Comparison of Dental Students' Perceived Value of Faculty vs. Peer Feedback on Non‐Technical Clinical Competency Assessments

Abstract

Although reviewing dental students' clinical competency assessments is an important aspect of instruction, finding time to give individual feedback to each student poses a challenge for faculty members, and some students may prefer to receive feedback from a peer. The aim of this study was to explore dental students' perceived value of feedback on their performance in a simulated patient care activity from either a faculty member or a peer. Participants were third‐ and fourth‐year dental students who had completed two years of interprofessional instruction and a videotaped objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with standardized patients. Participants in two cohorts were randomly assigned to a faculty or peer feedback group. Cohort one (2015‐16) consisted of 66 students: 21 in faculty‐led groups, and 45 in peer‐led groups. Cohort two (2017) consisted of 60 students: 17 in faculty‐led groups, and 43 in peer‐led groups. In both types of pairings, the protocol consisted of jointly observing a video recording of student performance in the simulated patient encounter and discussing questions about the student's performance in non‐technical competencies such as communication, patient safety, scope of practice, and conflict resolution. For cohort two, prior to the feedback sessions, students in the peer feedback groups received a 60‐minute training on providing constructive feedback. All 126 students in the two cohorts completed an evaluation questionnaire after the experience. The results showed that students in both types of feedback sessions perceived value in the feedback and believed it enhanced their skills. However, students rated faculty feedback significantly higher (p<0.05) than peer feedback on nearly all dimensions. Perceived value did not differ by age, gender, class year, or OSCE performance. These results provide support for the value of peer feedback on nontechnical clinical competency assessments, though not as a substitute for faculty feedback.

Evaluation of an e‐book assignment using Fink's Taxonomy of Significant Learning among undergraduate dental hygiene students

“…Although the quantity and quality of formative feedback from faculty members aids in the learning process, the process of providing and receiving formative feedback from peer assessments is invaluable to the learning process. 18 Limitations were identified with the present study. Since this study focused on a single course at 1 institution for baccalaureate dental hygiene students, the sampling bias limits the generalizability of the results.…”

“…The course‐long project could have been improved with more feedback during the process, more training with the e‐book platform, changing to a pass/no‐pass evaluation format, and improving the quality of the peer reviews. Although the quantity and quality of formative feedback from faculty members aids in the learning process, the process of providing and receiving formative feedback from peer assessments is invaluable to the learning process 18 …”

Dental students’ experience of conscious sedation: A qualitative review of student reflections

“…The critiquing of others helped to develop reflection skills, self‐confidence and appreciation of others 56 . Students‘ written critique was not provided to peers due to collection of the data, though may have had limited usefulness if it had been as faculty feedback is perceived to have greater value 57 …”

Pursue today and assess tomorrow - how students’ subjective perceptions influence their preference for self- and peer assessments

“…Additionally, dental students' found peer and self-assessments have a positive role in the development of their reflective practical skills and appreciated the importance of reflection and learning from their peers [17]. On the other hand, they found faculty feedback more valuable than peer feedback [18]. Similarly, Sullivian et al compared self, peer and faculty ratings in the setting of problem based tutorial groups in medical education, and pointed out that students were not able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses compared to their peers and faculty [19].…”