The utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review.
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Aug 2019
23 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
18
07
2019
accepted:
16
08
2019
entrez:
25
8
2019
pubmed:
25
8
2019
medline:
25
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peer evaluation can provide valuable feedback to medical students, and increase student confidence and quality of work. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the utilization, effectiveness, and quality of peer feedback during collaborative learning in medical education. The PRISMA statement for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis was used to guide the process of conducting the systematic review. Evaluation of level of evidence (Colthart) and types of outcomes (Kirkpatrick) were used. Two main authors reviewed articles with a third deciding on conflicting results. The final review included 31 studies. Problem-based learning and team-based learning were the most common collaborative learning settings. Eleven studies reported that students received instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback. No studies provided descriptions on whether or not the quality of feedback was evaluated by faculty. Seventeen studies evaluated the effect of peer feedback on professionalism; 12 of those studies evaluated its effectiveness for assessing professionalism and eight evaluated the use of peer feedback for professional behavior development. Ten studies examined the effect of peer feedback on student learning. Six studies examined the role of peer feedback on team dynamics. This systematic review indicates that peer feedback in a collaborative learning environment may be a reliable assessment for professionalism and may aid in the development of professional behavior. The review suggests implications for further research on the impact of peer feedback, including the effectiveness of providing instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Peer evaluation can provide valuable feedback to medical students, and increase student confidence and quality of work. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the utilization, effectiveness, and quality of peer feedback during collaborative learning in medical education.
METHODS
METHODS
The PRISMA statement for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis was used to guide the process of conducting the systematic review. Evaluation of level of evidence (Colthart) and types of outcomes (Kirkpatrick) were used. Two main authors reviewed articles with a third deciding on conflicting results.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The final review included 31 studies. Problem-based learning and team-based learning were the most common collaborative learning settings. Eleven studies reported that students received instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback. No studies provided descriptions on whether or not the quality of feedback was evaluated by faculty. Seventeen studies evaluated the effect of peer feedback on professionalism; 12 of those studies evaluated its effectiveness for assessing professionalism and eight evaluated the use of peer feedback for professional behavior development. Ten studies examined the effect of peer feedback on student learning. Six studies examined the role of peer feedback on team dynamics.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review indicates that peer feedback in a collaborative learning environment may be a reliable assessment for professionalism and may aid in the development of professional behavior. The review suggests implications for further research on the impact of peer feedback, including the effectiveness of providing instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31443705
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1755-z
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1755-z
pmc: PMC6708197
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
321Références
Am J Surg. 1999 Mar;177(3):266-9
pubmed: 10219867
Med Educ. 2001 Jul;35(7):632-6
pubmed: 11437964
Eval Health Prof. 2001 Dec;24(4):436-45
pubmed: 11817201
Med Teach. 2002 Jul;24(4):408-11
pubmed: 12193325
Acad Med. 2002 Nov;77(11):1134-9
pubmed: 12431928
Clin Anat. 2005 Jan;18(1):56-63
pubmed: 15597377
Med Educ. 2005 Jul;39(7):713-22
pubmed: 15960792
Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2005 Sep;34(8):486-91
pubmed: 16205826
Acad Med. 2006 Jan;81(1):20-6
pubmed: 16377814
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007 May;12(2):169-86
pubmed: 17072771
Med Teach. 2006 Sep;28(6):497-526
pubmed: 17074699
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96
pubmed: 17251535
Med Educ. 2007 Sep;41(9):836-42
pubmed: 17696986
Med Teach. 2007 Jun;29(5):e122-32
pubmed: 17885964
Med Teach. 2008;30(2):124-45
pubmed: 18464136
Med Teach. 2008;30(8):812-4
pubmed: 18946825
BMC Med Educ. 2008 Nov 27;8:55
pubmed: 19038048
Anat Sci Educ. 2009 Jul-Aug;2(4):150-5
pubmed: 19572279
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Anat Sci Educ. 2009 Oct;2(5):210-7
pubmed: 19693955
Acad Med. 2010 Jan;85(1):140-7
pubmed: 20042840
Med Educ Online. 2009 Jan 07;14:1
pubmed: 20165515
Educ Prim Care. 2010 Jan;21(1):32-7
pubmed: 20202319
Med Teach. 2011;33(2):e105-12
pubmed: 21275532
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Mar;17(1):81-93
pubmed: 21533755
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 May;18(2):199-213
pubmed: 22453356
BMC Med Educ. 2012 Dec 18;12:123
pubmed: 23249445
Med Teach. 2013 Aug;35(8):655-60
pubmed: 23641921
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 Mar;19(1):53-69
pubmed: 23657726
BMC Med Educ. 2013 May 31;13:79
pubmed: 23725417
Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015 Aug;15(3):e376-81
pubmed: 26355668
Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(4):362-5
pubmed: 26507992
Med Teach. 2016 Oct;38(10):1017-1024
pubmed: 27008548
Med Educ. 2017 Apr;51(4):390-400
pubmed: 28078685
Med Educ Online. 2006 Dec;11(1):4587
pubmed: 28253784
Teach Learn Med. 2017 Oct-Dec;29(4):402-410
pubmed: 28498003