Schut Suzanne, Heeneman Sylvia, Bierer Beth, Driessen Erik, van Tartwijk Jan, van der Vleuten Cees
Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Department of Pathology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Med Educ. 2020 Jun;54(6):528-537. doi: 10.1111/medu.14075. Epub 2020 Apr 6.
Programmatic assessment attempts to facilitate learning through individual assessments designed to be of low-stakes and used only for high-stake decisions when aggregated. In practice, low-stake assessments have yet to reach their potential as catalysts for learning. We explored how teachers conceptualise assessments within programmatic assessment and how they engage with learners in assessment relationships.
We used a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore teachers' assessment conceptualisations and assessment relationships in the context of programmatic assessment. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews at two different graduate-entry medical training programmes following a purposeful sampling approach. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively until we reached theoretical sufficiency. We identified themes using a process of constant comparison.
Results showed that teachers conceptualise low-stake assessments in three different ways: to stimulate and facilitate learning; to prepare learners for the next step, and to use as feedback to gauge the teacher's own effectiveness. Teachers intended to engage in and preserve safe, yet professional and productive working relationships with learners to enable assessment for learning when securing high-quality performance and achievement of standards. When teachers' assessment conceptualisations were more focused on accounting conceptions, this risked creating tension in the teacher-learner assessment relationship. Teachers struggled between taking control and allowing learners' independence.
Teachers believe programmatic assessment can have a positive impact on both teaching and student learning. However, teachers' conceptualisations of low-stake assessments are not focused solely on learning and also involve stakes for teachers. Sampling across different assessments and the introduction of progress committees were identified as important design features to support teachers and preserve the benefits of prolonged engagement in assessment relationships. These insights contribute to the design of effective implementations of programmatic assessment within the medical education context.
程序化评估试图通过设计为低风险的个体评估来促进学习,且这些评估仅在汇总时用于高风险决策。在实践中,低风险评估尚未发挥其作为学习催化剂的潜力。我们探讨了教师如何在程序化评估中构建评估的概念,以及他们如何在评估关系中与学习者互动。
我们采用建构主义扎根理论方法,在程序化评估的背景下探索教师的评估概念和评估关系。我们采用目的抽样法,在两个不同的研究生入学医学培训项目中进行了23次半结构化访谈。数据收集和分析迭代进行,直至达到理论饱和。我们通过持续比较的过程确定主题。
结果表明,教师以三种不同方式构建低风险评估的概念:激发和促进学习;让学习者为下一步做准备,以及用作反馈以衡量教师自身的有效性。教师打算与学习者建立并维持安全、专业且富有成效的工作关系,以便在确保高质量表现和达到标准时进行促进学习的评估。当教师的评估概念更侧重于核算概念时,这有可能在师生评估关系中造成紧张局面。教师在掌控和给予学习者独立性之间挣扎。
教师认为程序化评估对教学和学生学习都能产生积极影响。然而,教师对低风险评估的概念构建并非仅专注于学习,还涉及对教师的利害关系。跨不同评估进行抽样以及引入进度委员会被确定为重要的设计特征,以支持教师并保留长期参与评估关系的益处。这些见解有助于在医学教育背景下设计有效的程序化评估实施方案。