Twelve tips for providing feedback to peers about their teaching

References

• Anderson CI, Gupta RN, Larson JR, Abubars OI, Kwiecien AJ, Lake AD, Hozain AE, Tanious A, O’Brien T, Basson MD. 2013. Impact of objectively assessing surgeons’ teaching on effective perioperative instructional behaviors. JAMA Surg. 148:915–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold E, Pulich M. 2003. Personality conflicts and objectivity in appraising performance. Health Care Manag. 22:227–232.
   Google Scholar
• Beijaard D, Meijer PC, Verloop N. 2004. Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teach Teacher Educ. 20:107–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinato S. 2018. Negative feedback rarely leads to improvement. Harv Bus Rev. 96:32–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardin HJ, Buckley MR, Tyler CL, Wiese DS. 2000. A reconsideration of strategies in rater training. Res Person Hum Resour Manag. 18:221–274.
   Google Scholar
• Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, Mckelvy D. 2018. The feedback tango: an integrative review and analysis of the content of the teacher–learner feedback exchange. Acad Med. 93:657–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackmore JA. 2005. A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. Intl Jnl of Educational Mgt. 19:218–232.
   Google Scholar
• Brookfield S. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bynum WE. 2015. Filling the feedback gap: the unrecognised roles of shame and guilt in the feedback cycle. Med Educ. 49:644–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conigliaro RL, Stratton TD. 2010. Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study. Med Educ. 44:379–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courneya CA, Pratt DD, Collins J. 2008. Through what perspective do we judge the teaching of peers? Teach Teacher Educ. 24:69–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolcos S, Albarracin D. 2014. The inner speech of behavioral regulation: intentions and task performance strengthen when you talk to yourself as a you. Eur J Soc Psychol. 44:636–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnelly R. 2007. Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 19:117–129.
   Google Scholar
• Donner G, Wheeler MM. 2009. Coaching in nursing: an introduction. Indianapolos (IN): The International Council of Nurses and The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International; [accessed 2018 June 25]. http://www.icn.ch/images/stories/documents/pillars/sew/coaching/Coaching_in_Nursing.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Engin M, Priest B. 2014. Observing teaching: a lens for self-reflection. J Perspect Appl Acad Pract. 2:2–9.
   Google Scholar
• Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, Sargeant J. 2012. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 17:15–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman M, Lazzara EH, Vanderbilt AA, DiazGranados D. 2012. Rater training to support high-stakes simulation-based assessments. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 32:279–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn K, Chiappa V, Puig A, Hunt DP. 2011. How to become a better clinical teacher: a collaborative peer observation process. Med Teach. 33:151–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry H, Morris C. 2004. Peer observation of clinical teaching. Med Educ. 38:560–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallo A. 2017. HBR guide to dealing with conflict. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Publishing Corp.
   Google Scholar
• Gosling D. 2002. Models of peer observation of teaching. LTSN Generic Centre Learning and Teaching Support Network, York Aug. [accessed 25 June 2018]: [6. p.] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267687499_Models_of_Peer_Observation_of_Teaching
   Google Scholar
• Govaerts MJB, van de Wiel MWJ, van der Vleuten CPM. 2013. Quality of feedback following performance assessments: does assessor expertise matter? Euro J Train Develop. 37:105–125.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison S. 2017. How to give and receive feedback about creative work. Harv Bus Rev Dig Art. [accessed 25 June 2018]. https://hbr.org/2017/11/how-to-give-and-receive-feedback-about-creative-work.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie J, Timperley H. 2007. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 77:81–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatzipanagos S, Lygo-Baker S. 2006. Teaching observations: promoting development through critical reflection. J Further High Educ. 30:421–431.
   Google Scholar
• Isen A. 1999. Positive affect. In: Dagleish T, Power M, editors. Handbook of cognition and emotion. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; p. 521–539.
   Google Scholar
• Kluger A, DeNisi A. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 119:254–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowalski K. 2017. Questions that stimulate creativity and innovation. J Contin Educ Nurs. 48:102–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krackov SK. 2011. Expanding the horizon for feedback. Med Teach. 33:873–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerman L, Borstel J. 2008. Liz Lerman’s critical response process. Contact Q. 33:16–20.
   Google Scholar
• Lumpkin A. 2011. A model for mentoring university faculty. Educ Forum. 75:357–368.
   Google Scholar
• MacDougall M, Riley SC, Cameron HS, McKinstry B. 2008. Halos and horns in the assessment of undergraduate medical students: a consistency-based approach. J Appl Quant Methods. 3:116–128.
   Google Scholar
• Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Eva K, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Sargeant J. 2011. Tensions in informed self-assessment: how the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Acad Med. 86:1120–1127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mookherjee S, Monash B, Wentworth KL, Sharpe BA. 2014. Faculty development for hospitalists: structured peer observation of teaching. J Hosp Med. 9:244–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadler A, Fisher JD. 1986. The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control in recipient reactions to aid: theory development and empirical validation. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 19:81–123.
   Google Scholar
• Newman LR, Brodsky DD, Roberts DH, Pelletier SR, Johansson A, Vollmer CM, Atkins KM, Schwartzstein RM. 2012. Developing expert-derived rating standards for the peer assessment of lectures. Acad Med. 87:356–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman LR, Brodsky DD, Jones RN, Schwartzstein RM, Atkins KM, Roberts DH. 2016. Frame-of-reference training: establishing reliable assessment of teaching effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 36:206–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattison AT, Sherwood M, Lumsden CJ, Gale A, Markides M. 2012. Foundation observation of teaching project-a developmental model of peer observation of teaching. Med Teach. 34:e136–e142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peyre SE, Frankl SE, Thorndike M, Breen EM. 2011. Observation of clinical teaching: interest in a faculty development program for surgeons. J Surg Educ. 68:372–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce JR, Rendón P, Rao D. 2018. Peer observation of rounds leads to collegial discussion of teaching. Teach Learn Med. 30:233–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poyas Y, Smith K. 2007. Becoming a community of practice—the blurred identity of clinical faculty teacher educators. Teach Devel. 11:313–334.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt DD. 2005. Alternative frames of understanding: introduction to five perspectives. In: Pratt DD and Associates, editors. Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Reprint edition with corrections. Malabar (FL): Krieger Publishing Co.; p. 33–54.
   Google Scholar
• Ramani S, Krackov K. 2012. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 34:787–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts DH, Schwartzstein RM, Weinberger SE. 2014. Career development for the clinician-educator. Optimizing impact and maximizing success. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 11:254–259.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. 2006. There's no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 1:49–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sexton JB, Helmreich RL. 2000. Analyzing cockpit communications: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. Hum Perf Extrem Environ. 5:63–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Servilio KL, Hollingshead A, Hott BL. 2017. Partnerships enhancing practice: a preliminary model of technology-based peer-to-peer evaluations of teaching in higher education. J Spec Educ Technol. 32:23–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui ZS, Jonas-Dwyer D, Carr SE. 2007. Twelve tips for peer observation of teaching. Med Teach. 29:297–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith H. 2012. The unintended consequences of grading teaching. Teach Higher Educ.17:747–754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, Barnett BM, Centeno A, Naismith L, Prideaux D, Spencer J, Tullo E, Viggiano T, et al. 2016. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Med Teach. 38:769–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone D, Heen S. 2014. Thanks for the feedback: the science and art of receiving feedback well. New York (NY): Viking Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan PB, Buckle A, Nicky G, Atkinson SH. 2012. Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Med Educ. 12:26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor EW, Tisdell EJ, Gusic ME. 2007. Teaching beliefs of medical educators: perspectives on clinical teaching in pediatrics. Med Teach. 29:371–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekian A, Watling CJ, Roberts TE, Steinert Y, Norcini J. 2017. Qualitative and quantitative feedback in the context of competency-based education. Med Teach. 39:1245–1249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. 2015. The “‘educational alliance’ as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education”. Acad Med. 90:609–614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thampy H, Bourke M, Naran P. 2015. Peer-supported review of teaching: an evaluation. Educ Prim Care. 26:306–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torre D, Daley BJ, Picho K, Durning SJ. 2017. Group concept mapping: an approach to explore group knowledge organization and collaborative learning in senior medical students. Med Teach. 39:1051–1056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uggerslev K, Sulsky L. 2008. Using frame-of-reference training to understand the implications of rater idiosyncrasy for rating accuracy. J Appl Psychol. 93:711–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leeuw RM, Slootweg IA. 2013. Twelve tips for making the best use of feedback. Med Teach. 35:348–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vassilas C, Ho L. 2000. Video for teaching purposes. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 6:304–311.
   Google Scholar
• Williams RG, Klamen DA, McGaghie WC. 2003. Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teach Learn Med. 15:270–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar