Brigley S, Littlejohns P, Young Y, McEwen J
Faculty of Public Health Medicine, Royal Colleges of Physicians, United Kingdom, London.
Med Educ. 1997 Jan;31(1):67-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1997.tb00046.x.
This paper examines the question of evaluation which has been largely neglected in the credit-based systems of continuing medical education adopted by the Medical Royal Colleges. These systems are seen to encourage a training model of continuing education and a scientific model of evaluation as measurement. By contrast, humanistic evaluation is interpretative and differs not only in its criteria and methods, but also in its underpinning curricular ideologies and values. This model has closer links with concepts of education and professional practice associated with continuing professional development. Decisions about who should conduct the evaluation, what is to be evaluated, how it should be carried out, and about the goals and purposes of evaluation are outlined, noting that they presuppose an ideological view of the relationship of professional knowledge, values and practice. In a concluding discussion of evaluation and the control of professional knowledge, it is argued that the narrow, professional control of evaluation, buttressed by the quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms of the Colleges, is inappropriate, given the increasingly diverse accountabilities which affect medical professionals.
本文探讨了评估问题，而这一问题在皇家医学院采用的基于学分的继续医学教育体系中很大程度上被忽视了。这些体系被视为鼓励一种继续教育的培训模式和一种将评估作为衡量手段的科学模式。相比之下，人文主义评估具有解释性，不仅在标准和方法上不同，而且在其基础的课程理念和价值观上也不同。这种模式与与持续专业发展相关的教育和专业实践概念有更紧密的联系。文中概述了关于谁应进行评估、评估什么、应如何进行评估以及评估的目标和目的等决策，并指出这些决策预先假定了一种关于专业知识、价值观和实践关系的意识形态观点。在关于评估与专业知识控制的总结性讨论中，有人认为，鉴于影响医学专业人员的问责制日益多样化，由学院的质量保证和监测机制支持的狭隘的专业评估控制是不合适的。
