Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback:a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes

Much has been written in the educational psychology literature about effective feedback and how to deliver it. However, it is equally important to understand how learners actively receive, engage with, and implement feedback. This article reports a systematic review of the research evidence pertaining to this issue. Through an analysis of 195 outputs published between 1985 and early 2014, we identified various factors that have been proposed to influence the likelihood of feedback being used. Furthermore, we identified diverse interventions with the common aim of supporting and promoting learners' agentic engagement with feedback processes. We outline the various components used in these interventions, and the reports of their successes and limitations. Moreover we propose a novel taxonomy of four recipience processes targeted by these interventions. This review and taxonomy provide a theoretical basis for conceptualizing learners' responsibility within feedback dialogues and for guiding the strategic design and evaluation of interventions. Receiving feedback on one's skills and understanding is an invaluable part of the learning process, benefiting learners far more than does simply receiving praise or punishment (Black & Wiliam, 1998 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102[Taylor & Francis Online]; Hattie & Timperley, 2007 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]). Inevitably, the benefits of receiving feedback are not uniform across all circumstances, and so it is imperative to understand how these gains can be maximized. There is increasing consensus that a critical determinant of feedback effectiveness is the quality of learners' engagement with, and use of, the feedback they receive. However, studies investigating this engagement are underrepresented in academic research (Bounds et al., 2013 Bounds, R., Bush, C., Aghera, A., Rodriguez, N., Stansfield, R. B., & Santeen, S. A. (2013). Emergency medicine residents' self-assessments play a critical role when receiving feedback. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20, 1055–1061. doi:10.1111/acem.12231[CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]), which leaves a “blind spot” in our understanding (Burke, 2009 Burke, D. (2009). Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 41–50. doi:10.1080/02602930801895711[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]). With this blind spot in mind, the present work sets out to systematically map the research literature concerning learners' proactive recipience of feedback. We use the term “proactive recipience” here to connote a state or activity of engaging actively with feedback processes, thus emphasizing the fundamental contribution and responsibility of the learner (Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, & Parker, in press Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (in press). ‘It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it’: Barriers to university students' feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032[Taylor & Francis Online]). In other words, just as Reeve and Tseng (2011 Reeve, J., & Tseng, M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of student engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]) defined “agentic engagement” as a “student's constructive contribution into the flow of the instruction they receive” (p. 258), likewise proactive recipience is a form of agentic engagement that involves the learner sharing responsibility for making feedback processes effective.

A concept-based framework for retrieving evidence to support emergency physician decision making at the point of care

The goal of evidence-based medicine is to uniformly apply evidence gained from scientific research to aspects of clinical practice. In order to achieve this goal, new applications that integrate increasingly disparate health care information resources are required. Access to and provision of evidence must be seamlessly integrated with existing clinical workflow and evidence should be made available where it is most often required - at the point of care. In this paper we address these requirements and outline a concept-based framework that captures the context of a current patient-physician encounter by combining disease and patient-specific information into a logical query mechanism for retrieving relevant evidence from the Cochrane Library. Returned documents are organized by automatically extracting concepts from the evidence-based query to create meaningful clusters of documents which are presented in a manner appropriate for point of care support. The framework is currently being implemented as a prototype software agent that operates within the larger context of a multi-agent application for supporting workflow management of emergency pediatric asthma exacerbations. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

The potential for pharmacists to manage children attending emergency departments

AIM: There have been concerns about maintaining appropriate clinical staff levels in Emergency Departments in England.1 The aim of this study was to determine if Emergency Department attendees aged from 0-16 years could be managed by community pharmacists or hospital independent prescriber pharmacists with or without further advanced clinical practice training. METHOD: A prospective, 48 site, cross-sectional, observational study of patients attending Emergency Departments (ED) in England, UK was conducted. Pharmacists at each site collected up to 400 admissions and paediatric patients were included in the data collection. The pharmacist independent prescribers (one for each site) were asked to identify patient attendance at their Emergency Department, record anonymised details of the cases-age, weight, presenting complaint, clinical grouping (e.g. medicine, orthopaedics), and categorise each presentation into one of four possible categories: CP, Community Pharmacist, cases which could be managed by a community pharmacist outside an ED setting; IP-cases that could be managed at ED by a hospital pharmacist with independent prescriber status; IPT, Independent Prescriber Pharmacist with additional training-cases which could be managed at ED by a hospital pharmacist independent prescriber with additional clinical training; and MT, Medical Team only-cases that were unsuitable for the pharmacist to manage. An Impact Index was calculated for the two most frequent clinical groupings using the formula: Impact index=percentage of the total workload of the clinical grouping multiplied by the percentage ability of pharmacists to manage that clinical group. RESULTS: 1623 out of 18,229 (9%) attendees, from 45 of the 48 sites, were children aged from 0 to 16 years of age (median 8 yrs, range 0-16), 749 were female and 874 were male. Of the 1623 admissions, 9% of the cases were judged to be suitable for clinical management by a community pharmacist (CP), 4% suitable for a hospital pharmacist independent prescriber (IP), 32% suitable for a hospital independent pharmacist prescriber with additional training (IPT); and the remaining 55% were only suitable for the Medical Team (MT). The most frequent clinical groups and impact index for the attendees were General Medicine=10.78 and orthopaedics=10.60. CONCLUSION: Paediatric patients attending Emergency Departments were judged by pharmacists to be suitable for management outside a hospital setting in approximately 1 in 11 cases, and by hospital independent prescriber pharmacists in 4 in 10 cases. With further training, it was found that the total proportion of cases that could be managed by a pharmacist was 45%. The greatest impact for pharmacist management occurs in general medicine and orthopaedics.