Professional Experience Placement

Rowe, Wood and Petocz (2008) undertook a study to investigate students’ perception of feedback. This study utlised findings from a previous study that found that there were two preference dimensions identifed that reflected surface and deep learning described by Biggs (2003). The study surveyed over 800 undergraduate and 83 post graduate students enrolled at two Australian universities.  These students were from a range of disciplines.

This paper analysed demographic variables to investigate whether they impact on feedback measures; the amount and type of feedback and predictors of students preferences. The authors present a table that describes the respondents perceptions about feedback in relation to whether they preferred a surface or deep approach to learning. The findings indicated that approximately 50% of students indicated they rarely received individual verbal feedback from tutors. Peer feedback (73%) was reported to be the least common feedback provided.

This study was undertaken on campus within the university environment.  However, there are implications for clinical supervisors and students undertaking professional experience during work integrated learning. Students may not be familiar with the higher level of verbal feedback provided by preceptors or clinical facilitators.  Some students may find this challenging, while others will embrace the information provided. It is important that clinical supervisors are skilled in providing verbal feedback to students to ensure that miscommunication does not occur. Additionally, students may find that while undertaking workplace learning, peer feedback may be more commonplace than at University. This may be due to a number of factors that include shared experience in an unfamiliar environment, eagerness to improve their knowledge and skills, affirmation to increase their confidence and as a means of peer support.

Another finding indicated that mature age students were more satisfied with the type and amount of feedback they were receiving than younger students. Approximately half the SNM BN cohort students are classified as mature aged. This too, has implications for clinical facilitators and preceptors who supervise students duing professional experience.  Younger students may expect more feedback than older students. These students may have an expectation that their clinical supervisor will spend more time with them than they are able as they will be supporting a number of students or have their normal workload to undertake as well.  It is important at orientation that expectations of both student and clinical facilitator or preceptor are discussed to ensure that misunderstandings are minimised.  Additionally, it is important for clinical supervisors to ensure that when they are providing feedback that the student realises this is what is occuring.  Sometimes students may have a discussion with their preceptor, but they do not realise that they are receving feedback as it is not labelled by their supervisor as feedback.

These authors concluded their paper by reminding readers that the role of staff in facilitating engagement is crucial and may be be important in helping students reflect on their own learning. Do you have any comments about providing feedback to students? You are welcome to post them here.