↓ Skip to main content

Utilizing students’ experiences and opinions of feedback during problem based learning tutorials to develop a facilitator feedback guide: an exploratory qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Utilizing students’ experiences and opinions of feedback during problem based learning tutorials to develop a facilitator feedback guide: an exploratory qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0507-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke, Alwyn J. N. Louw, Susan Van Schalkwyk

Abstract

Feedback delivery within a Problem Based Learning tutorial is a key activity for facilitators in order to enhance student learning. The purpose of this study was to explore students' experiences of feedback delivery in a PBL tutorial and use this information to design a feasible facilitator feedback delivery guide. It was an exploratory qualitative study in which individual interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with students who had an experience of the tutorial process. Data were collected through audio recording and writing of field notes. Thematic analysis was employed to generate the reported themes. Students suggested that facilitators need to give comprehensive feedback on their knowledge construction process as well as feedback on other generic skills outside the knowledge domain such as their communication skills within the tutorial, their participation and team work as well as their interpersonal skills and self-evaluation abilities. From the findings, a structured facilitator feedback delivery guide was developed. In this study, we propose a structured feedback delivery guide for PBL facilitators that captures not only knowledge, but also other generic competencies. The guide is feasible in a wide range of contexts where PBL is institutionalized.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Lecturer 5 7%
Other 20 30%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 34%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Computer Science 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,259,142
of 7,028,853 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#920
of 1,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,455
of 317,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#72
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,028,853 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.