Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Warum lebenslanges Lernen ohne effektives Feedback nicht wirkungsvoll ist

Vom „Feedback“ zum „Feedforward“

Why lifelong learning without consistent feedback is not effective

From“feed-back” to“feed-forward”

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Notfall + Rettungsmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Dem Prozess des Feedback wird im Zusammenhang mit Weiterbildung inzwischen eine fundamentale Bedeutung beigemessen.

Ziel

In diesem Beitrag soll dargestellt werden, warum effektives Feedback diese Bedeutung hat und durch welche spezifischen Charakteristika es seine Wirksamkeit erlangt. Dabei werden neuere Erkenntnisse der Ausbildungsforschung einbezogen. Das Konzept, nach dem Lernende und Feedback-Geber gemeinsam einen Aktionsplan entwickeln, wird hergeleitet. Des Weiteren wird die Wichtigkeit, das dafür notwendige wertschätzende Lernklima herzustellen, betont.

Abstract

Background

The process of feedback is regarded to be a fundamental element of medical education.

Objective

This manuscript aims to show why effective feedback possesses this importance and how it reaches effectiveness. Data from empirical research are related to the principles of effective feedback. We propose a concept for the mutual development of a learning path by both the learner and the feedback-provider in order to improve learner performance. To facilitate this, the importance of an open learning climate is highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Archer JC (2010) State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ 44:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bienstock J, Katz N, Cox S et al (2007) To the point: medical education reviews – providing feedback. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:508–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brett JF, Atwater LE (2001) 360 degree feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. J Appl Psychol 86:930–942

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Conaghan P, Lockey A (2009) Feedback to feedforward. A positive approach to improving candidate success. Notfall Rettungsmed 12(Suppl 2):45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M et al (2006) Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA 296:1094–1102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ende J (1983) Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA 250:777–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ericsson A (2008) Deliberate Practice and Acquisition of Expert Performance: A General Overview. Acad Emerg Med 15:988–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eva K, Regehr G (2005) Self-Assessment in the Health Professions: A Reformulation and Research Agenda. Acad Med 80:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eva K, Regehr G (2011) Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring. Adv Health Sci Educ 16:311–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Griffith CH (2000) Evidenced-based educational practice: the case for faculty development in teaching. Am J Med 109:749–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Henderson P, Ferguson-Smith AC, Johnson MH (2005). Developing essential professional skills: a framework for teaching and learning about feedback. BMC Med Educ;5:11 doi:10.1186/1472-6920-5-11

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hewson M, Little M (1998) Giving Feedback in Medical Education Verification of Recommended Techniques. J Gen Intern Med 13:111–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kruidering-Hall M, O’Sullivan PS, Chou CL (2009) Teaching feedback to first-year medical students: long-term skill retention and accuracy of student self-assessment. J Gen Intern Med 24:721–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Milan F, Parish S, Reichgott M (2006) A Model for Educational Feedback Based on Clinical Communication Skills Strategies: Beyond the „Feedback Sandwich“. Teach Learn Med 18:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC (1992) In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 47:1102–1114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Regehr G, Kevin Eva K (2006) Self-assessment, Self-direction, and the Self-regulating Professional. Clin Ortho Rel Res 449:34–38

    Google Scholar 

  17. Skeff K, Stratos G (2011) Stanford Faculty Development Program for Clinical Teaching, http://sfdc.stanford.edu/clinical_teaching.html last accessed 25.12.2011

  18. Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Berman J, Bergen MR (1992) Improving clinical teaching. Evaluation of a national dissemination program. Arch Intern Med 152:1156–1161

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sostok M, Coberly L, Rouan G (2002) Feedback Process between Faculty and Students. Acad Med 77:267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Teunissen PW, Stapel DA, Vleuten C van der et al (2009) Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents‘ feedback-seeking behavior in relation to night shifts. Acad Med 84:910–917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ridder JM van de, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, Cate OT ten (2008) What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ 42:189–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Viele Gedanken dieses Artikels stammen aus der publizierten Literatur, aber noch viel mehr aus den vielen Gelegenheiten zu Feedback im Unterricht. So möchten wir uns besonders bei allen Lernenden bedanken, die unsere Erkenntnisse im Feedback erweitert haben. Speziellen Einfluss hatten sicherlich auch die Erfahrungen aus den Kursen des European Resucitation Councils und aus den Workshops des „Stanford Faculty Development Center for Medical Teachers“ (http://sfdc.stanford.edu/; [17]), das die theoretische Grundlage für den Artikel geliefert hat.

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsspital Bern, Inselspital und Universität Bern, Bern, Schweiz

    R. Greif

  2. Klinik für Anästhesiologie mit Schwerpunkt operative Intensivmedizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Deutschland

    J. Breckwoldt

Authors
  1. R. Greif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Breckwoldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Breckwoldt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greif, R., Breckwoldt, J. Warum lebenslanges Lernen ohne effektives Feedback nicht wirkungsvoll ist. Notfall Rettungsmed 15, 193–197 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-011-1518-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-011-1518-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation