Developing Feedback Literacy Among Undergraduate Dental Students Through Peer and Self-Assessment: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Moneezhay  Jaffer; Ayesha  Rauf; Adeela  Bashir; Saadia  Hamid

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-1.13445

Authors

Moneezhay Jaffer Department of Medical Education, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Ayesha Rauf Department of Medical Education, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Adeela Bashir Department of Medical Education, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Saadia Hamid Department of Community Medicine, Frontier Medical College, Abbottabad Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-1.13445

Keywords:

Assessment, Dental Education, Dental Students, Feedback, Feedback Literacy

Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to assess the pre- and post-intervention feedback literacy scores of undergraduate dental students. It also aimed to evaluate the effect of peer and self-assessment strategies embedded within a structured feedback literacy intervention and to determine whether these strategies improve feedback literacy.

Study Design: A Quasi-experimental study design.

Place and Duration of Study: Foundation University College of Dentistry & Hospital (FUCD & H), Islamabad, Pakistan, from Aug to Sep 2024.

Methodology: A total of fifty second-year Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) students were recruited through universal sampling. The students were divided into two groups: a Peer Assessment (PA) group and a Self-Assessment (SA) group (n=25 each). A validated FLS was administered before and after the intervention. A series of feedback literacy development workshops and assessment activities were part of the intervention. Data was analyzed using paired and independent sample t-tests to compare pre- and post-test scores within and between groups.

Results: Both groups showed significant improvement in feedback literacy scores after the intervention (p<0.001). At baseline, the self-assessment group scored significantly higher than the peer-assessment group (p=0.027). Post-intervention, no significant difference was observed between the groups (p=0.301), indicating comparable effectiveness of both assessment conditions.

Conclusion: Both peer and self-assessment strategies contributed equally to the development of feedback literacy; however, their effect varies. The findings highlight the importance of incorporating structured feedback literacy interventions in dental education to improve students’ learning strategies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Carless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Eval High Educ 2018; 43(8): 1315–1325.

https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

2. Chong SW. Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective. Assess Eval High Educ 2021; 46(1): 92–104. https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765

3. Winstone NE, Mathlin G, Nash RA. Building Feedback Literacy: Students’ Perceptions of the Developing Engagement With Feedback Toolkit. Front Educ 2019; 4: 1-11.

https://doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00039

4. Javed MQ, Ahmed A, Habib SR. Undergraduate Dental Students’ And Instructors’ Perceptions About The Quality Of Clinical Feedback. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2021; 33(1): 82–88.

5. Razali R, Arifin MA. A bibliometric analysis on feedback literacy from the Asian perspective: what do we know and where do we go from here? Cogent Educ 2023; 10(2): 2222655.

https://doi:10.1080/2331186X.2023.2222655

6. Gozali I, Syahid A, Suryati N. Ten years after Sutton (2012): quo vadis feedback literacy? A bibliometric study. Register J 2023; 16: 139–167. https://doi:10.18326/register.v16i1.139-167

7. Little T, Dawson P, Boud D, Tai J. Can students’ feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assess Eval High Educ 2024; 49(1): 39–52.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2177613

8. Lestari W, Ichwan SJA, Yaakop SZ, Sabaznur N, Ismail A, Sukotjo C et al. Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Dental Students’ Perspective and Impact on Academic Performance, One Institution Experience. Dent J 2022; 10(7): 131. https://doi:10.3390/dj10070131

9. Zhan Y. Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assess Eval High Educ 2021; 47: 1–14.

https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430

10. Winstone NE, Nash RA. The Developing Engagement with Feedback Toolkit (DEFT). 2019.

https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00039

11. Sutton P. Conceptualizing feedback literacy: knowing, being, and acting. Innov Educ Teach Int 2012; 49: 31–40.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.647781

12. Ketonen L, Nieminen P, Hähkiöniemi M. The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention. J Educ Res 2020; 113(6): 407–417.

https://doi:10.1080/00220671.2020.1835794

13. Abraham R, Singaram V. Self and peer feedback engagement and receptivity among medical students with varied academic performance in the clinical skills laboratory. BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1): 6084.

https://doi:10.1186/s12909-024-06084-9

14. Malecka B, Boud D, Carless D. Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teach High Educ 2020; 27(7): 908–922.

https://doi:10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784

15. Han Y, Xu Y. The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback. Assess Eval High Educ 2020; 45(5): 680–696.

https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1689545

16. Molloy E, Boud D, Henderson M. Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assess Eval High Educ 2020 May 18; 45(4): 527–540.

https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955

17. Han Y, Xu Y. Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: a case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teach High Educ. 2019; 26(2): 181–196.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410

18. Majid N, Islam M. Effectiveness of Peer Assessment and Peer Feedback in Pakistani Context: A Case of University of the Punjab. Bull Edu Res 2021; 43(2): 97–118.