Does it matter who writes down the feedback? A comparison of teacher- vs. student-completed clinical encounter cards during clinical rotations in veterinary studies

Objective: Despite the fact that feedback (FB) provided by teachers to students is a recognised, effective teaching tool, successful use of feedback during clinical training depends on many factors. In addition to appropriate training and attitude of teachers, sustainable feedback requires an appropriate teaching culture and active commitment on the part of the students to receive, accept and use FB. This study examines the use of two different clinical encounter cards (CECs) during clinical rotation and investigates whether students take a more active part in the feedback process when using these cards. The objective of this study is to test whether it has a positive effect if students write down FB themselves and to verify this positive effect. Methodology: 161 students in their 9th semester of veterinary studies each had to use two clinical encounter cards (types 1 and 2) during their rotations on 10 wards. For this, students had to ask teachers for FB before starting a clinical activity. The oral FB given by the teachers was either written down on the CEC by the teachers (CEC type 1) or by the students (CEC type 2). Furthermore, the students were asked to assess their own performance by means of anchor criteria and to evaluate the quality of the FB provided by the teachers. Based on the entries in the CECs submitted, the following indicators for both CEC types could be calculated: (1) FB quantity and quality (length and specificity), (2) differentiation of self-assessment, as well as (3) level of satisfaction with the FB provided by the teachers. Results: With 2,377 CECs submitted, the mean CEC return rate was 74%. 99% of the cards showed positive FB, 69% contained constructive FB with suggestions for improvement, and 87% suggested specific next steps. On average, the FB written down by teachers was longer (12.4 versus 9.7 words) and more specific (1.9 versus 1.7 out of 3) than FB written down by students. Length and specificity decreased in the course of the semester. Neither the differentiation of self-assessment (proportion of differentiated entering of self-assessment) nor the students’ level of satisfaction with the FB differed between the two examined CEC variants. Conclusion: The use of CECs across the cohort was successfully possible; however, the fact that students formulated and wrote down the FB themselves did not result in more comprehensive or more specific FB. Self-assessment and level of satisfaction with the teachers’ FB remained unchanged.