Implementation of online peer feedback for student self-reflection - first steps on the development of a feedback culture at a medical faculty

Peer assessment in medical communication skills training in programmatic assessment: A qualitative study examining faculty and student perceptions

INTRODUCTION

Current literature recommends assessment of communication skills in medical education combining different settings and multiple observers. There is still a gap in understanding about whether and how peers assessment facilitates learning in communication skills training.

METHODS

We designed a qualitative study using focus group interviews and thematic analysis, in a medical course in the Netherlands. We aimed to explore medical students' and teachers' experiences, perceptions, and perspectives about challenges and facilitating factors in PACST (Peer assessment in medical communication skills training).

RESULTS

Most of the participants reported that peer feedback was a valuable experience when learning communication skills. The major challenges for the quality and credibility of PACST reported by the participants are the question whether peer feedback is critical enough for learning and the difficulty of actually engaging students in the assessment process.

CONCLUSION

Teachers reviewing students' peer assessments may improve the quality and their credibility and the reviewed assessments can best be used for learning purposes. We suggest to pay sufficient attention to teachers' roles in PACST, ensuring a safe and trustworthy environment and additionally helping students to internalize the value of being vulnerable during the evaluation process.

Medical dissertation basics: analysis of a course of study for medical students

Background

Although the majority of medical students in Germany pursue a doctorate, only a portion of them receive a standardized scientific training, which is reflected in the quality issues seen in medical doctoral theses. The course Medical Dissertation Basics was conceptualized and scientifically monitored in order to support medical doctoral students on the one hand and to improve the quality of their scientific work on the other.

Methodology

The course consists of three modules. Module I, which is an introductory module, covers time and writing management and addresses how to approach literature and the principles of scientific work as well as the chapters required in a dissertation and the dissertation presentation and defense. In the practical module II, doctoral students write sections of their dissertation chapters and receive feedback via peer and expert reviews. Module III includes training on dissertation presentations and their defense. For objective analysis purposes, a multiple-choice test was administered before and after module I. Medical students from semesters 2 to 6 served as a control group. Questionnaires were used to subjectively analyze the training and support functions of modules I-III.

Results

High participation rates and the fact that the modules were taught numerous times show that doctoral students accept the courses. The objective analysis of module I showed a highly significant knowledge acquisition of the course group (N=55) in contrast to the control group (N=34). The doctoral students rated the course modules I-III with grades between 1.0 and 1.25 (grade A+/A; N=20-65 SD=0-0.44), felt well supported and estimated their learning success as high.

Conclusion

The study indicates knowledge acquisition in module I and a high doctoral student satisfaction with all modules. For an objective analysis of modules II-III, a comparison of completed doctoral theses (course participants vs. non-participants) would be appropriate but would only make sense in a few years. Based on the results of our study, we recommend that other faculties implement similar courses.