효과적인 피드백의 특징은? Scoping review (Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018)

효과적인 피드백의 특징은? Scoping review (Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018)

What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review

Christine Ossenberg1 · Amanda Henderson1 · Marion Mitchell1

배경

Background

보건 교육 프로그램에서 성과에 대한 피드백은 직장 기반 학습의 필수적인 부분이다(van der Luw et al. 2018).

In health education programs, feedback on performance is a vital part of workplace based learning (van der Leeuw et al. 2018).

• 학습자는 피드백의 순간/발생 순간을 인식하거나 기억하지 못할 수 있고, 피드백을 가지고 뭘 해야하는지를 모를 수도 있다(Bowen et al. 2017; Groves et al. 2015; Murdoch-Eaton and Sarcin 2012). 따라서 많은 학생들이 피드백에 대한 불만을 보고한다(Boud and Molloy 2013; Carless 2015).

Learners may not recognise or recollect the moments/occasions of feedback (Bowen et al. 2017; Groves et al. 2015; Murdoch-Eaton and Sargeant 2012) or indeed know what to do with it (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick 2006; O’Donovan et al. 2016). As such, many students report dissatisfaction with feedback (Boud and Molloy 2013; Carless 2015).

역사적으로 피드백은 전문가에서 초보자(Ajazawi and Boud 2017)로 일방적인 정보 전송으로 간주되어 왔다. 

• 프로세스로서의 피드백의 현대적 관점은 개인들 간의 상호작용을 촉진한다(Archer 2010). 

• 단순히 정보를 전달하는 것이 아니라 지식 구축에 중점을 두는 역동적인 대화의 과정이다(Killion 2015; Molloy and Boud 2013; Yang and Carless 2013).

• 그레이브릿과 피터슨은 "Dialogue는 conversation이나 아이디어의 교환 그 이상이다. 본질적으로 그것은 참가자들(교사와 학생)이 함께 생각하고 추론하는 상호존준적 관계를 포함한다"(2002, 페이지 282). 

• 따라서 대화 피드백은 학습 과정 전체에 걸친 통합을 의미하며, 다양한 참여 지점과 출처(예: 구두 및 서면)를 포함한다(McArthur 및 Huxham 2013). 

피드백의 관점이 독백에서 대화로 바뀌면서, 현재 그 효과에 기여하는 것으로 알고 있는 피드백의 그러한 측면에 대한 더 깊은 연구가 필요해졌다.

Historically, feedback has been viewed as a one-way transmission of information from expert to novice (Ajjawi and Boud 2017). Contemporary views of feedback as a process, infers interaction between individuals (Archer 2010). It is dynamic and dialogic, focusing on construction of knowledge rather than merely the delivery of information (Killion 2015; Molloy and Boud 2013; Yang and Carless 2013). Gravett and Peterson state “…dialogue is more than conversation or exchange of ideas. In essence it involves a respectful relationship, in which the participants (teacher and students) think and reason together” (2002, p. 282). Dialogic feedback, therefore, implies integration throughout the learning process and incorporates multiple points of engagements and sources (e.g. verbal and written) (McArthur and Huxham 2013). The shift from a monologic view of feedback to that of a dialogic process dictates deeper scrutiny of those aspects of feedback that are presently understood to contribute to its effectiveness.

대화식으로 피드백을 이해하려는 움직임에도 불구하고 학습자들은 피드백을 받는 과정에서 침묵하는 것처럼 보인다. 학습자의 침묵은 피드백에 대한 이전의 경험 때문일 수도 있고, 또는 (학습자의 약점을 드러낼 때 자존감을 위협하거나 두려움을 갖게 하는) 학습자와 '선생님' 사이의 불평등한 권력 관계에 기인할 수 있다. 

Despite the move to understanding feedback as a dialogic process, learners appear silent in their engagement with feedback. Learner silence may be attributed to their prior experiences with feedback (Greer et al. 2010) or perceived unequal power relations between the learner and ‘teacher’ which may threaten the learner’s self-esteem or fear of exposing their weaknesses. 

또한 '선생님'은 학습자 중심의 접근법을 피드백에 통합하는 방법에 대한 이해가 부족할 수 있다(Carless 2015). 학습자의 목소리가 지나치게 소극적이거나 학생이 침묵을 지킨다는 것은 경고신호인데, 성인 학습 원칙에 따라, 고등 교육 제공자는 학생 자신이 학습 성과를 결정하고 달성하는 데 적극적으로 참여하고 책임을 질 것으로 기대하기 때문이다(Chipchase et al. 2012).

Additionally, ‘teachers’ may have a lack of understanding of how to incorporate learner-centered approaches in feedback (Carless 2015). The apparent passivity and silence of the learner’s voice is alarming given that in line with adult learning principles, higher education providers expect students themselves to actively engage and accountable in determining and meeting their learning outcomes (Chipchase et al. 2012).

방법

Methods

Review question and relevant papers

Selection of relevant studies

Data charting

Data sorting and analysis

결과

Results

As indicated in the search strategy (Fig. 1), this review resulted in the inclusion of 61 publications. Publication years of the final sample ranged from 1975 to 2017 (Table 1).

특징

Nature of publication

용어

Terminology

23가지 용어가 사용됨

Twenty-three terms were used across the literature to label feedback elements.

세팅

Setting

근무지/임상환경과 교육환경

Findings from the analysis demonstrated that the elements that guide effective feedback were evident across two key settings: 

• workplace-based learning and the clinical learning environment (n = 41); and 

• education (i.e. primary, secondary and higher education within classroom and/or online settings) (n = 17). 

2개만이 비-서구권 국가 연구

An overwhelming 59 publications originated from western countries, with only two publications addressing feedback originating from non-western countries (Bhattarai 2007; Suhoyo et al. 2017). Characteristics of the included publications can be found in Supplementary Material 1.

요소

Feedback elements

633개 요소

Feedback elements were extracted from the 61 publications. A total of 633 elements (nonempirical, n = 571, 90%; empirical, n = 62, 10%) were extracted. That is, for every one element extracted from empirical sources, 10 were extracted from non-empirical sources

피드백 요소 적용

Application of feedback elements

피드백 특징

Feedback attributes

Emerging from the iterative process of analysis, was a core set of 11 feedback attributes from within the extracted list of feedback elements. This core set of feedback attributes describes feedback as: 

a process; 

• 기준 기반 

• 복수의 형태 및 근거 출처를 사용한다. 

• 수신자가 원하는 경우(즉, 초청 및 환영) 

• 적시에 

• 학습자에 대한 반응성(즉, 학습자의 개발 요구/학습 선호도에 따라 맞춤) 

• 빈번한

• 미래 지향적 

• 호혜적(양방향) 

• 능숙한 상호작용을 수반 

• 다차원(즉, 학습자가 여러 가지 방식으로 참여) 

• criteria-based; 

• uses multiple forms and sources of evidence; 

• desired by the recipient (i.e. invited and welcomed); 

• timely; 

• responsive to the learner (i.e. tailored to developmental needs/learning preferences of the learner); 

• frequent; 

• future-focussed; 

• reciprocal (i.e. two-way); 

• involves skilful interaction; and is 

• multidimensional (i.e. engages the learner in more than one way). 

가장 많이 나온 것

The most represented attribute was 

• '기술적 상호작용'(31%) 

• '학습자 반응적'(11%) 

• '다양한 형태 및 근거 출처 사용'(11%) 

• '미래 중심'(10%)

• ‘skillful interaction’ (31%), followed by 

• ‘responsive to learner’ (11%), 

• ‘use of multiple forms and sources of evidence’ (11%) and 

• ‘future-focused’ (10%).

제외된 것

Table 2 provides examples of these excluded items.

경험적 연구의 서포트

Support of feedback attributes in empirical studies

Analysis of evidence supporting feedback attributes identified in empirical studies is outlined in Table 3.

고찰

Discussion

이와 함께 이 특정 조사와 관련된 문학의 수가 급증하고 있다. 이 검토에 포함된 문헌의 약 50%는 2010년부터 제작되었다. 이는 문학의 부피가 이전 10년(2000~2009)에 비해 72%, 1990년부터 1999년까지 287% 증가한 것이다.

Coupled with this, is the burgeoning volume of literature related to this specific inquiry. Approximately 50% of the included literature in this review was produced from 2010. This is a 72% increase in the volume of literature compared to the previous decade (2000–2009) and a 287% increase from 1990 to 1999.

또한 이 검토는 식별된 피드백 요소가 피드백 요소의 transferability적 성향을 인정하면서, 피드백 요소가 특정 분야 또는 환경에 고유하지 않다는 것을 강조한다.

This review also highlights that feedback elements identified are not unique to one specific discipline or setting, acknowledging a propensity for the transferability of the feedback elements.

서구의 출판물이 비서구의 출판물보다 훨씬 더 많다는 것은 인정된다. Suhoyo 등은 피드백의 효과가 주로 서구의 문화권에서 탐구되었으며, 비 서구 문화권에서는 거의 연구가 수행되지 않았다는 것을 인정한다. 이 저자들은 다음과 같이 말한다.학생들의 학습과 발전을 최적화하기 위해 국제 피드백 표준을 구현할 때 문화를 고려해야 한다.(수호요 외 2017, 페이지 6). 이 시점에서 제기되는 질문은 우리의 서양적 가치와 피드백에 대한 이해가 다른 문화와 관련이 있을 수 있는지, 아니면 실제로 관련이 있는가이다.

It is recognised that publications from western countries heavily outweigh that of nonwestern countries. Suhoyo et al. acknowledge that the effectiveness of feedback has mainly been explored in western cultures with little research conducted in non-western cultures. These authors state “…culture should be considered when implementing international standards for feedback in order to optimise student learning and development” (Suhoyo et al. 2017, p. 6). The question posed at this juncture is whether our western value and understanding of feedback can, or indeed is, relevant for other cultures?

피드백 요소를 식별하는 데 사용되는 용어의 상당한 다양성이 관찰되었다(보조 자료 1).

Significant diversity in the terminology used to identify the feedback elements was observed (Supplementary Material 1).

추출된 피드백 요소의 분포는 비경험적 출처도 상당부분이 있음을 나타낸다(표 3 참조).

Distribution of the feedback elements extracted demonstrates substantial representation in non-empirical sources (refer to Table  3).

포함된 문헌에서 눈에 띄는 미숙함은 학습자가 피드백 과정에 참여하는 것과 관련이 있다.

A noted deffciency in the included literature concerned the engagement of learners in the feedback process.

이 검토서는 '능숙한 상호작용', '미래에 초점을 맞춘' 및 '학습자에 대한 반응성'을 지원하는 요소에 대한 상세한 이해를 밝혔다. 그러나, 학습자에게 피드백을 주는 것이 중요하다는 것을 입증하는 강력한 경험적 증거에도 불구하고, 'desired' 및 'reciprocal'과 관련된 요소들은 잘 이해되어있지 않다(Getzlaf et al. 2009; Winstone et al. 2016).

This review identiffed a detailed understanding of elements that support ‘skilful interaction’, ‘future-focused’ and ‘responsive to learner’. However, there is less understanding of elements that relate to ‘desired’ and ‘reciprocal’ despite strong empirical evidence demonstrating their importance in feedback to the learner (Getzlaf et al. 2009; Winstone et al. 2016).

이 문헌 검색에서 수집되고 합성된 정보는 좋은 피드백 관행을 위해 필요한 것으로 간주되는 것에 대한 증거를 제공한다. 경험적 및 비소설적 문헌의 우선 순위는 

• 피드백을 주는 데 필요한 기술과 관련된 속성('기술적 상호작용'), 

• 피드백의 목적('미래 초점'), 

• 학습자 요구에 기초한 피드백('학습자에 대한 응답')

...을 상세히 이해하는 데 있다. 

Information collected and synthesised from this literature search provides veriffcation of what is considered necessary for good feedback practice. Priority in both the empirical and non-empirical literature is given to providing a detailed understanding of attributes pertaining to 

• the skills needed to give feedback (‘skilful interactions’), 

• the purpose of feedback (‘future-focused’) and 

• the need to base feedback on learner needs (‘responsive to learner’). 

Limitations of the review

Conclusion

11개의 특징을 설명했다.

This review has articulated 11 attributes that guide best practice for effective feedback.

van der Leeuw, R. M., Teunissen, P. W., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2018). Broadening the scope of feedback to promote its relevance to workplace learning. Academic Medicine, 93(4), 556–559.

---

Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9854-x. [Epub ahead of print]

What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review.

Ossenberg C1, Henderson A2, Mitchell M2.

Author information

1

Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. christine.ossenberg@griffithuni.edu.au.

2

Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Abstract

There has been an observed increase in literature concerning feedback within the last decade, with the importance of feedback well documented. Current discourse promotes feedback as an interactive, dialogic process between the learner and the learning partner. While much has been written about effective feedback, less is known about key elements that support dialogic feedback. It is therefore important to investigate what is known about the elements that guide best practice for effective feedback. A scoping review of the extant literature following Arksey and O'Malley's methodology was conducted. A search of literature published in English identified sixty-one publications eligible for this review. Publications were representative of the international literature from both empirical and non-empirical sources. Feedback elements were extracted from the included publications and categorised into 11 core attributes. The attributes identified feedbackas: being a process; criteria-based; requiring multiple forms and sources of data/evidence; needs to be desired by the recipient (i.e. invited and welcomed); timely; responsive to the learner (i.e. tailored to developmental needs/learning preferences of the learner); frequent; future-focussed; reciprocal (i.e. two-way); involves skilful interaction; and is multidimensional (i.e. engages the learner in more than one way). Despite the rhetoric on feedback as a 'dialogic process', a gap remains in our understanding around what is required to engage the learner as an equal partner in the feedback process. Further research exploring the impact of specific aspects of the feedback process on practice is required.

KEYWORDS:

Attributes; Best practice; Effective; Feedback; Scoping review

PMID:

 

30284067

 

DOI:

 

10.1007/s10459-018-9854-x