Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback.
Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes.
Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence.
This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.
Shute V. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78:153–89. CrossRef
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112. CrossRef
Ericsson KA. An expert-performance perspective of research on medical expertise: the study of clinical performance. Med Educ. 2007;41:1124–30. CrossRef
General Medical Council. Tomorrow’s doctors 2009. http://www.gmc-uk.org/Tomorrow_s_Doctors_1214.pdf_48905759.pdf. Acccessed 12 September 2016.
Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Functions and structure of a medical school: LCME accreditation standards 2009. http://lcme.org/publications/. Accessed 12 September 2016.
Duffield KE, Spencer JA. A survey of medical students’ views about the purpose and fairness of assessment. Med Educ. 2002;36:879–86. CrossRef
Dahlin M, Joneborg N, Runeson B. Stress and depression among medical students: a cross-sectional study. Med Educ. 2005;39:594–604. CrossRef
Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34:787–91. CrossRef
Sinclair HK, Cleland JA. Undergraduate medical students: who seeks formative feedback? Med Educ. 2007;41:580–2. CrossRef
Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Molyneux A, Schuwirth L, Wass V, van der Vleuten CPM. Web-based feedback after summative assessment: how do students engage? Med Educ. 2013;47:734–44. CrossRef
Kogan JR, Conforti LN, Bernabeo EC, Durning SJ, Hauer KE, Holmboe ES. Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills. Med Educ. 2012;46:201–15. CrossRef
Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Eva K, et al. Tensions in informed self-assessment: how the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Acad Med. 2011;86:1120–7. CrossRef
Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, et al. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17:15–26. CrossRef
Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, et al. Learning in practice: experiences and perceptions of high-scoring physicians. Acad Med. 2006;81:655–70. CrossRef
Eva KW, Munoz J, Hanson MD, Walsh A, Wakefield J. Which factors, personal or external, most influence students’ generation of learning goals? Acad Med. 2010;85:102–5. CrossRef
Watling CJ. Unfulfilled promise, untapped potential: feedback at the crossroads. Med Teach. 2014;36:692–7. CrossRef
Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CP, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Beyond individualism: professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ. 2013;47:585–94. CrossRef
Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CP, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Music lessons: revealing medicine’s learning culture through a comparison with that of music. Med Educ. 2013;47:842–50. CrossRef
Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CP, Lingard L. Learning culture and feedback: an international study of medical athletes and musicians. Med Educ. 2014;48:713–23. CrossRef
Harrison C, Könings K, Schuwirth L, Wass V, van der Vleuten C. Barriers to the uptake and use of feedback in the context of summative assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20:229–45. CrossRef
Shepard L. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res. 2000;29:4–14. CrossRef
Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33:478–85. CrossRef
van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LW, Driessen E, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34:205–14. CrossRef
Bok HGJ, Teunissen PW, Favier RP, et al. Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:123. CrossRef
Heeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Driessen EW. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning – the theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49:487–98. CrossRef
Harrison CJ, Molyneux AJ, Blackwell S, Wass VJ. How we give personalised audio feedback after summative OSCEs. Med Teach. 2015;37:323–6. CrossRef
Dannefer EF, Henson LC. The portfolio approach to competency-based assessment at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Acad Med. 2007;82:493–502. CrossRef
Dannefer E, Bierer B, Gladding SP. Evidence within a portfolio-based assessment program: what do medical students select to document their performance? Med Teach. 2012;34:215–20. CrossRef
Altahawi F, Sisk B, Poloskey S, Hicks C, Dannefer EF. Student perspectives on assessment: experience in a competency-based portfolio system. Med Teach. 2012;34:221–5. CrossRef
Mills J, Bonner A, Francis K. The development of constructivist grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods. 2008;5:25–35.
Bates J, Konkin J, Suddards C, Dobson S, Pratt D. Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:362–74. CrossRef
Dolmans D, de Grave W, Wolfhagen I, van der Vleuten C. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005;39:732–41. CrossRef
Savin-Baden M. Understanding the impact of assessment on students in problem-based learning. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2004;41:221–33. CrossRef
Struyven K, Dochy F, Janssens S. Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assess Eval High Educ. 2005;30:325–41. CrossRef
Stefani LAJ. Assessment in partnership with learners. Assess Eval High Educ. 1998;23:339–50. CrossRef
Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. Changing education, changing assessment, changing research. Med Educ. 2004;38:805–12. CrossRef
Rust C, O’Donovan B, Price M. A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assess Eval High Educ. 2005;30:231–40. CrossRef
Dornan T, Scherpbier A, King N, Boshuizen H. Clinical teachers and problem-based learning: a phenomenological study. Med Educ. 2005;39:163–70. CrossRef
- Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
Christopher J. Harrison
Karen D. Könings
Elaine F. Dannefer
Lambert W. T. Schuwirth
Cees P. M. van der Vleuten
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum