终结性评价
前景化
形成性评价
心理学
前提
能力(人力资源)
建设性的
分类
应用心理学
透视图(图形)
医学教育
社会心理学
认知心理学
过程(计算)
数学教育
计算机科学
医学
人工智能
认识论
哲学
语言学
操作系统
作者
Walter Tavares,Meredith Young,Geneviève Gauthier,Christina St‐Onge
出处
期刊:Academic Medicine
[Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
日期:2019-11-14
卷期号:95 (5): 777-785
被引量:11
标识
DOI:10.1097/acm.0000000000003076
摘要
Purpose Some educational programs have adopted the premise that the same assessment can serve both formative and summative goals; however, how observers understand and integrate the intended uses of assessment may affect the way they execute the assessment task. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of foregrounding a different intended use (formative vs summative learner assessment) on observer contributions (ratings and comments). Method In this randomized, experimental, between-groups, mixed-methods study (May–September 2017), participants observed 3 prerecorded clinical performances under formative or summative assessment conditions. Participants rated performances using a global rating tool and provided comments. Participants were then asked to reconsider their ratings from the alternative perspective (from which they were originally blinded). They received the opportunity to alter their ratings and comments and to provide rationales for their decision to change or preserve their original ratings and comments. Outcomes included participant–observers’ comments, ratings, changes to each, and stated rationales for changing or preserving their contributions. Results Foregrounding different intended uses of assessment data for participant–observers did not result in differences in ratings, number or type of comments (both emphasized evaluative over constructive statements), or the ability to differentiate among performances. After adopting the alternative perspective, participant–observers made only small changes in ratings or comments. Participant–observers reported that they engage in the process in an evaluative manner despite different intended uses. Conclusions Foregrounding different intended uses for assessments did not result in significant systematic differences in the assessment data generated. Observers provided more evaluative than constructive statements overall, regardless of the intended use of the assessment. Future research is needed to explore whether these results hold in social/workplace-based contexts and how they might affect learners.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI