Coaching to improve self‐directed learning
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Background: The continuously changing health care context necesitates that medical trainees develop self‐directed learning skills. This study examined the effect of coaching on the self‐directed learning process in pre‐clerkship medical students. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal educational intervention using standardised patient assessments to determine the effect of self‐assessment, feedback, and coaching on the development and implementation of learning goals ( LG s). Students were sorted into control and intervention groups. Following each assessment, students received feedback on performance and created LG s. Students in the intervention group worked with a faculty member coach on their LG s. Students in the control group developed their LG s without a coach. Prior to the final assessment, students reported whether they had implemented their LG s. Results: Of 171 students enrolled, 167 completed all four assessments and were included. All 167 developed an LG after each assessment. Overall, 79.0% of students reported implementing an LG. Of students receiving coaching, 91.8% implemented an LG, whereas only 65.9% of students in the control group implemented an LG (odds ratio, OR 5.7; 95% confidence interval, CI 2.4–14.2). Students who received coaching were more likely to incorporate performance feedback into their LG s (90.2 versus 38.1%; p < 0.05). Conclusions: For students, faculty member coaching facilitated better LG development and more frequent implementation compared with students who did not receive coaching.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In both UME and GME, coaching emphasizes the skills needed for autonomy in learning.
“In both UME and GME, coaching emphasizes the skills needed for autonomy in learning [7,27,28,148].”
From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The introduction (indexed under Abstract; page not provided) describes coaching as supporting self-reflection, goal setting, and accountability—skills relevant to autonomy in learning. The Conclusions report improved self-directed learning behaviors in preclerkship medical students, supporting the UME portion. The paper does not establish the same point for GME learners. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredReceiving feedback is a student outcome.
“| Coaching outcomes | Student | Receiving feedback | [7,88,116] |”
From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
The Author Manuscript says students received feedback, but identifies incorporating performance feedback into learning goals—not receiving feedback—as a secondary outcome. Figure 1 likewise lists receiving performance feedback as part of the student experience, so the paper supports the feedback component but not its classification as a student outcome. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAfter consultation, the original interpretation of skills was broadened beyond SDL/SRL/MAL learning to include surgical skills.
“After this consultation and based on their input, we broadened our original interpretation of skills beyond SDL/self-regulated (SRL)/master adaptive (MAL) [7,27,28] learning to include surgical skills.”
From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
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
Cutrer, W. B., Miller, B., Pusic, M. V., Mejicano, G., Mangrulkar, R. S., Gruppen, L. D., Hawkins, R. E., Skochelak, S. E., & Moore, D. E. (2017) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001323 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat do we know about coaching in medical education? A literature review
Lovell, B. (2018) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13482 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
The R2C2 Model in Residency Education: How Does It Foster Coaching and Promote Feedback Use?
Sargeant, J., Lockyer, J. M., Mann, K., Armson, H., Warren, A., Zetkulic, M., Soklaridis, S., Könings, K. D., Ross, K., Silver, I., et al. (2018) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002131 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Clinical skills‐related learning goals of senior medical students after performance feedback
Chang, A., Chou, C. L., Teherani, A., & Hauer, K. E. (2011) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04015.x · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Lockspeiser, T. M., Li, S. T., Burke, A. E., Rosenberg, A. A., Dunbar, A. E., Gifford, K. A., Gorman, G. H., Mahan, J. D., McKenna, M. P., Reed, S. M., et al. (2015) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001015 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Emergency Medicine Residents’ Self‐assessments Play a Critical Role When Receiving Feedback
Bounds, R., Bush, C. M., Aghera, A., Rodriguez, N., Stansfield, R. B., Santen, S. A., & The MERC at CORD Feedback Study Group (2013) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.12231 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationTeaching Resident Self-Assessment Through Triangulation of Faculty and Patient Feedback
Keister, D. M., Hansen, S. E., & Dostal, J. A. (2016) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401334.2016.1246249 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
The impact of informed self-assessment on the development of medical students’ learning goals
Wolff, M., Stojan, J., Cranford, J. A., Whitman, L., Buckler, S., Gruppen, L. D., & Santen, S. A. (2017) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2017.1406661 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationMedical students’ action plans are not specific
Hart, J., Byrne-Davis, L. M. T., Wass, V., et al. (2018) · The Clinical Teacher · doi:10.1111/tct.12932 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [2]2. Cutrer WB, Miller B, Pusic M V., Mejicano G, Mangrulkar RS, Gruppen LD, et al. Fostering the Development of Master Adaptive Learners. Acad Med [Internet]. 2017;92(1):70-5. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00001888- 900000000-98423
- [3]3. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Common program requirements [Internet]. Section III B. 2011 [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available from: http://macyfoundation.org/docs/macy_pubs/pub_ContEd_inHealthProf.pdf#page=212%5 Author Manuscript This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved Cnhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Common+program+ requirements%230
- [9]9. Sargeant J, Lockyer JM, Mann K, Armson H, Warren A, Zetkulic M, et al. The R2C2 Model in Residency Education. Acad Med [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 5];93(7):1055-63. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29342008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shalong, W., Yi, Z., Bin, Z., Ganglei, L., Jinyu, Z., Yanwen, Z., Zequn, Z., Lianwen, Y., & Feng, R. (2025) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2413023 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Boyd, T., Besche, H., Goldhammer, R., Alblooshi, A., & Coleman, B. I. (2022) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03908-4 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Participation in a Resident-as-Teacher Rotation: Motivations of and Impacts on Faculty Coaches
Marcus, C. H., Michelson, C. D., Luff, D., & Newman, L. R. (2022) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004778 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Twelve tips for designing and implementing an academic coaching program
King, S. M., Anas, S., Carnicer Hijazo, R., Jordaan, J., Potter, J. D. F., & Low-Beer, N. (2024) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2308058 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Mukherjee, B., Pfleeger, J., Custodio, H., Roca, M. R., Khalsa, G., & Clanton, C. (2026) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2026.2687304 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wolff, M., Stojan, J., Buckler, S., Cranford, J., Whitman, L., Gruppen, L., & Santen, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wolff, Margaret
- Venue
- The Clinical Teacher
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-11-20
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 408-412
- ISSN
- 1743-4971 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-498X
- OpenAlex
- W2990363912
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Clinical Teacher (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- coaching, self-directed learning, learning objectives, medical students, pre-clerkship education, performance feedback, self-assessment, faculty coaching, goal implementation
- MeSH terms
- Mentoring, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Learning, Self-Assessment, Students, Medical
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
