Blog
About

4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘I did not check if the teacher gave feedback’: a qualitative analysis of Taiwanese postgraduate year 1 trainees’ talk around e-portfolio feedback-seeking behaviours

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Despite feedback being an extensively researched and essential component of teaching and learning, there is a paucity of research examining feedback within a medical education e-portfolio setting including feedback-seeking behaviours (FSBs). FSBs can be understood within a cost–value perspective. The objective of this research is to explore the factors that influence postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) trainee doctors’ FSBs via e-portfolios.

          Setting

          Postgraduate education provision in the largest teaching hospital in Taiwan.

          Participants

          Seventy-one PGY1s (66% male).

          Methods

          A qualitative semistructured one-to-one interview method was adopted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised and checked for completeness. Data were analysed inductively via thematic framework analysis and deductively informed using FSB theory. The process comprised data familiarisation, identification of the themes, charting and data interpretation.

          Results

          Two main themes of FSB related and e-portfolio related were identified. We present the theme focussing on FSB here to which n=32 (22 males, 10 females) of the n=71 participants contributed meaningfully. Subthemes include factors variously affecting PGY1s’ positive and negative FSBs via e-portfolios at the individual, process and technological levels. These factors include learner-related (internal values vs social influence, forced reflection); teacher-related (committed educators vs superficial feedback); technology-related (face-saving vs lagging systems; inadequate user-interface) and process-related (delayed feedback, too frequent feedback) factors.

          Conclusions

          Our findings reveal the complexity of PGY1s’ FSBs in an e-portfolio context and the interaction of numerous facilitating and inhibiting factors. Further research is required to understand the range of facilitating and inhibiting factors involved in healthcare learners’ FSBs across different learning, social, institutional and national cultural settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Power of Feedback

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

            Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                1 February 2019
                : 9
                : 1
                Affiliations
                departmentChang Gung Medical Education Research Centre (CG-MERC) , Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou Branch , Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Lynn V Monrouxe; monrouxe@ 123456me.com , lynnvm8@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-024425
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024425
                6361414
                30782734
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007225, Ministry of Science and Technology;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005795, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou;
                Categories
                Medical Education and Training
                Research
                1506
                1709
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Comments

                Comment on this article