CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 783Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback

Archer, Julian C·2010·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Effective feedback may be defined as feedback in which information about previous performance is used to promote positive and desirable development. This can be challenging as educators must acknowledge the psychosocial needs of the recipient while ensuring that feedback is both honest and accurate. Current feedback models remain reductionist in their approach. They are embedded in the hierarchical, diagnostic endeavours of the health professions. Even when it acknowledges the importance of two‐way interactions, feedback often remains an educator‐driven, one‐way process. Lessons from the Literature An understanding of the various types of feedback and an ability to actively seek an appropriate approach may support feedback effectiveness. Facilitative rather than directive feedback enhances learning for high achievers. High‐achieving recipients undertaking complex tasks may benefit from delayed feedback. It is hypothesised that such learners are supported by reducing interruptions during the task. If we accept that medical students and doctors are high achievers, we can draw on some guiding principles from a complex and rarely conclusive literature. Feedback should focus on the task rather than the individual and should be specific. It should be directly linked to personal goals. Self‐assessment as a means to identify personal learning requirements has no theoretical basis. Motivated recipients benefit from challenging facilitated feedback from external sources. A New Model To achieve truly effective feedback, the health professions must nurture recipient reflection‐in‐action. This builds on self‐monitoring informed by external feedback. An integrated approach must be developed to support a feedback culture. Early training and experience such as peer feedback may over time support the required cultural change. Opportunities to provide feedback must not be missed, including those to impart potentially powerful feedback from high‐stakes assessments. Feedback must be conceptualised as a supported sequential process rather than a series of unrelated events. Only this sustained approach will maximise any effect. Medical Education 2010: 44 : 101–108

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Feedback is most effective when directed at the task level and may assist in deep processing and mastery of tasks when it is about processing of tasks or self-regulation.

    “feedback is most effective when directed at the task level and may assist in ‘deep processing and mastery of tasks’ when it is about processing of tasks or self-regulation.”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Involving trainees in a discussion can raise their awareness of their performance relative to their goals of quality performance through reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.

    “By involving trainees in a discussion, supervisors can raise their awareness of their performance relative to their goals of quality performance through reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action [22, 32].”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Supervision of a trainee can have built-in and protected routines of supervisor observation of trainee performance followed by feedback.

    “Supervision of a trainee can have built-in and protected routines of supervisor observation of trainee performance followed by feedback [32]”

    From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [32]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Archer, J. C.
Affiliations
Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry (GB)
Corresponding author
Archer, Julian C
ORCID
Archer, Julian C
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-16
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
101-108
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x
OpenAlex
W2147426256
Semantic Scholar
65ce6078183ea884103d39f2eaa9c7cf1603eb89
Cited by
783
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 34
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2006-24-001)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
effective feedback, feedback model, delayed feedback, self-assessment, reflection-in-action, self-monitoring, peer feedback, feedback culture, medical students, high-stakes testing, health professions education
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Education, Medical, Humans, Models, Psychological, Models, Educational, Feedback, Psychological

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