Use of Individualized Learning Plans to Facilitate Feedback Among Medical Students

Applying simulation learning theory to identify instructional strategies for Generation Z emergency medicine residency education

Introduction

Generation Z learners are entering emergency medicine (EM) residency training, bringing unique learning preferences that influence their engagement with residency education. To optimally teach and motivate this incoming generation of learners, EM educators must understand and adapt to the changing instructional landscape.

Methodology

The Simulation Leaders Advancing the Next Generation in Emergency Medicine (SLANG-EM) Workgroup was created to identify effective educational strategies for Generation Z learners entering EM. Members were faculty in the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Simulation Academy, well versed in learning theory supporting simulation-based education (SBE) and actively involved in EM residency education.

Unique treatment/analysis

Through primary and secondary literature searches, the SLANG-EM Workgroup identified four distinctive learning preferences of Generation Z learners: (1) individualized and self-paced learning, (2) engaging and visual learning environments, (3) immediate and actionable feedback, and (4) combined personal and academic support. Workgroup members evaluated these learning preferences using a novel conceptual framework informed by the theoretical principles underpinning SBE, recommending instructional strategies for Generation Z EM residency learners across multiple educational environments.

Implications for educators

Instructional strategies were described for the didactic, simulation, and clinical learning environments. In the didactic environment, identified instructional strategies included meaningful asynchronous education, interactive small-group learning, and improved multimedia design. In the simulation environment, educational innovations particularly suitable for Generation Z learners included learner-centered debriefing, rapid-cycle deliberate practice, and virtual simulation. In the clinical environment, described instructional strategies involved setting learner-centered goals and delivering facilitative feedback in the context of an educational alliance. Overall, these instructional strategies were clustered around themes of student-centered education and the educator as facilitator, which align well with Generation Z learning preferences. These findings were synthesized and presented as an advanced workshop, "Delivering Effective Education to the Next Generation," at the 2023 SAEM Annual Meeting.

Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Feedback processes are crucial for learning, guiding improvement, and enhancing performance. In workplace-based learning settings, diverse teaching and assessment activities are advocated to be designed and implemented, generating feedback that students use, with proper guidance, to close the gap between current and desired performance levels. Since productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured feedback activities within undergraduate workplace-based learning settings. However, these settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students. This scoping review maps literature on how feedback processes are organised in undergraduate clinical workplace-based learning settings, providing insight into the design and use of feedback.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Studies were identified from seven databases and ten relevant journals in medical education. The screening process was performed independently in duplicate with the support of the StArt program. Data were organized in a data chart and analyzed using thematic analysis. The feedback loop with a sociocultural perspective was used as a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

The search yielded 4,877 papers, and 61 were included in the review. Two themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: (1) The organization of the feedback processes in workplace-based learning settings, and (2) Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. The literature describes multiple teaching and assessment activities that generate feedback information. Most papers described experiences and perceptions of diverse teaching and assessment feedback activities. Few studies described how feedback processes improve performance. Sociocultural factors such as establishing a feedback culture, enabling stable and trustworthy relationships, and enhancing student feedback agency are crucial for productive feedback processes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified concrete ideas regarding how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. The feedback encounter should be organized to allow follow-up of the feedback, i.e., working on required learning and performance goals at the next occasion. The educational programs should design feedback processes by appropriately planning subsequent tasks and activities. More insight is needed in designing a full-loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices.

Comparing the Efficacy of Individual Approaches and Team-Based Approaches in Solving Clinical Case Vignettes

Background Clinical case vignettes are a widely adopted pedagogical approach in medical education. The cases may be presented to students with a closed response option for objectivity. While solving clinical cases has demonstrated its effectiveness in enhancing medical students' clinical reasoning, there is an ongoing debate regarding the most effective approach: individual problem-solving or team-based problem-solving. Objective To observe and compare the score obtained from individual clinical problem-solving approaches versus team-based clinical problem-solving approaches. Methods After obtaining consent, a total of 100 students were randomly selected for the study. The participants were divided into two groups: an individual approach group (IAG) (n=25) and a team-based approach group (TAG) comprising 25 groups of three students each. Both groups were presented with a set of 10 clinical problems, each requiring a closed-answer response of "yes", "no", or "don't know". The participants' responses were recorded and analyzed to evaluate their problem-solving efficacy. Results A total of 25 responses were obtained from 25 students from the IAG group and 25 responses from 25 groups from the TAG group. There was no difference between the score in IAG (7.44±1.12) and TAG (7.52 1.66) p-value=0.58. There was no difference between individual scores in 10 questions between IAG and TAG groups. Conclusion The study found no significant score differences between individual and team-based clinical case-solving groups. Hence, for the objective type of case-solving pattern used in this study, a team-based approach may not be necessary. Further research is needed to explore factors for such findings in future studies.

Surgery Acting Internship Individual Learning Plans: Fostering Mentorship in the COVID-19 Era

OBJECTIVE

Mentorship facilitates successful matching for surgical specialties. A formal mentorship plan may counteract restricted mentorship opportunities due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

We surveyed medical students applying to surgery specialties who participated in our formalized mentorship program (M_F) and those of a prior cohort who were informally mentored (M_I). Epistemic Network Analysis was used to model qualitative responses.

SETTING

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourth-year medical students who matched into ACGME-accredited surgical specialties.

RESULTS

M_F students (n = 12) met with their mentors more frequently than M_I students (n = 13; p = 0.03). Both groups received career guidance, letters of recommendation and application preparation. However, the M_I cohort reported greater psychological and emotional support whereas the M_F cohort reported more assistance with skills development.

CONCLUSIONS

A formalized mentorship program fostered successful mentoring relationships despite limitations from the COVID-19 pandemic.