参与度和反馈评估（EFAs）的有效性：识别有失败风险的学生。

The validity of Engagement and Feedback Assessments (EFAs): identifying students at risk of failing.

机构信息

Imperial College School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2023 Nov 15;23(1):866. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7.

DOI:10.1186/s12909-023-04828-7

PMID:37968656

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10652541/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Imperial College School of Medicine, London UK, introduced a new curriculum in 2019, with a focus on the GMC outcomes for graduates, and pedagogy best practice. The new curriculum included formative assessments, named engagement and feedback assessments (EFAs), to support learning, and attainment in the summative examinations. The aims of this study were to assess the validity of EFAs and to determine whether they have utility as a modified form of programmatic assessment to inform decision-making regarding possible interventions by measuring and analysing attendance at and performance in these formative events.

METHODS

Seven hundred and sixty-one students were included in the study and assessment results were included for academic years 2019/20 to 2020/21. Forty-one data points per student, (27 in Year 1 and 14 in Year 2) were used, to compare EFA scores with the summative performance. Attendance was monitored through engagement with the EFAs.

RESULTS

Cohort 1 (enrolled 2019): In year 1, EFAs were associated with summative exam scores (overall r = 0.63, p < 0.001). Year 2, EFA scores were also associated with summative scores (overall r = 0.57, p < 0.001), including the clinical practical assessment (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). Missing two or more EFAs was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of failing one or more summative examinations in the first year (OR: 7.97, 95% CI 2.65-34.39) and second year (OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.74-5.95). Missing more than two EFAs in their first year was also associated with a higher risk of failing a summative examination in the second year (OR: 2.47, 95% CI 1.33-4.71). Students who increased their attendance between year 1 and 2 fared better in summative assessment than those who maintained poor attendance, whereas those that reduced their attendance fared worse than those that maintained high attendance. Cohort 2 (enrolled 2020): Analysis of cohort 2 supported these findings and in this cohort missing two or more EFAs was again associated with an increased likelihood of failing a summative examination (OR = 4.00, 95% CI = 2.02-7.90).

CONCLUSION

Our EFA model has validity in predicting performance in summative assessments and can inform prospective interventions to support students' learning. Enhancing attendance and engagement can improve outcomes.

摘要

背景

伦敦帝国理工学院医学院于 2019 年推出了一门新课程，重点关注毕业生的 GMC 成果和教学最佳实践。新课程包括形成性评估，称为参与和反馈评估（EFAs），以支持学习和总结性考试的成绩。本研究的目的是评估 EFAs 的有效性，并确定它们是否可以作为一种修改后的课程评估形式，通过衡量和分析这些形成性评估活动的出勤情况和表现，为可能的干预措施提供决策依据。

方法

共有 761 名学生纳入研究，纳入了 2019/20 学年至 2020/21 学年的评估结果。每位学生有 41 个数据点（第 1 年 27 个，第 2 年 14 个），用于将 EFA 评分与总结性表现进行比较。通过参与 EFAs 来监测出勤情况。

结果

第 1 组（2019 年入学）：在第 1 年，EFAs 与总结性考试成绩相关（整体 r=0.63，p<0.001）。第 2 年，EFA 分数也与总结性分数相关（整体 r=0.57，p<0.001），包括临床实践评估（r=0.45，p<0.001）。缺课两次或以上与第 1 年和第 2 年中更有可能有一次或多次总结性考试不及格的几率显著增加有关（第 1 年：OR：7.97，95%CI 2.65-34.39；第 2 年：OR：3.20，95%CI 1.74-5.95）。第 1 年缺课两次以上也与第 2 年总结性考试不及格的风险较高有关（OR：2.47，95%CI 1.33-4.71）。与出勤率维持不佳的学生相比，出勤率提高的学生在总结性评估中表现更好，而出勤率下降的学生表现更差。第 2 组（2020 年入学）：对第 2 组的分析支持了这些发现，在该组中，缺课两次或以上再次与总结性考试不及格的几率增加有关（OR=4.00，95%CI=2.02-7.90）。