BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Impact of Standardized Patient Feedback on Student Motivational Levels

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 2011 Sayı: 1, 43 - 48, 01.01.2011
https://doi.org/10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2

Öz

Objective: The impact of standardized patient feedback on the motivational levels of learners for learning communication skills was examined in the study. Material and Methods: Control group post-test design was used and 284 of Year-I students took part in the study (87%). Both groups were randomly organized. The students had two standardized patient encounters in addition to training and debriefing sessions. The study group students received face-to-face feedback after the first encounters; but not the control group. We used the motivation dimension of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire and t-test to evaluate the differences between the average scores of motivational levels of both groups for all sub-dimensions. Results: After the first encounters, there is a significant difference between study and control groups in the sub-dimension of test anxiety (p=0.028). After the second encounters, the students of the study group who received feedback after the first encounters, got lower scores in the sub-dimension of test anxiety (p=0.016), and got higher scores in the subdimension of self-efficacy (p=0.027). Conclusion: We found out that the students who received feedback had lower levels of test anxiety, and higher levels of self-efficacy. Those results showed that standardized patient feedback eafected student motivational levels in two sub-dimensions. Turkish Başlık: Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi Anahtar Kelimeler: Güdülenme, öğrenme stratejileri, iletişim becerileri, tıp öğrencileri, standart hasta Amaç: Bu çalışmada iletişim eğitiminde standart hastanın verdiği geribildirimlerin öğrenenlerin iletişim becerilerini öğrenmeye güdülenme düzeylerine etkisi incelenmiştir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmada sontest kontrol gruplu desen kullanılmıştır. Dönem I öğrencileriyle yürütülen çalışmaya 284 öğrenci katılmıştır (%87). Öğrencilerin grupları rastgele olarak belirlenmiştir. Öğrenciler iletişim becerileri eğitimi ile birlikte iki kez standart hasta görüşmesi yapmıştır. Uygulama grubu öğrencileri ilk hasta görüşmesinin hemen ardından standart hastadan yüz yüze geribildirim almış, kontrol grubu öğrencileri ise almamıştır. Araştırmada Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeği'nin güdülenme boyutu kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada standart hasta geribildirimi alan-almayan gruplar arasında öğrencilerin güdülenme düzeyleri ölçeği puan ortalamalarında fark olup olmadığı, her bir alt boyut için ayrı ayrı olmak üzere, t testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: İlk görüşmede uygulama ve kontrol grupları arasında sınav kaygısı alt boyutunda anlamlı fark belirlenmiştir (p=0.028). İkinci görüşmede ilk görüşmede standart hasta geribildirimi alan uygulama grubu öğrencileri sınav kaygısı alt boyutundan düşük (p=0.016), öz-yeterlik alt boyutunda yüksek puan almıştır (p=0.027). Sonuç: Standart hasta geribildirimi alan öğrencilerin sınav kaygı düzeyleri daha düşük, öz-yeterlilik düzeyleri daha yüksektir. Bu sonuç, öğrencilerin iletişim becerileri eğitiminde standart hastadan geribildirim almaları onların güdülenme düzeylerini etkilediğini göstermektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Kurtz S, Silverman J, Draper J. (editors). Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Medicine. Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd. Oxon, UK; 1998;1-5 ve 64-117.
  • Cleland J, Foster K, Moffat M. Undergraduate students’ attitudes to communication skills learning differ depending on year of study and gender. Medical Teacher, 2005;27:246-51. [CrossRef]
  • Balton C, Howard D, Smith A, Camp G, Petrusa E, Richards B et al. Relationship skills in a clinical performance examination: reliability and validity of the relationship instrument. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ed:390000, 1995;3-21.
  • van Dalen J, Bartholomeus P, KerkHofs E, Luluofs R, van Theil,J, Rethans JJ et al. Teaching and assessing communication skills in Maastricht: the first twenty years. Medical Teacher 2001;23:245-51. [CrossRef]
  • Özçakır A. Tıp Eğitiminde İletişim ve Klinik Beceriler Dersi Verilmeli Mi?: İntern Öğrenci Görüşleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2002;22:185-9.
  • Adamo G. Simulated and standardized patients in OSCEs: achievements and challenges 1992-2003, Medical Education 2003;25:262-70. [CrossRef]
  • Yelland MJ. Standardized patients in the assessment of general practice consulting skills. Medical Education 1998;32:8-13. [CrossRef]
  • McGraw RC, O’Connor HM. Standardized patients in the early acquisition of clinical skills. Med Educ 1999;33:572-8. [CrossRef]
  • Wilkerson LA, Rose M. Learning from the narrative comments of standardized patients during an objective structured clinical examination of fourth year medical students. Research Report, UCLA, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), 2001;453291,p:3-13.
  • Yoo MS, Yoo Y. The effectiveness of standardized patients as a teaching method for nursing fundametals. Journal of Nursing Education 2003;42:444-8.
  • Black EB, Church M. Assessing medical student effectiveness from the psychiatric patients’ perspective: The Medical Student Interviewing Performance Questionnaire. Med Educ 1998;32:472-8. [CrossRef]
  • Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. Journal of the American Medical Association 1983;250:777-81. [CrossRef]
  • Branch WT, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: Teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med 2002;77:1185-8. [CrossRef]
  • Milan FB, Parish SJ, Reichgott MJ. A Model for Educational Feedback Based on Clinical Communication Skills Strategies: Beyond the “Feedback Sandwich” Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2006;18:42-7. [CrossRef]
  • van de Ridder J MM, Stokking KM, McGaghie W C, ten Cate O ThJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Medical Education 2008;42:189-97. [CrossRef]
  • Hewson MG,Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: Verification of recommended techniques. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1998;2:111-6. [CrossRef]
  • Pfeiffer CA, Kosowicz LY, Holmboe E, Wang Y. Face-to-face clinical skills feedback: lessons from the analysis of standardized patients’work. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2005;17:254-7. [CrossRef]
  • Howley LD, Martindale J. The efficacy of standardized patient feedback in clinical teaching. A mixed methods analysis. Med Educ Online [Available from http://www.med-ed-online.org,] 2004;9:18.
  • Dikici MF, Yarış F. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Klinik Beceri Eğitiminde Standardize ve Simüle Hasta Programı, Turkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2007;27:738-43.
  • Paukert JL, Richards ML, Olney C. An encounter card system for increasing feedback to students. The American Journal of Surgery 2002;83:300-4. [CrossRef]
  • Mass S, Shah SS, Daly SX, Sultana CJ. Effect of feedback on obstetrics and gynecology residents’ teaching performance and attitudes, J of Reproductive Med 2001;46:669-74.
  • Paul S, Dawson KP, Lanphear JH, Cheema MY. Video recording feedback: A feasible and effective approach to teaching historytaking and physical examination skills in undergraduate pediatric medicine. Med Educ 1998;32:332-6. [CrossRef]
  • Hodder RV, Rivington RN, Calcutt LE, Hart IR. The effectiveness of immediate feedback during the objective structured clinical examination, Medical Education 1989;23:184-8. [CrossRef]
  • Cooper C, Mira M. Who Should Asses Medical Students’ Communication Skills: Their Academic Teachers or Their Patients? Med Educ, 1998;32:419-21.
  • Mann KV. Motivation in medical education: how theory can inform our practice? Academic Medicine 1999;74:237-40. [CrossRef]
  • Williams GC, Saizow RB, Ryan RM. The importance of self-determination theory for medical education, Academic Medicine, 1999;74:992-5. [CrossRef]
  • Boekaerts M. (editor). Motivation to Learn. Educational Practices Series. International Academy of Education, International Bureau of Education, IBE, Publication Unit, Geneva, Switzerland; 2002;8-9.
  • Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ. A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. National Center for Research to Improve Port Secondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor; Technical Report No:91-B-004, 1991;1-29.
  • Garcia T, Pintrich PR. Assesing students’ motivation and learning strategies: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association (San Francisco, 1995) Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ed:383770, 1995;3-18.
  • Duncan GT, McKeachie WJ. The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire, Educational Psychologist 2005;40:117-28. [CrossRef]
  • Büyüköztürk Ş, Akgün ÖE, Özkahveci Ö, Demirel F. The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning strategies. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 2004;4:210-39.
  • Pintrich PR. The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekarters M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M. editors, Handbook of Self Regulation, San Diego: Academic Press: 2005;452-502.
  • Perrot LJ, Deloney LA, Hastings JK, Savell S, Savidge M. Measuring student motivation in health professions’ colleges. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2001;6:193-203. [CrossRef]
  • Sobral DT. What kind of motivation drives medical students’ learning quests? Medical Education 2004;38:950-7. [CrossRef]
  • Lin YG, McKeachie WJ. College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association (Boston 1999) Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ed:435954, 1995;2-10.
  • Pintrich PR, De Groot EV. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 1990;82:33-40. [CrossRef]
  • Brookhart SM, DeVoge JG. Testing a theory about the role of classroom assessment in student motivation and achievement. Applied Measurement In Education 1999;12:409-25. [CrossRef]
  • Libert Y, Merckaert I, Reynaert C, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Etienne AM et al. Physicians are different when they learn communication skills: influence of the locus of control. Psycho-Oncology 2007;16:553-62. [CrossRef]

Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 2011 Sayı: 1, 43 - 48, 01.01.2011
https://doi.org/10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada iletişim eğitiminde standart hastanın verdiği geribildirimlerin
öğrenenlerin iletişim becerilerini öğrenmeye güdülenme düzeylerine
etkisi incelenmiştir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmada sontest kontrol gruplu desen kullanılmıştır.
Dönem I öğrencileriyle yürütülen çalışmaya 284 öğrenci katılmıştır
(%87). Öğrencilerin grupları rastgele olarak belirlenmiştir. Öğrenciler ileti-
şim becerileri eğitimi ile birlikte iki kez standart hasta görüşmesi yapmıştır.
Uygulama grubu öğrencileri ilk hasta görüşmesinin hemen ardından standart
hastadan yüz yüze geribildirim almış, kontrol grubu öğrencileri ise
almamıştır. Araştırmada Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeği’nin
güdülenme boyutu kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada standart hasta geribildirimi
alan-almayan gruplar arasında öğrencilerin güdülenme düzeyleri ölçeği
puan ortalamalarında fark olup olmadığı, her bir alt boyut için ayrı ayrı
olmak üzere, t testi ile değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: İlk görüşmede uygulama ve kontrol grupları arasında sınav kaygısı
alt boyutunda anlamlı fark belirlenmiştir (p=0.028). İkinci görüşmede
ilk görüşmede standart hasta geribildirimi alan uygulama grubu öğrencileri
sınav kaygısı alt boyutundan düşük (p=0.016), öz-yeterlik alt boyutunda
yüksek puan almıştır (p=0.027).
Sonuç: Standart hasta geribildirimi alan öğrencilerin sınav kaygı düzeyleri
daha düşük, öz-yeterlilik düzeyleri daha yüksektir. Bu sonuç, öğrencilerin
iletişim becerileri eğitiminde standart hastadan geribildirim almaları onların
güdülenme düzeylerini etkilediğini göstermektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Kurtz S, Silverman J, Draper J. (editors). Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Medicine. Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd. Oxon, UK; 1998;1-5 ve 64-117.
  • Cleland J, Foster K, Moffat M. Undergraduate students’ attitudes to communication skills learning differ depending on year of study and gender. Medical Teacher, 2005;27:246-51. [CrossRef]
  • Balton C, Howard D, Smith A, Camp G, Petrusa E, Richards B et al. Relationship skills in a clinical performance examination: reliability and validity of the relationship instrument. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ed:390000, 1995;3-21.
  • van Dalen J, Bartholomeus P, KerkHofs E, Luluofs R, van Theil,J, Rethans JJ et al. Teaching and assessing communication skills in Maastricht: the first twenty years. Medical Teacher 2001;23:245-51. [CrossRef]
  • Özçakır A. Tıp Eğitiminde İletişim ve Klinik Beceriler Dersi Verilmeli Mi?: İntern Öğrenci Görüşleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2002;22:185-9.
  • Adamo G. Simulated and standardized patients in OSCEs: achievements and challenges 1992-2003, Medical Education 2003;25:262-70. [CrossRef]
  • Yelland MJ. Standardized patients in the assessment of general practice consulting skills. Medical Education 1998;32:8-13. [CrossRef]
  • McGraw RC, O’Connor HM. Standardized patients in the early acquisition of clinical skills. Med Educ 1999;33:572-8. [CrossRef]
  • Wilkerson LA, Rose M. Learning from the narrative comments of standardized patients during an objective structured clinical examination of fourth year medical students. Research Report, UCLA, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), 2001;453291,p:3-13.
  • Yoo MS, Yoo Y. The effectiveness of standardized patients as a teaching method for nursing fundametals. Journal of Nursing Education 2003;42:444-8.
  • Black EB, Church M. Assessing medical student effectiveness from the psychiatric patients’ perspective: The Medical Student Interviewing Performance Questionnaire. Med Educ 1998;32:472-8. [CrossRef]
  • Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. Journal of the American Medical Association 1983;250:777-81. [CrossRef]
  • Branch WT, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: Teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med 2002;77:1185-8. [CrossRef]
  • Milan FB, Parish SJ, Reichgott MJ. A Model for Educational Feedback Based on Clinical Communication Skills Strategies: Beyond the “Feedback Sandwich” Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2006;18:42-7. [CrossRef]
  • van de Ridder J MM, Stokking KM, McGaghie W C, ten Cate O ThJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Medical Education 2008;42:189-97. [CrossRef]
  • Hewson MG,Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: Verification of recommended techniques. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1998;2:111-6. [CrossRef]
  • Pfeiffer CA, Kosowicz LY, Holmboe E, Wang Y. Face-to-face clinical skills feedback: lessons from the analysis of standardized patients’work. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2005;17:254-7. [CrossRef]
  • Howley LD, Martindale J. The efficacy of standardized patient feedback in clinical teaching. A mixed methods analysis. Med Educ Online [Available from http://www.med-ed-online.org,] 2004;9:18.
  • Dikici MF, Yarış F. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Klinik Beceri Eğitiminde Standardize ve Simüle Hasta Programı, Turkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2007;27:738-43.
  • Paukert JL, Richards ML, Olney C. An encounter card system for increasing feedback to students. The American Journal of Surgery 2002;83:300-4. [CrossRef]
  • Mass S, Shah SS, Daly SX, Sultana CJ. Effect of feedback on obstetrics and gynecology residents’ teaching performance and attitudes, J of Reproductive Med 2001;46:669-74.
  • Paul S, Dawson KP, Lanphear JH, Cheema MY. Video recording feedback: A feasible and effective approach to teaching historytaking and physical examination skills in undergraduate pediatric medicine. Med Educ 1998;32:332-6. [CrossRef]
  • Hodder RV, Rivington RN, Calcutt LE, Hart IR. The effectiveness of immediate feedback during the objective structured clinical examination, Medical Education 1989;23:184-8. [CrossRef]
  • Cooper C, Mira M. Who Should Asses Medical Students’ Communication Skills: Their Academic Teachers or Their Patients? Med Educ, 1998;32:419-21.
  • Mann KV. Motivation in medical education: how theory can inform our practice? Academic Medicine 1999;74:237-40. [CrossRef]
  • Williams GC, Saizow RB, Ryan RM. The importance of self-determination theory for medical education, Academic Medicine, 1999;74:992-5. [CrossRef]
  • Boekaerts M. (editor). Motivation to Learn. Educational Practices Series. International Academy of Education, International Bureau of Education, IBE, Publication Unit, Geneva, Switzerland; 2002;8-9.
  • Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ. A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. National Center for Research to Improve Port Secondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor; Technical Report No:91-B-004, 1991;1-29.
  • Garcia T, Pintrich PR. Assesing students’ motivation and learning strategies: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association (San Francisco, 1995) Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ed:383770, 1995;3-18.
  • Duncan GT, McKeachie WJ. The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire, Educational Psychologist 2005;40:117-28. [CrossRef]
  • Büyüköztürk Ş, Akgün ÖE, Özkahveci Ö, Demirel F. The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning strategies. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 2004;4:210-39.
  • Pintrich PR. The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekarters M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M. editors, Handbook of Self Regulation, San Diego: Academic Press: 2005;452-502.
  • Perrot LJ, Deloney LA, Hastings JK, Savell S, Savidge M. Measuring student motivation in health professions’ colleges. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2001;6:193-203. [CrossRef]
  • Sobral DT. What kind of motivation drives medical students’ learning quests? Medical Education 2004;38:950-7. [CrossRef]
  • Lin YG, McKeachie WJ. College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association (Boston 1999) Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ed:435954, 1995;2-10.
  • Pintrich PR, De Groot EV. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 1990;82:33-40. [CrossRef]
  • Brookhart SM, DeVoge JG. Testing a theory about the role of classroom assessment in student motivation and achievement. Applied Measurement In Education 1999;12:409-25. [CrossRef]
  • Libert Y, Merckaert I, Reynaert C, Delvaux N, Marchal S, Etienne AM et al. Physicians are different when they learn communication skills: influence of the locus of control. Psycho-Oncology 2007;16:553-62. [CrossRef]
Toplam 38 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Sevgi Turan Bu kişi benim

Sarp Üner Bu kişi benim

Melih Elçin Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ocak 2011
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2011 Cilt: 2011 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Turan, S., Üner, S., & Elçin, M. (2011). Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi. Balkan Medical Journal, 2011(1), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2
AMA Turan S, Üner S, Elçin M. Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi. Balkan Medical Journal. Ocak 2011;2011(1):43-48. doi:10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2
Chicago Turan, Sevgi, Sarp Üner, ve Melih Elçin. “Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi”. Balkan Medical Journal 2011, sy. 1 (Ocak 2011): 43-48. https://doi.org/10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2.
EndNote Turan S, Üner S, Elçin M (01 Ocak 2011) Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi. Balkan Medical Journal 2011 1 43–48.
IEEE S. Turan, S. Üner, ve M. Elçin, “Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi”, Balkan Medical Journal, c. 2011, sy. 1, ss. 43–48, 2011, doi: 10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2.
ISNAD Turan, Sevgi vd. “Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi”. Balkan Medical Journal 2011/1 (Ocak 2011), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2.
JAMA Turan S, Üner S, Elçin M. Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi. Balkan Medical Journal. 2011;2011:43–48.
MLA Turan, Sevgi vd. “Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi”. Balkan Medical Journal, c. 2011, sy. 1, 2011, ss. 43-48, doi:10.5174/tutfd.2009.02560.2.
Vancouver Turan S, Üner S, Elçin M. Standart Hasta Geribildiriminin Öğrencilerin Güdülenme Düzeyine Etkisi. Balkan Medical Journal. 2011;2011(1):43-8.