Purpose: We examined United States medical students’ self-reported feedback encounters during clerkship training to better understand in situ feedback practices. Specifically, we asked: Who do students receive feedback from, about what, when, where, and how do they use it? We explored whether curricular expectations for preceptors’ written commentary aligned with feedback as it occurs naturalistically in the workplace. Methods: This study occurred from July 2021 to February 2022 at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. We used qualitative survey-based experience sampling to gather students’ accounts of their feedback encounters in 8 core specialties. We analyzed the who, what, when, where, and why of 267 feedback encounters reported by 11 clerkship students over 30 weeks. Code frequencies were mapped qualitatively to explore patterns in feedback encounters. Results: Clerkship feedback occurs in patterns apparently related to the nature of clinical work in each specialty. These patterns may be attributable to each specialty’s “social learning ecosystem”—the distinctive learning environment shaped by the social and material aspects of a given specialty’s work, which determine who preceptors are, what students do with preceptors, and what skills or attributes matter enough to preceptors to comment on. Conclusion Comprehensive, standardized expectations for written feedback across specialties conflict with the reality of workplace-based learning. Preceptors may be better able—and more motivated—to document student performance that occurs as a natural part of everyday work. Nurturing social learning ecosystems could facilitate workplace-based learning such that, across specialties, students acquire a comprehensive clinical skillset appropriate for graduation.

Purpose: We examined United States medical students’ self-reported feedback encounters during clerkship training to better understand in situ feedback practices. Specifically, we asked: Who do students receive feedback from, about what, when, where, and how do they use it? We explored whether curricular expectations for preceptors’ written commentary aligned with feedback as it occurs naturalistically in the workplace. Methods: This study occurred from July 2021 to February 2022 at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. We used qualitative survey-based experience sampling to gather students’ accounts of their feedback encounters in 8 core specialties. We analyzed the who, what, when, where, and why of 267 feedback encounters reported by 11 clerkship students over 30 weeks. Code frequencies were mapped qualitatively to explore patterns in feedback encounters. Results: Clerkship feedback occurs in patterns apparently related to the nature of clinical work in each specialty. These patterns may be attributable to each specialty’s “social learning ecosystem”—the distinctive learning environment shaped by the social and material aspects of a given specialty’s work, which determine who preceptors are, what students do with preceptors, and what skills or attributes matter enough to preceptors to comment on. Conclusion Comprehensive, standardized expectations for written feedback across specialties conflict with the reality of workplace-based learning. Preceptors may be better able—and more motivated—to document student performance that occurs as a natural part of everyday work. Nurturing social learning ecosystems could facilitate workplace-based learning such that, across specialties, students acquire a comprehensive clinical skillset appropriate for graduation.

Purpose: We examined United States medical students’ self-reported feedback encounters during clerkship training to better understand in situ feedback practices. Specifically, we asked: Who do students receive feedback from, about what, when, where, and how do they use it? We explored whether curricular expectations for preceptors’ written commentary aligned with feedback as it occurs naturalistically in the workplace. Methods: This study occurred from July 2021 to February 2022 at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. We used qualitative survey-based experience sampling to gather students’ accounts of their feedback encounters in 8 core specialties. We analyzed the who, what, when, where, and why of 267 feedback encounters reported by 11 clerkship students over 30 weeks. Code frequencies were mapped qualitatively to explore patterns in feedback encounters. Results: Clerkship feedback occurs in patterns apparently related to the nature of clinical work in each specialty. These patterns may be attributable to each specialty’s “social learning ecosystem”—the distinctive learning environment shaped by the social and material aspects of a given specialty’s work, which determine who preceptors are, what students do with preceptors, and what skills or attributes matter enough to preceptors to comment on. Conclusion Comprehensive, standardized expectations for written feedback across specialties conflict with the reality of workplace-based learning. Preceptors may be better able—and more motivated—to document student performance that occurs as a natural part of everyday work. Nurturing social learning ecosystems could facilitate workplace-based learning such that, across specialties, students acquire a comprehensive clinical skillset appropriate for graduation.

Purpose: We examined United States medical students’ self-reported feedback encounters during clerkship training to better understand in situ feedback practices. Specifically, we asked: Who do students receive feedback from, about what, when, where, and how do they use it? We explored whether curricular expectations for preceptors’ written commentary aligned with feedback as it occurs naturalistically in the workplace. Methods: This study occurred from July 2021 to February 2022 at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. We used qualitative survey-based experience sampling to gather students’ accounts of their feedback encounters in 8 core specialties. We analyzed the who, what, when, where, and why of 267 feedback encounters reported by 11 clerkship students over 30 weeks. Code frequencies were mapped qualitatively to explore patterns in feedback encounters. Results: Clerkship feedback occurs in patterns apparently related to the nature of clinical work in each specialty. These patterns may be attributable to each specialty’s “social learning ecosystem”—the distinctive learning environment shaped by the social and material aspects of a given specialty’s work, which determine who preceptors are, what students do with preceptors, and what skills or attributes matter enough to preceptors to comment on. Conclusion Comprehensive, standardized expectations for written feedback across specialties conflict with the reality of workplace-based learning. Preceptors may be better able—and more motivated—to document student performance that occurs as a natural part of everyday work. Nurturing social learning ecosystems could facilitate workplace-based learning such that, across specialties, students acquire a comprehensive clinical skillset appropriate for graduation.

The required adjustments precipitated by the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis have been challenging, but also represent a critical opportunity for the evolution and potential disruptive and constructive change of medical education. Given that the format of medical education is not fixed, but malleable and in fact must be adaptable to societal needs through ongoing reflexivity, we find ourselves in a potentially transformative learning phase for the field. An Association for Medical Education in Europe ASPIRE Academy group of 18 medical educators from seven countries was formed to consider this opportunity, and identified critical questions for collective reflection on current medical education practices and assumptions, with the attendant challenge to envision the future of medical education. This was achieved through online discussion as well as asynchronous collective reflections by group members. Four major themes and related conclusions arose from this conversation: Why we teach: the humanitarian mission of medicine should be reinforced; what we teach: disaster management, social accountability and embracing an environment of complexity and uncertainty should be the core; how we teach: open pathways to lean medical education and learning by developing learners embedded in a community context; and whom we teach: those willing to take professional responsibility. These collective reflections provide neither fully matured digests of the challenges of our field, nor comprehensive solutions; rather they are offered as a starting point for medical schools to consider as we seek to harness the learning opportunities stimulated by the pandemic.