Cited by 20Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

Feedback mapping—The curricular cornerstone of an “educational alliance.”

Murdoch-Eaton, Deborah, Bowen, Lucy·2017·Medical Teacher

Abstract

PURPOSE: The "educational alliance" concept articulates a collaborative framework to facilitate effective feedback through transparency of opportunities aligned with learner stage and intended educational outcomes. Using this framework, we evaluated feedback across a 5 year undergraduate medical program to support embedding a successful learner - teacher "educational alliance". METHOD: A comprehensive mapping exercise used an iterative action research process of source documentary analysis, consultations with key curriculum stakeholders and qualitative analysis. The "educational alliance" model provided a critical lens through which to ensure feedback opportunities aligned with intended learning outcomes and developmental progression. RESULTS: Key information about the type, frequency and timing of feedback opportunities was identified within 188 curricular components. The purpose and intended learning outcomes were mapped, aligning with the stage of learning and with an expectation of supporting learners' capacity for self-regulation. This focus providing clear articulation of feedback opportunities supported the longitudinal developmental curricular review, and facilitated enhanced awareness of dialogic feedback within the "educational alliance". CONCLUSIONS: Explicit alignment of learning intentions between learner and educator is key to forming a successful "educational alliance". The feedback map provides clarity ensuring mutual understanding of intended learning outcomes. The iterative process additionally certified feedback aligned with maturing learner developmental needs across the program.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0142159x.2017.1297892

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Eva, K.W. & Regehr, G. (2005) Self-assessment in the health professions: a reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80 (10), S46-S54.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murdoch-Eaton, D., & Bowen, L.
Affiliations
  • Academic Unit of Medical Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2017-03-10
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
540-547
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2593700121
Cited by
20
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
educational alliances, feedback in medical education, undergraduate medical curriculum, learning outcomes alignment, student self-regulation, dialogic feedback, curriculum review, teacher-student relationship
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Cooperative Behavior, Curriculum, Feedback, Humans, Learning, Models, Educational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review