Table 1
Participants’ characteristics
|
Institute |
Number of students |
Male/female |
Year of study |
|---|---|---|---|
|
FVMU |
10 |
3/7 |
4–6 |
|
SIU |
13 |
5/8 |
4–5 |
|
UMCU |
9 |
1/8 |
5–6 |
FVMU Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, SIU Szent Istvan University (now University of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest), UMCU University Medical Center Utrecht
Table 2
Characteristics of feedback viewed as conducive to prepare for performing an EPA
|
Source |
Is from a self-reflective feedback provider |
|
Is from a person with sufficient task-related expertise | |
|
Is from a credible person (i. e. knowledgeable) | |
|
Is from someone with longitudinal insight into students’ development | |
|
Is from a trustworthy person (i. e. with favourable intentions) | |
|
Method |
Is personal feedback rather than feedback to a group |
|
Is provided in a safe learning environment | |
|
Is provided in a one-to-one situation | |
|
Is both verbally provided and directly documented by the feedback provider | |
|
Is provided in dialog with argumentation | |
|
Contains both positive and negative aspects | |
|
Topic |
Contains clear instructions to improve skills/knowledge |
|
Refers to a student’s level of ability to act unsupervised | |
|
Is also focused on more generic skills, such as communication and collaboration | |
|
Is focused on improvement | |
|
Is specific and concretely formulated for the task | |
|
Is not just derived from students’ self-reflection on the task | |
|
Timing |
Is directly provided after performing the task |
|
Is based on direct observation of the task | |
|
Is based on sufficient observations | |
|
Includes the occasional provision of unsolicited feedback | |
|
Frequency |
Is based on observation at multiple occasions from the same supervisor |
|
Is based on follow-up |