Abstract

This research evaluates the similarities and differences between lecturers’ intentions in providing performance feedback and how low and high achievers interpret this feedback. The research examines the discussions with the lecturers and students as to the sources of misinterpretations and the solutions which they agree on.
In this mixed method case study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. For the quantitative data, a population of 246 final year medical students were selected to answer a questionnaire to identify their expectations of their assessment lecturers’ feedback in the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX). 33 mini-CEX feedback sessions given by 14 Family Physician lecturers involving the selected students were audio recorded and analysed, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to determine feedback strategies.
Three further sets of qualitative data were collected: the 14 Family Physician lecturers who gave the feedback to the students were interviewed. Also interviewed were 16 low achievers and 17 high achievers who were selected using stratified purposive sampling. Semi-structured telephone interviews identified the students’ interpretations of their lecturers’ feedback.
Quantitative analyses showed that more than 90% of the students had high expectations towards all questionnaire statements related to the feedback except the statement about praise.
Six themes emerged from the lecturers’ intentions and the low and high achievers’ interpretations. These are feedback as promoting self-regulated learning, feedback as increasing student motivation, feedback for positive reinforcement, feedback improves power sharing, feedback preserves fairness, and feedback as an opportunity. Each of the feedback strategies used by the lecturers may have more than one intention and interpretation. There are misinterpretations which were evident among the low and high achievers towards the lecturers’ feedback. For example, although the intention of adopting self-assessment is to promote self-
iii
regulated learning, several low and high achievers interpreted it as perceiving fairness in feedback. Low self-efficacy, test anxiety, lack of clarity of the assessment criteria, and learning culture are the four reasons that made the students disagree with the feedback. Discussions between lecturers and students highlighted seven sources and solutions of misinterpretations.
This empirical study assists in creating understandings about the similarities and the differences of students’ interpretations of performance feedback. In practise, it also contributes new findings regarding sources and solutions to eliminate misinterpretations. Implications are offered for future research involving other populations of students in different years, faculties, institutions and learning cultures