Student and Instructor Perceptions of Feedback in Veterinary Clinical Education, Part II Qualitative Analysis

Shane D Lyon^1*Katherine Fogelberg²Ariana Hinckley-Boltax³Michelle C Coleman⁴Jonathan H. Foreman⁵Jody Frost⁶Jennifer Louise Hodgson⁷Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher⁸

• ¹Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Manhattan, United States
• ²Roseman University of Health Sciences, Henderson, United States
• ³Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, United States
• ⁴University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine, Athens, United States
• ⁵University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, United States
• ⁶Independent Consultant, Lusby, MD, United States
• ⁷Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, United States
• ⁸NC State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, United States

Feedback is a critical component of clinical and professional skill development in veterinary medical education that is influenced by hierarchical, structural, and psychosocial factors. Prior work suggests a disconnect between student and instructor perceptions of what constitutes feedback, how it is delivered, and how it is received. Guided by cognitive evaluation theory (CET), this study provides insights into similarities and differences between Clinical Year Students (CYS) and Instructional Faculty/Staff (IFS) perceptions of feedback during the clinical portion of veterinary medical training. We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey of CYS and IFS across accredited U.S. veterinary schools to explore perceptions of feedback. The survey included Likert-type items and open-ended prompts; for this paper, thematic analysis was utilized to explore the written responses of 178 students and 162 instructors. Three researchers individually coded and identified emergent themes, then came to consensus through regular meetings and discussion. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) similarities between CYS and IFS perceptions of feedback, including the importance of timeliness, specificity, and constructive balance between strengths and areas for growth; (2) CYS-specific perspectives, such as heightened awareness of hierarchical barriers, greater tendency to view feedback as linear and opinion-based, and short-term skill-focused goals; and (3) IFS-specific perspectives, including concerns that students fail to recognize unlabeled feedback and greater emphasis on long-term professional development when receiving feedback This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article themselves. Both groups reported limited formal training in giving and receiving feedback and expressed interest in such training. Differences in openness to feedback were influenced by delivery style, rapport, and context, with hierarchical dynamics and cognitive biases further complicating perceptions. Although CYS and IFS share many perspectives regarding the purpose and qualities of effective feedback, misalignments in recognition, definitions, and openness, exacerbated by hierarchical structures, may limit feedback's educational impact and directly affect student motivation. Addressing these gaps through targeted, context-specific training for both learners and instructors, fostering bidirectional feedback culture, and clarifying definitions may enhance feedback effectiveness and, ultimately, clinical learning outcomes in veterinary education.