Skip to main content

A Survey of Health Sciences Faculty Practices and Attitudes Regarding the Peer Feedback Component of Team-Based Learning

Abstract

Background

Peer feedback, an essential component of team-based learning (TBL), fosters accountability among team members. Effective utilization can be advantageous for both students and faculty, although there may be many implementation challenges. Our study objectives were to (1) identify current practices of peer feedback in TBL, (2) identify curricular assessment related to peer feedback, and (3) identify challenges with peer feedback in TBL.

Methods

A survey link was sent via medical and TBL web boards. The survey asked for both quantitative and qualitative information regarding the peer feedback process. Quantitative results were analyzed using SPSS®. NVivo® was used to identify and code themes in open-ended responses. Both investigators reviewed and agreed upon themes.

Results

Sixty-one TBL users in health professions completed the survey. Multiple health professions were represented with medicine and pharmacy being the most common. Information on current practices showed a wide variety of implementation. Curricular alignment was common. Time and training were the most common challenges and difficulties.

Conclusions

Meaningful feedback should be considered an important curricular outcome. Specific learning objectives and appropriate assessment strategies should be developed to meet the mission of the program. Students must receive guidance from faculty members on how to improve their skills in providing effective feedback. Overall, faculty saw peer evaluation as valuable. However, the time commitment, lack of student training, and student attitudes make implementation difficult. Future research should focus on best practices to streamline the TBL feedback process and on student training regarding how to provide effective feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Michaelsen LK, Sweet M. The essential elements of team-based learning. In: Michaelsen LK, Sweet M, Parmelee DX, editors. Team-based learning: small-group learning’s next big step. New directions for teaching and learning, No 116. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2008. p. 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Haidet P, Levine RE, Parmelee DX. Perspective: guidelines for reporting team-based learning in the medical and health sciences education literature. Acad Med. 2012;87(3):292–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cestone CM, Levine RE, Lane DR. Peer assessment and evaluation of team-based learning. In: Michaelsen LK, Sweet M, Parmelee DX, editors. Team-based learning: small-group learning’s next big step. New directions for teaching and learning, No 116. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2008. p. 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):387–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nofziger AC, Naumburg EH, Davis BJ, Mooney CJ, Epstein RM. Impact of peer assessment on the professional development of medical students: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2010;85(1):140–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van Duzer E, McMartin F. Methods to improve the validity and sensitivity of a self/peer assessment instrument. IEEE Trans Educ. 2000;43(2):153–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cushing A, Abbott S, Lothian D, Hall A, Westwood OM. Peer feedback as an aid to learning—what do we want? Feedback. When do we want it? Now! Med Teach. 2011;33:105–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arnold L, Shue CK, Kalishman S, Prislin M, Pohl C, Pohl H, et al. Can there be a single system for peer assessment of professionalism among medical students? A multi-institutional study. Acad Med. 2007;82:578–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Farland MZ, Sicat BL, Franks AS, Pater KS, Medina MS, Persky AM. Best practices for implementing team-based learning in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(8):177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ashenafi MM. Peer-assessment in higher education—twenty-first century practices, challenges and the way forward. Assess Eval High Educ. 2017;42(2):226–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89(4):678–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Topping K. Peer assessment. Theory Pract. 2009;48:20–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chatterjee D, Corral J. How to write well-defined learning objectives. J Educ Perioper Med. 2017;19(4):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Michaelsen LK, Schultheiss EE. Making feedback helpful. J Manag Educ. 1989;13:109–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Murdoch-Eaton D, Sargeant J. Maturational differences in undergraduate medical students’ perceptions about feedback. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):711–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brukner H. Giving effective feedback to medical students: a workshop for faculty and house staff. Med Teach. 1999;21(2):161–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schulz B. The importance of soft skills: education beyond academic knowledge. J Lang Commun. 2008;2(1):146–54.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gonzalez MA, Abu Kasim NH, Naimie Z. Soft skills and dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17:73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Duggan A, Street RL Jr. Interpersonal communication in health and illness. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2015. p. 243–68.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kenny NP, Mann KV, MacLeod H. Role modeling in physicians’ professional formation: reconsidering an essential but untapped educational strategy. Acad Med. 2003;78:1203–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Lerchenfeldt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Cedarville University and Oakland University determined this project was exempt from IRB review according to federal regulations.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was included at beginning of the survey.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lerchenfeldt, S., Eng, M. A Survey of Health Sciences Faculty Practices and Attitudes Regarding the Peer Feedback Component of Team-Based Learning. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 1211–1219 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00816-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00816-z

Keywords

  • Team-based learning
  • Peer feedback
  • Peer evaluation
  • Peer assessment
  • Health education