One of the most important steps in the learning process is feedback, but some may not view it as such. Feedback should be harmless criticism with the intent to help. A problem may arise when people see feedback in a negative way. Some people may view feedback as an attack on their image or knowledge and therefore discredit the information given to them. There can be trouble not only in receiving feedback, but also giving feedback. Along with receiving feedback, offering feedback is also a valuable step in the learning process that many people struggle just as much as accepting feedback. Since some see the process of feedback as positive, and other people view it as negative, a study was held to understand the roles of different types of relationships regarding feedback giving and receiving when it comes to communication skills.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of students with previous peer learning relationships between feedback delivery and reception. It was assumed that students with prior peer-learning relationships will provide more concrete and correct feedback in potentially sensitive interpersonal communication field than those without this relationship. This is because the possibility of threatening one’s self-recognition or confidence is greater with individuals without these skills. People lacking the skills and experience in peer-learning relationships can give the impression of a decreased self-image when it comes to receiving feedback. This can be described as ‘hot recognition’, meaning, the state in which a person’s thinking is influenced by their emotional state. For this study, quantitative and qualitative methods were chosen in this experimental analysis examining US medical students with and without prior peer-learning relationship skills. During the clinical skills examination, students were split into two subgroups where data from surveys, peer feedback, and simulated encounters were recorded and coded.
Research saw that, compared with their counterparts without preceding common small-group education experiences, students with preceding peer-learning relationships were more expected to give disciplinary responses on communicating accomplishments to peers regarding performance in a simulated clinical skills encounter. All students had predominantly proper feedback, and recipients rated individual feedback on clinical skills in the context as convincing and actionable. These judgments about the amount of prior peer-learning relationships extend past analysis information indicating that the environment of confidence enhances openness to feedback. The effectiveness of feedback also depends on the delivery of information and its receipt. It can be assumed that enhanced training and experience along with prior peer-learning relationships can enlarge the effectiveness of feedback while lessening the threat of self-image, or the ‘hot cognition’ reaction. It was also stated that recipients of feedback accepted criticism easier from those whose opinions they trusted most.
While reading and annotating this article, I found the topic of the study to be quite interesting. During the beginning of the study, I thought the students with prior peer-learning relationships skills would be more likely to deliver and except feedback, which I later learned was not true. Although students with prior peer-leading relationships gave correctional feedback on communication skills, all students gave specific feedback the recipients rated acceptable and trustworthy. During the study, it was stated that multiple factors enhance the openness of feedback, including the experience and confidence of the learner. I strongly concur that training and experience with feedback will lessen one’s fear of a damaged self-image, and then end the ‘hot cognition’ response. Nonetheless, I have a minute dilemma with this experiment. As they stated there was only a single study at one school in the US. This could pose some problems. Many schools have different cultural norms when it comes to communication that could have been tested to further justify the conclusion. Also, personal relationships weren’t considered while assigning the subgroups which could have played a major part in the comfortability while receiving and giving feedback. In general, there are many things I agree with regarding the conclusion of the study, but I still pose questions when it comes to the accuracy of the experiment.