Background Teaching is an important professional skill for physicians and providing feedback is an important part of teaching. Medical students can practice their feedback skills by giving each... Show moreBackground Teaching is an important professional skill for physicians and providing feedback is an important part of teaching. Medical students can practice their feedback skills by giving each other peer feedback. Therefore, we developed a peer feedback training in which students observed a peer that modelled the use of good feedback principles. Students then elaborated on the modelled feedback principles through peer discussion. This combination of peer modelling and discussing the modelled feedback principles was expected to enhance emulation of the feedback principles compared to (1) only peer modelling and (2) discussing the feedback principles without previous modelling. Methods In a quasi-experimental study design, 141 medical students were assigned randomly to three training conditions: peer modelling plus discussion (MD), non-peer modelled example (NM) or peer modelling without discussion (M). Before and after the training, they commented on papers written by peers. These comments served as a pre- and a post-measure of peer feedback. The comments were coded into different functions and aspects of the peer feedback. Non-parametrical Kruskall-Wallis tests were used to check for pre- and post-measure between-group differences in the functions and aspects. Results Before the training, there were no significant between-group differences in feedback functions and aspects. After the training, the MD-condition gave significantly more positive peer feedback than the NM-condition. However, no other functions or aspects were significantly different between the three conditions, mainly because the within-group interquartile ranges were large. Conclusions The large interquartile ranges suggest that students differed substantially in the effort placed into giving peer feedback. Therefore, additional incentives may be needed to motivate students to give good feedback. Teachers could emphasise the utility value of peer feedback as an important professional skill and the importance of academic altruism and professional accountability in the peer feedback process. Such incentives may convince more students to put more effort into giving peer feedback. Show less
Achterberg, M.; Duijvenvoorde, A.C.K. van; Meulen, M. van der; Bakermans, M.J.; Crone, E.A.M. 2018
Middle childhood marks an important phase for developing and maintaining social relations. At the same time, this phase is marked by a gap in our knowledge of the genetic and environmental... Show moreMiddle childhood marks an important phase for developing and maintaining social relations. At the same time, this phase is marked by a gap in our knowledge of the genetic and environmental influences on brain responses to social feedback and their relation to behavioral aggression. In a large developmental twin sample (509 7‐ to 9‐year‐olds), the heritability and neural underpinnings of behavioral aggression following social evaluation were investigated, using the Social Network Aggression Task (SNAT). Participants viewed pictures of peers that gave positive, neutral, or negative feedback to the participant's profile. Next, participants could blast a loud noise toward the peer as an index of aggression. Genetic modeling revealed that aggression following negative feedback was influenced by both genetics and environmental (shared as well as unique environment). On a neural level (n = 385), the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex gyrus (ACCg) responded to both positive and negative feedback, suggesting they signal for social salience cues. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) were specifically activated during negative feedback, whereas positive feedback resulted in increased activation in caudate, supplementary motor cortex (SMA), and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Decreased SMA and DLPFC activation during negative feedback was associated with more aggressive behavior after negative feedback. Moreover, genetic modeling showed that 13%–14% of the variance in dorsolateral PFC activity was explained by genetics. Our results suggest that the processing of social feedback is partly explained by genetic factors, whereas shared environmental influences play a role in behavioral aggression following feedback. Show less
Huisman, B.A.; Saab, N.; Driel, J.H. van; Broek, P.W. van den 2017
There does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback process: with same-ability peers (homogeneously) or different-ability peers (heterogeneously). In... Show moreThere does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback process: with same-ability peers (homogeneously) or different-ability peers (heterogeneously). In fact, there appears to be no empirical evidence that either homogeneous or heterogeneous student matching has any direct effect on writing performance. The current study addressed this issue in the context of an academic writing task. Adopting a quasi-experimental design, 94 undergraduate students were matched in 47 homogeneous or heterogeneous reciprocal dyads, and provided anonymous, formative peer feedback on each other’s draft essays. The relations between students’ individual ability or dyad composition, feedback quality and writing performance were investigated. Neither individual ability nor dyad composition directly related to writing performance. Also, feedback quality did not depend on students’ individual ability or dyad composition, although trends in the data suggest that high-ability reviewers provided more content-related feedback. Finally, peer feedback quality was not related to writing performance, and authors of varying ability levels benefited to a similar extent from peer feedback on different aspects of the text. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for the instructional design of academic writing assignments that incorporate peer feedback. Show less
Huisman, B.A.; Saab, N.; Driel, J.H. van; Broek, P.W. van den 2017
There does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback phase: with same-ability or different-ability peers. The current study explored this issue in the... Show moreThere does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback phase: with same-ability or different-ability peers. The current study explored this issue in the context of an academic writing task. Adopting a quasi-experimental design, 94 undergraduate students provided anonymous peer feedback on each other’s draft essays. The relations between students’ ability match, feedback quality, and writing performance were investigated. Surprisingly, neither individual ability nor students’ ability match directly related to writing performance, and feedback quality did not depend on students’ ability match. Also, peer feedback quality was not related to writing performance, and authors of varying ability levels benefited to a similar extent from peer feedback on different aspects of the text. Show less
