The effect of written standardized feedback on the structure and quality of surgical lectures: a prospective cohort study

Background: Lectures remain an important teaching method to present and structure knowledge to many students concurrently. Adequate measures are necessary to maintain the quality of the lectures. The aim of this study wa
Background: Lectures remain an important teaching method to present and structure knowledge to many students concurrently. Adequate measures are necessary to maintain the quality of the lectures. The aim of this study was to determine the impact on the lecture quality using written structured feedback and to compare the ratings of surgical lectures between students and surgical peers.
Methods: Prospective analysis of two consecutive surgical lecture series for undergraduate students at Goethe-University Medical School was performed before and after evaluation of the lecturers via independent written feedback from trained undergraduate students and surgeons. The 22-item feedback instrument covered three areas of performance: content, visualization, and delivery. Additional suggestions for improvement were provided from
both students and surgical peers who anonymously attended the lectures. The lecturers, experienced surgeons, as well as the student and peer raters were blinded in terms of the aim and content of the study. Their response to the feedback was collected using a web-based 13-item questionnaire. The Kendall’s-W coefficient was computed to calculate inter-rater reliability (IRR). Differences between ratings before and after feedback were analyzed using Student’s t-test for dependent samples. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test was used for independent samples.
Results: A total of 22 lectures from a possible 32 given by 13 lecturers were included and analyzed by at least three surgeons and two students. There were significant improvements in overall score as well as in the details of 9 of the 13 items were found. The average inter-rater reliability was 0.71. There were no differences in the ratings as a function of the rater’s level of expertise (peers vs. students). We found that 13/23 lecturers (56.5%) answered the questionnaire, and 92% strongly agreed that the written feedback was useful. 76.9% of the lecturers revised their lecture based on the written feedback requiring on average 112.5 min (range from 20 to 300 min).
Conclusions: Overall, this study indicates that structured written feedback provided by trained peers and students that is subsequently discussed by the lecturers concerned is a highly effective and efficient method to improve aspects of lecturing. We anticipate that structured written feedback by trained students that is discussed by the lecturers concerned will improve lecturing.
Keywords: Lecture, Feedback, Surgery, Peer-feedback, Evaluation, Undergraduate training
show moreshow less

Export metadata

  • Export Bibtex
  • Export RIS

Additional Services

    Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Jasmina Sterz, Sebastian Herbert Höfer, Bernd Bender, Maren Janko, Farzin Adili, Miriam Rüsseler
URN:urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-444740
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0806-y
ISSN:1472-6920
Pubmed Id:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=27842580
Parent Title (English):BMC medical education
Publisher:BioMed Central
Place of publication:London
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Year of Completion:2016
Date of first Publication:2016/11/14
Publishing Institution:Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg
Release Date:2017/11/27
Tag:Evaluation; Feedback; Lecture; Peer-feedback; Surgery; Undergraduate training
Volume:16
Issue:292
Pagenumber:8
First Page:1
Last Page:8
Note:
The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
HeBIS PPN:42520059
Institutes:Medizin
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Sammlungen:Universitätspublikationen
Open-Access-Publikationsfonds:Medizin
Licence (German):License LogoCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0

$Rev: 11761 $