Hanke Dekker

Mentoring portfolio use in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education

Aim: Mentoring is widely acknowledged as being crucial for portfolio learning. The aim of this study is to examine how mentoring portfolio use has been implemented in undergraduate and postgraduate settings. Method: The results of interviews with six key persons involved in setting up portfolio use in medical education programmes were used to develop a questionnaire, which was administered to 30 coordinators of undergraduate and postgraduate portfolio programmes in the Netherlands and Flanders. Results: The interviews yielded four main aspects of the portfolio mentoring process – educational aims, individual meetings, small group sessions and mentor characteristics. Based on the questionnaire data, 16 undergraduate and 14 postgraduate programmes were described. Providing feedback and stimulating reflection were the main objectives of the mentoring process. Individual meetings were the favourite method for mentoring (26 programmes). Small group sessions to support the use of portfolios were held in 16 programmes, mostly in the undergraduate setting. In general, portfolio mentors were clinically qualified academic staff trained for their mentoring tasks. Conclusion: This study provides a variety of practical insights into implementing mentoring processes in portfolio programmes.

Which characteristics of written feedback are perceived as stimulating students' reflective competence: an exploratory study

BackgroundTeacher feedback on student reflective writing is recommended to improve learners’ reflective competence. To be able to improve teacher feedback on reflective writing, it is essential to gain insight into which characteristics of written feedback stimulate students’ reflection processes. Therefore, we investigated (1) which characteristics can be distinguished in written feedback comments on reflective writing and (2) which of these characteristics are perceived to stimulate students’ reflection processes.MethodsWe investigated written feedback comments from forty-three teachers on their students’ reflective essays. In Study 1, twenty-three medical educators grouped the comments into distinct categories. We used Multiple Correspondence Analysis to determine dimensions in the set of comments. In Study 2, another group of twenty-one medical educators individually judged whether the comments stimulated reflection by rating them on a five-point scale. We used t-tests to investigate whether comments classified as stimulating and not stimulating reflection differed in their scores on the dimensions.ResultsOur results showed that characteristics of written feedback comments can be described in three dimensions: format of the feedback (phrased as statement versus question), focus of the feedback (related to the levels of students’ reflections) and tone of the feedback (positive versus negative). Furthermore, comments phrased as a question and in a positive tone were judged as stimulating reflection more than comments at the opposite side of those dimensions (t = (14.5) = 6.48; p = < .001 and t = (15) = −1.80; p < .10 respectively). The effect sizes were large for format of the feedback comment (r = .86) and medium for tone of the feedback comment (r = .42).ConclusionsThis study suggests that written feedback comments on students’ reflective essays should be formulated as a question, positive in tone and tailored to the individual student’s reflective level in order to stimulate students to reflect on a slightly higher level. Further research is needed to examine whether incorporating these characteristics into teacher training helps to improve the quality of written feedback comments on reflective writing.