback using written feedback. Educ Prim Care. 2017;28(1):16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. The feedback tango: an integrative review and analysis of the content of the teacher–learner feedback exchange. Acad Med. 2018;93(4):657–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok HG, Jaarsma DA, Spruijt A, Van Beukelen P, Van Der Vleuten CP, Teunissen PW. Feedback-giving behaviour in performance evaluations during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2016;38(1):88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud D. Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? Chapter 2. In: Knight P, editor. Assessment for learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud D, Molloy E, editors. Feedback in higher and professional education: understanding it and doing it well. London: Routledge; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch VC. The changing landscape of workplace-based assessment. J Appl Test Technol. 2019;20(S2):37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canning J (2018) Feedback: a short academic literature review. Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality (SPEAQ) project. https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.brighton.ac.uk/dist/2/123/files/2014/11/Feedback-literature-review2-1hx2wyt.pdf. Accessed Jan 2020

  • Carless D, Salter D, Yang M, Lam J. Developing sustainable feedback practices. Stud High Educ. 2011;36:395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chertoff J, Wright A, Novak M, Fantone J, Fleming A, Ahmed T, Green MM, Kalet A, Linsenmeyer M, Jacobs J, Dokter C. Status of portfolios in undergraduate medical education in the LCME accredited US medical school. Med Teach. 2016;38(9):886–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung WJ, Dudek N, Wood TJ, Frank JR. Daily encounter cards – evaluating the quality of documented assessments. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(4):601–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong I. Interplay among technical, socio-emotional and personal factors in written feedback research. Assess Eval High Educ. 2018;43(2):185–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman E, O’Connor E. The role of WhatsApp® in medical education; a scoping review and instructional design model. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeley SJ. Using technology to facilitate effective assessment for learning and feedback in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ. 2018;43(3):439–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker H, Schönrock-Adema J, Snoek JW, van der Molen T, Cohen-Schotanus J. Which characteristics of written feedback are perceived as stimulating students’ reflective competence: an exploratory study. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duijn CC, Welink LS, Mandoki M, ten Cate OT, Kremer WD, Bok HG. Am I ready for it? Students’ perceptions of meaningful feedback on entrustable professional activities. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(4):256–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunworth K, Sanchez HS. Mediating factors in the provision of lecturers’ written feedback to postgraduate taught students. Int J Educ Res. 2018;90:107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endacott R, Gray MA, Jasper MA, McMullan M, Miller C, Scholes J, Webb C. Using portfolios in the assessment of learning and competence: the impact of four models. Nurse Educ Pract. 2004;4(4):250–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans C. Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Rev Educ Res. 2013;83(1):70–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fnais N, Soobiah C, Chen MH, Lillie E, Perrier L, Tashkhandi M, Straus SE, Mamdani M, Al-Omran M, Tricco AC. Harassment and discrimination in medical training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2014;89(5):817–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatewood E, De Gagne JC. The one-minute preceptor model: a systematic review. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2019;31(1):46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough S, Hamshire C. Supporting healthcare workforce development using simulation and ePortfolios. In Proceedings of E-Portfolio and identity conference (Epic). ADPIOS, Poitiers, France. 2012. http://epic.openrecognition.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/02/ePIC-2012.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2020.

  • Graduate Careers Australia. Data from the course experience questionnaire 2010. 2012. http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gca002524.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2012.

  • Gul RB, Tharani A, Lakhani A, Rizvi NF, Ali SK. Teachers’ perceptions and practices of written feedback in higher education. World J Educ. 2016;6(3):10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halim UA, Riding DM. Systematic review of the prevalence, impact and mitigating strategies for bullying, undermining behaviour and harassment in the surgical workplace. Br J Surg. 2018;105(11):1390–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey P, Radomski N, O’Connor D. Written feedback and continuity of learning in a geographically distributed medical education program. Med Teach. 2013;35(12):1009–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Oxford: Routledge; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie J, Gan M. Instruction based on feedback. Chapter 13. In: Meyer RE, Alexander PA, editors. Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York: Routledge; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeneman S, de Grave W. Tensions in mentoring medical students toward self-directed and reflective learning in a longitudinal portfolio-based mentoring system–an activity theory analysis. Med Teach. 2017;39(4):368–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton S, Rague B. Is video feedback more effective than written feedback? In 2015 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) 2015. p. 1–6. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmboe ES, Fiebach NH, Galaty LA, Huot S. Effectiveness of a focused educational intervention on resident evaluations from faculty: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:427–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham M. Fast and effective feedback: are model answers the answer? Assess Eval High Educ. 2007;32:601–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland K. Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Stud Educ Eval. 2013;39(3):180–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ion G, Cano-García E, Fernández-Ferrer M. Enhancing self-regulated learning through using written feedback in higher education. Int J Educ Res. 2017;85:1–0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JL, Kay C, Jackson WC, Frank M. The quality of written feedback by attendings of internal medicine residents. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(7):973–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly B, Boud D. Written feedback. In: Feedback in higher and professional education. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 104–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson M, Nestel D, Jolly B. An e-portfolio in health professional education. Med Educ. 2004;38(5):569–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempp H, Seale C. The hidden curriculum in undergraduate medical education: qualitative study of medical students’ perceptions of teaching. BMJ. 2004;329:770–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacNeil K, Cuncic C, Voyer S, Butler D, Hatala R. Necessary but not sufficient: identifying conditions for effective feedback during internal medicine residents’ clinical education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2019;25:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbouti F, Mendoza-Garcia J, Diefes-Dux HA, Cardella ME. Written feedback provided by first-year engineering students, undergraduate teaching assistants, and educators on design project work. Eur J Eng Educ. 2019;44(1–2):179–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molloy E, Ajjawi R, Bearman M, Noble C, Rudland J, Ryan A. Challenging feedback myths: values, learner involvement and promoting effects beyond the immediate task. Med Educ. 2020;54(1):33–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris C, Chikwa G. Audio versus written feedback: exploring learners’ preference and the impact of feedback format on students’ academic performance. Act Learn High Educ. 2016;17(2):125–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson MM, Schunn CD. The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instr Sci. 2009;37(4):375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbitt A, Pitcher A, James L, Sturrock A, Griffin A. Written feedback on supervised learning events. Clin Teach. 2014;11(4):279–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol D. From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assess Eval High Educ. 2010;35:501–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Arnold GK, Kimball HR. The mini-CEX (clinical evaluation exercise): a preliminary investigation. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(10):795–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan BM, den Outer B, Price M, Lloyd A. What makes good feedback good? Stud High Educ. 2019;19:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page M, Gardner J, Booth J. Validating written feedback in clinical formative assessment. Assess Eval High Educ. 2019;45:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parappilly M, Woodman RJ, Randhawa S. Feasibility and effectiveness of different models of team-based learning approaches in STEMM-based disciplines. Res Sci Educ. 2019;4:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The new consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Price M, Handley K, Millar J, O’donovan B. Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? Assess Eval High Educ. 2010;35(3):277–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rae AM, Cochrane DK. Listening to students: how to make written assessment feedback useful. Act Learn High Educ. 2008;9(3):217–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge; 1989.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rust C, O’Donovan B, Price M. A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assess Eval High Educ. 2005;30(3):231–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan TA, Henderson M, Phillips MD. “Written feedback doesn’t make sense”: enhancing assessment feedback using technologies. In International conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education 2016: Transforming Educational Research 2016. p. 1–11. 2016. Australian Association for Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno SM, Jackson JL, O’malley PG. Interactive faculty development seminars improve the quality of written feedback in ambulatory teaching. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(10):831–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant J, Mcnaughton E, Mercer S, Murphy D, Sullivan P, Bruce DA. Providing feedback: exploring a model (emotion, content, outcomes) for facilitating multisource feedback. Med Teach. 2011;33(9):744–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schillings M, Roebertsen H, Savelberg H, Whittingham J, Dolmans D. Peer-to-peer dialogue about teachers’ written feedback enhances students’ understanding on how to improve writing skills. Educ Stud. 2019;46:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabrook MA. Clinical students’ initial reports of the educational climate in a single medical school. Med Educ. 2004;38:659–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellbjer S. “Have you read my comments? It is not noticeable. Change!” An analysis of feedback given to students who have failed examinations. Assess Eval High Educ. 2018;43(2):163–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp P. Behaviour modification in the secondary school: a survey of students’ attitudes to rewards and praise. Behav Approach Child. 1985;9:109–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai J, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Dawson P, Panadero E. Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. High Educ. 2018;76(3):467–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The “educational alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(5):609–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui AB, Ng M. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? J Second Lang Writ. 2000;9(2):147–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller JM, Castanelli DJ, Chen Y, Jolly B. Making robust assessments of specialist trainees’ workplace performance. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(2):207–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstone NE, Nash RA. 11 developing students’ proactive engagement with feedback. In: Innovative assessment in higher education: a handbook for academic practitioners, vol. 3. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2019. p. 129.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Winstone NE, Nash RA, Rowntree J, Parker M. It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: barriers to university students feedback’ seeking and recipience. Stud High Educ. 2017;42(11):2026–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Brian Jolly

  2. School of Rural Medicine, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

    Brian Jolly

Authors
  1. Brian Jolly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Jolly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Debra Nestel

  2. King's College London, London, UK

    Gabriel Reedy

  3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

    Lisa McKenna

  4. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

    Suzanne Gough

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Jolly, B. (2021). Written Feedback in Health Sciences Education: “What You Write May Be Perceived as Banal”. In: Nestel, D., Reedy, G., McKenna, L., Gough, S. (eds) Clinical Education for the Health Professions. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6106-7_52-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6106-7_52-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6106-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6106-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation