4.5 Article

Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 76-85

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/medu.13645

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context Models of sound assessment practices increasingly emphasise assessment's formative role. As a result, assessment must not only support sound judgements about learner competence, but also generate meaningful feedback to guide learning. Reconciling the tension between assessment's focus on judgement and decision making and feedback's focus on growth and development represents a critical challenge for researchers and educators. Methods We synthesise the literature related to this tension, framed around four trends in education research: (i) shifting perspectives on assessment; (ii) shifting perspectives on feedback; (iii) increasing attention on learners' perceptions of assessment and feedback, and (iv) increasing attention on the influence of culture on assessment and feedback. We describe factors that produce and sustain this tension. Results The lines between assessment and feedback frequently blur in medical education. Models of programmatic assessment deliberately use the same data for both purposes: low-stakes individual data points are used formatively, but then are added together to support summative judgements. However, the translation of theory to practice is not straightforward. Efforts to embed meaningful feedback in programmes of learning face a multitude of threats. Learners may perceive assessment with formative intent as summative, restricting their engagement with it as feedback, and thus diminishing its learning value. A learning culture focused on assessment may limit learners' sense of safety to explore, to experiment, and sometimes to fail. Conclusions Successfully blending assessment and feedback demands clarity of purpose, support for learners, and a system and organisational commitment to a culture of improvement rather than a culture of performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据