Items | Pattern Matrix | h2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | |||
11.9 | Feedback encouraged the student to think about what motivates them to learn | 0.731 | 0.061 | 0.113 | − 0.104 | .591 |
2.1 | The learning goals were agreed in advance with the student | 0.699 | − 0.095 | − 0.053 | − 0.024 | .501 |
7.4 | Feedback was expected | 0.686 | 0.073 | − 0.081 | 0.195 | .444 |
11.7 | Feedback encouraged the student to share their feelings about different experiences | 0.680 | 0.140 | 0.051 | −0.065 | .573 |
5.4 | Feedback occurred at an agreed timea | 0.667 | −0.100 | − 0.034 | − 0.068 | .514 |
3.2 | Feedback was informed by multiple sources | 0.488 | −0.027 | −0.129 | − 0.058 | .388 |
8.2 | Learning goals were modified based on feedback | 0.484 | −0.069 | −0.012 | − 0.246 | .395 |
9.1 | I felt the student was comfortable sharing their viewpointsa | 0.449 | 0.034 | −0.277 | .400 | |
10.4 | The feedback I shared was non-threatening | −0.031 | 0.768 | 0.054 | 0.044 | .531 |
10.3 | The feedback I shared was non-judgementala | 0.743 | −0.158 | 0.019 | .632 | |
10.1 | The feedback I shared was respectfula | 0.030 | 0.715 | −0.050 | −0.110 | .635 |
5.3 | Feedback was timely | 0.158 | 0.054 | −0.606 | 0.020 | .492 |
7.1 | The amount of feedback was manageable | 0.022 | 0.112 | −0.591 | − 0.045 | .445 |
5.1 | There was enough time for feedbacka | 0.157 | 0.096 | −0.505 | −0.088 | .465 |
7.2 | Feedback was regular | 0.207 | −0.050 | −0.443 | − 0.288 | .540 |
10.2 | The feedback I shared was cleara | 0.028 | 0.205 | −0.384 | (−0.324) | 520 |
1.1 | I encouraged the student to evaluate their practice | 0.224 | −0.016 | 0.030 | −0.612 | .539 |
8.4 | Feedback helped the student to know how to improve their practice | −0.087 | −0.015 | − 0.296 | −0.581 | .488 |
6.6 | I encouraged the student to ask questions to help them understand the feedback | 0.154 | 0.247 | 0.218 | −0.568 | .522 |
6.2 | Feedback relevant to the student’s situationa | 0.181 | −0.227 | − 0.561 | .609 | |
2.2 | Feedback was related to on workplace or university standards | 0.025 | 0.021 | −0.265 | −0.556 | .534 |
6.3 | I encouraged the student to be involved in feedback conversationsa | 0.287 | 0.110 | −0.046 | −0.457 | .537 |
10.6 | I considered the emotional needs of the studenta | 0.261 | 0.154 | 0.013 | −0.341 | .365 |
Eigenvalues | 8.94 | 1.85 | 1.45 | 1.29 | ||
% variance explained | 38.87% | 8.04% | 6.33% | 5.59% | ||
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy | .902 | |||||
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | p < .001 | |||||
Cronbach’s alpha | .854 | .798 | .800 | .855 | ||
F1 – Collaborative preparation for feedback (M = 3.73, SD = 0.60) | ||||||
F2 – Imparting feedback (M = 4.65, SD = 0.47) | ||||||
F3 – Environmental context for feedback (M = 3.86, SD = 0.57) | ||||||
F4 – Learner-focused feedback (M = 4.29, SD = 0.57) |