Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of an autonomy supportive versus a controlling coaching environment on surgical skill acquisition for novice trainees

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Sports psychology literature often defines coaching environments in two ways: autonomy supportive (ASE) and controlling environment (CE). An ASE offers the trainee a degree of choice, positive reinforcement, and approachability. CE coaching provides prescriptive instructions with no choice, neglects positive reinforcement, and involves physical and/or vocal intimidation. The literature suggests that ASE conditions improve motor skills learning compared to controlling conditions; this has not been studied in surgical education.

Methods

Medical students (n = 46) who were novices at laparoscopic surgical skills were randomly assigned to four groups based on the type of environment (ASE vs CE) and who initiated the feedback (trainee vs coach). Participants watched an instructional video in their coaching environment, performed a pre-test, underwent 80 min of coaching on the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery intra-corporeal suturing task, and then completed a post-test (PT). A resident and senior medical student served as coaches following ASE or CE coaching scripts. Time, errors, score, and amount of feedback for each practice trial were recorded. The coach was blinded to the score of each trial and the data were recorded by the assistant. A post-test survey was performed. Participants returned within a week to perform a retention test (RT). Results were analyzed with a 2 × 2 (environment x feedback controller) factorial ANOVA test.

Results

Post-test scores revealed a main effect of environment (p < 0.001). Similarly, on the retention test scores, a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA revealed a main effect of environment (p = 0.002). Trainees in ASE conditions achieved significantly higher post-test and retention test scores. Neither the main effect of feedback controller nor the interaction between environment and feedback controller was significant. The ASE cohorts had higher positive affect scores (p = 0.009). Across all conditions, participants completed between 7 and 13 practice trials during the 80-min training session (mean = 8.8 ± 1.2). This 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of feedback initiator (p = 0.008). Participants assigned to conditions in which the coach initiated the feedback performed significantly more trials than participants in the environments where they initiated feedback (9.3 ± 0.9 vs 8.5 ± 1.3). Neither the main effect of coaching environment nor the interaction between coaching environment and feedback initiator was significant.

Conclusion

In novice trainees, an autonomy supportive coaching environment improves surgical skill acquisition and retention along with trainee-reported attitudes toward the learning environment when compared to a controlling coaching environment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Su Y-L, Reeve J. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educ Psychol Rev. 2011;23(1):159–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach–athlete relationship: a motivational model. J Sports Sci. 2003;21(11):883–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Reeve J. Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educ Psychol. 2009;44(3):159–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Reeve J, Tseng C-M. Cortisol reactivity to a teacher’s motivating style: the biology of being controlled versus supporting autonomy. Motiv Emot. 2011;35(1):63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wulf G. Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: implications for physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2007;93(2):96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49(3):182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Motor learning through a motivational lens. In: Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice. Routledge; 2012. p. 173.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sheldon KM, Filak V. Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008;47(2):267–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wulf G, Raupach M, Pfeiffer F. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2005;76(1):107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;36:190–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Willis RE, Richa J, Oppeltz R, et al. Comparing three pedagogical approaches to psychomotor skills acquisition. Am J Surg. 2012;203(1):8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ritter EM, Scott DJ. Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov. 2007;14(2):107–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350607302329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, et al. Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery. 2004;135(1):21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Korndorffer JR, Dunne JB, Sierra R, Stefanidis D, Touchard CL, Scott DJ. Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(1):23–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.02.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL. Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 1998;175(6):482–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fraser S, Klassen D, Feldman L, Ghitulescu G, Stanbridge D, Fried G. Evaluating laparoscopic skills. Surg Endoscopy. 2003;17(6):964–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Linderbaum BA, Levy PE. The development and validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). J Manag. 2010;36(6):1372–405.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sanli EA, Patterson JT, Bray SR, Lee TD. Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Front Psychol. 2013;3:611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ashby FG, Turner BO, Horvitz JC. Cortical and basal ganglia contributions to habit learning and automaticity. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14(5):208–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abe M, Schambra H, Wassermann EM, Luckenbaugh D, Schweighofer N, Cohen LG. Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains. Curr Biol. 2011;21(7):557–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Trempe M, AU LPRT. Motor skill consolidation. In: Skill Acquisition in Sport. Routledge; 2012. p. 218–36.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci. 1988;12(2):257–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wetzel CM, Kneebone RL, Woloshynowych M, et al. The effects of stress on surgical performance. Am J Surg. 2006;191(1):5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, Darzi A, Kneebone R. The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery. 2010;147(3):318–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Al Fayyadh MJ, Hassan RA, Tran ZK, et al. Immediate auditory feedback is superior to other types of feedback for basic surgical skills acquisition. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(6):e55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gawande A. Top athletes and singers have coaches. Should you. The New Yorker. 2011:44–53.

  30. Heen S, Stone D. Find the coaching in criticism. Harv Bus Rev. 2014;92:108–11.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Louridas M, Sachdeva AK, Yuen A, Blair P, MacRae H. Coaching in surgical education: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):80–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stefanidis D, Anderson-Montoya B, Higgins RV, et al. Developing a coaching mechanism for practicing surgeons. Surgery. 2016;160(3):536–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sachdeva AK. Acquiring and maintaining lifelong expertise in surgery. Surgery. 2020;167(5):787–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pradarelli JC, Yule S, Panda N, et al. Surgeons’ coaching techniques in the Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE) program. Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):e91–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Greenberg CC, Ghousseini HN, Quamme SRP, Beasley HL, Wiegmann DA. Surgical coaching for individual performance improvement. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):32–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pradarelli JC, Hu Y-Y, Dimick JB, Greenberg CC. The value of surgical coaching beyond training. Adv Surg. 2020;54:31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Min H, Morales DR, Orgill D, Smink DS, Yule S. Systematic review of coaching to enhance surgeons’ operative performance. Surgery. 2015;158(5):1168–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Patnaik R, Stefanidis D. Outcome-based training and the role of simulation. In: Comprehensive healthcare simulation: surgery and surgical subspecialties. Springer; 2019. p. 69–78.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Aimee K Gardner for sharing her coaching scripts and work. UT Health San Antonio Department of Surgery Johnson Center and staff – Eileen Kleffner, Guiomar Garcia and Veronica Reyna.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA

    Ronit Patnaik, Stephanie A. Seale, Jason W. Kempenich, Daniel L. Dent & Ross E. Willis

Authors
  1. Ronit Patnaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie A. Seale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason W. Kempenich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel L. Dent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ross E. Willis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronit Patnaik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We do not have any relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patnaik, R., Seale, S.A., Kempenich, J.W. et al. The impact of an autonomy supportive versus a controlling coaching environment on surgical skill acquisition for novice trainees. Global Surg Educ 1, 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-022-00037-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-022-00037-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation