Maximizing the value of feedback for individual facilitator and faculty development in a problem-based learning curriculum

Figures & data

Table

Practice points
•Both qualitative and quantitative feedback are important for facilitator development as they serve formative and summative purposes.
•student comments provide specific direction for individual facilitator reflection and often also confirmation of being valued by students.
•Students need to be honest, reflective and take time to complete the evaluation for it to be useful to facilitators.
•Feedback should be provided timeously, to allow for reflection by facilitators and modification of their activities for the new group of students.
•Staff development should address specific issues identified in feedback, which may be different for medically and non-medically qualified facilitators.

Table 1.  Facilitator perceptions of the usefulness of feedback (n = 37)

Perceptions of usefulness of feedback	% Facilitators (n = 37)	Examples of facilitator comments to explain their answers (n = clinician; n = non-clinician)^a
Useful	62.2 (n = 23)	Specific direction for improvement (n = 5; n = 3)
	Clinical: 39.1 (n = 9)	• It is important for students to assess facilitators. Knowing what their comments will certainly improve/enhance our ability as facilitators
	Non-clinical: 60.9 (n = 14)	• Guides facilitator as to how to improve for the next session
		Identified shortcomings (n = 1; n = 4)
		• Provides a non-threatening way of identifying shortcomings
		• Specific problem areas could be improved because of the detailed nature of the feedback
		• I would like also to know about my shortcomings and ways to improve
		Validation of facilitator performance (n = 0; n = 2)
		• It gave one an idea of your performance
		• This feedback is valuable as it is not always possible to assess one's contribution objectively. It is good to hear it from the students
		Useful but, more responsibility needed from students (n = 2; n = 0)
		• It is a pity that they are, however, usually completed in a hurry. I’m not sure that students give the questionnaires much thought since they seem to be overloaded with evaluation forms
		• Students tend to shy away from being critical and are too often in a hurry when completing the forms
		Being valued by students (n = 1; n = 0)
		• It is the only reward (apart from being paid) for the work done. It is nice to know that my work is appreciated and valued
		No reason specified (n = 0; n = 6)
Not useful	16.2 (n = 6)	More qualitative, written feedback required (n = 3; n = 0)
	Clinical: 83.4 (n = 5)	• I prefer written comments rather than a Likert scale. I feel they should be asked how the facilitator could do better or how the process can be improved
	Non-clinical: 16.6 (n = 1)	• Percentages do not mean too much. More constructive, written comments would be useful
		More responsibility required from students (n = 2; n = 0)
		• Only some students do it. Even then, it is not accurate, e.g. being late when I have never been late but it always seems to come up
		• Students were not honest and just filled them in for the sake of filling forms in. Students who always want to get away with leaving early and not going through the eight steps properly end up writing false reports, hoping to tarnish an individual
		More detailed, timely feedback (n = 0; n = 1)
		• Seldom received on time. The results were not very clear and lacked the detail that I was looking for
Sometimes useful/sometimes not	21.6 (n = 8)	Initially valuable, thereafter able to self-evaluate (n = 0; n = 2)
	Clinical: 50 (n = 4)	• Somewhat helpful at the beginning but no longer too interesting—stays much the same with few exceptions but usually aware of how the group is relating to me as a facilitator
	Non-clinical: 50 (n = 4)	More detailed, timely feedback required (n = 1; n = 2)
		• Feedback usually useful, however, I never got it on time
		• Not enough detail provided in feedback
		More responsibility required from students (n = 1; n = 0)
		• Validity questionable as too few students complete the questionnaire and some answers are demonstrably rubbish
		External validation required (n = 1; n = 0)
		• Should have external evaluators for consistency check

Notes: Data are presented for clinical and non-clinical facilitators. ^aSome facilitators provided more than one explanation.