Focal Interest
Focal Interest
AI Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

This page presents an AI-generated summary of a published research paper. The original authors did not write or review this article. [See full disclosure ↓]

Publishing process signals: STRONG — reflects the venue and review process. — venue and review process.

Students and faculty differed on feedback frequency and training

Two people wearing protective equipment examine a brown and white dog on a table in a clinical setting; the person on the left wears a blue volunteer shirt and face shield, while the person on the right wears a dark shirt and surgical mask, with medical supplies visible on the table.
Research area:Medical educationStudent Assessment and FeedbackVeterinary Practice and Education Studies

What the study found

Students and instructional faculty/staff at U.S. Colleges of Veterinary Medicine both viewed feedback as important, but they did not always agree on how feedback was experienced in clinical education. They also reported major gaps in training related to giving and receiving feedback.

Why the authors say this matters

The authors conclude that the study highlights opportunities to improve feedback during clinical training, and they suggest this may lead to improved educational outcomes and participant satisfaction.

What the researchers tested

The researchers surveyed clinical year students and instructional faculty/staff at U.S. Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, with invitations distributed through veterinary education listservs. They received 451 responses in total, and 363 responses included answers to at least one feedback-related question.

What worked and what didn't

Both groups rated immediate, unprompted feedback and formal, scheduled feedback as valuable. Both groups also reported that students generally felt comfortable approaching instructional faculty/staff for feedback and that they were highly open to receiving feedback. However, students reported higher ability to recognize unlabeled feedback than instructional faculty/staff perceived, instructors believed they provided feedback frequently while students wanted it more often, and many respondents reported no training in giving or receiving feedback.

What to keep in mind

The abstract does not describe detailed study limitations beyond the survey-based design and the fact that the findings come from responses at U.S. veterinary colleges. The discussion mentions possible contributors such as power dynamics, communication mismatches, cultural norms, and cognitive biases, but these are presented as likely factors rather than measured results.

Key points

  • Both students and instructional faculty/staff said feedback is important.
  • Students and instructors both valued immediate, unprompted feedback and formal, scheduled feedback.
  • Students said they could recognize unlabeled feedback more often than instructors believed.
  • Instructors thought they gave feedback frequently, while students wanted it more often.
  • Many respondents reported no training in giving or receiving feedback.

Disclosure

Research title:
Students and faculty differed on feedback frequency and training
Authors:
Shane D. Lyon, Katherine Fogelberg, Ariana L. Hinckley-Boltax, M. T. Coleman, J Foreman, Jody S. Frost, Kent G. Hecker, Jennifer L. Hodgson, Regina Schoenfeld‐Tacher
Institutions:
Roseman University of Health Sciences, Tufts University, University of Georgia, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Health Education England, University of Calgary, Virginia–Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State University
Publication date:
2026-03-05
DOI:
10.3389/feduc.2026.1743510
OpenAlex record:
View
AI provenance: This post was generated by OpenAI. The original authors did not write or review this post.

More posts