CONTEXT There is little research into how to deliver summative assessment student feedback effectively. The main aims of this study were to clarify how students engage with feedback in this context and to explore the roles of learning-related characteristics and previous and current performance.METHODS A website was developed to deliver feedback about the objective structural clinical examination (OSCE) in various formats: station by station or on skills across stations. In total, 138 students (in the third year out of five) completed a questionnaire about goal orientation, motivation, self-efficacy, control of learning beliefs and attitudes to feedback. Individual website usage was analysed over an 8-week period. Latent class analyses were used to identify profiles of students, based on their use of different aspects of the feedback website. Differences in learning-related student characteristics between profiles were assessed using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Individual website usage was related to OSCE performance. RESULTSIn total, 132 students (95.7%) viewed the website. The number of pages viewed ranged from two to 377 (median 102). Fifty per cent of students engaged comprehensively with the feedback, 27% used it in a minimal manner, whereas a further 23% used it in a more selective way. Students who were comprehensive users of the website scored higher on the value of feedback scale, whereas students who were minimal users scored higher on extrinsic motivation. Higher performing students viewed significantly more web pages showing comparisons with peers than weaker students did. Students who just passed the assessment made least use of the feedback. CONCLUSIONSHigher performing students appeared to use the feedback more for positive affirmation than for diagnostic information. Those arguably most in need engaged least. We need to construct feedback after summative assessment in a way that will more effectively engage those students who need the most help.

Electronic audio feedback provides timely, personalised feedback to students after a summative OSCE provided enough time is allocated to the process.

ObjectivesTo determine whether an app-based software system to support production and storage of assessment feedback summaries makes workplace-based assessment easier for clinical tutors and enhances the educational impact on medical students. MethodsWe monitored our workplace assessor app’s usage by Year 3 to 5 medical students in 2014-15 and conducted focus groups with Year 4 medical students and interviews with clinical tutors who had used the apps. Analysis was by constant comparison using a framework based on elements of van der Vleuten’s utility index. ResultsThe app may enhance the content of feedback for students. Using a screen may be distracting if the app is used during feedback discussions.    Educational impact was reduced by students’ perceptions that an easy-to-produce feedback summary is less valuable than one requiring more tutor time and effort. Tutors’ typing, dictation skills and their familiarity with mobile devices varied. This influenced their willingness to use the assessment and feedback mobile app rather than the equivalent web app. Electronic feedback summaries had more real and perceived uses than anticipated both for tutors and students including perceptions that they were for the school rather than the student. ConclusionsElectronic workplace-based assessment systems can be acceptable to tutors and can make giving detailed written feedback more practical but can interrupt the social interaction required for the feedback conversation. Tutor training and flexible systems will be required to minimise unwanted consequences. The educational impact on both tutors and students of providing pre-formulated advice within the app is worth further study.

Introduction: Doctors and medical students in the UK are currently required to provide evidence of learning by reflective writing on (among other things) feedback from colleagues. Although the theoretical value of reflecting-on-action is clear, research is still needed to know how to realise the potential of written reflection in medical education. This study arose out of efforts to improve medical student engagement with a reflective writing exercise. We used realist methodology to explain the disinclination of the majority to do written reflection on workplace feedback, and the benefits to the minority. Method: Realist evaluation is a suitable approach to researching complex interventions which have worked for some and not for others. Focus groups were held over a three-year period with year 3 and 4 students. Focus group transcripts were coded for context-mechanismoutcome configurations (the realist approach to analysing data) explaining students' choice not to write a reflection, to write a 'tick-box' reflection or to write for learning. A sub-set of eight students' reflections were also analysed to ascertain evidence of learning through reflection. Results and discussion: 27 students participated in 4 focus groups. Three summary theories emerged showing the importance of context. Firstly, written reflection is effortful and benefits those who invest in it for intrinsic reasons in situations when they need to think more deeply about a learning event. Secondly, following a reflective feedback discussion writing a reflection may add little because the learning has already taken place. Thirdly, external motivation tends to result in writing a 'tick-box' reflection.

The use of SPAM is feasible in clinical simulation. By using handheld technology, SA data are made available to the instructor for use in debrief; this expands the utility of SPAM to the field of medical education.