Cargando…
Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process
BACKGROUND: Universidade Cidade de São Paulo adopted a problem-based learning (PBL) strategy as the predominant method for teaching and learning medicine. Self-, peer- and tutor marks of the educational process are taken into account as part of the final grade, which also includes assessment of cont...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605444/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-8-55 |
_version_ | 1782162851697262592 |
---|---|
author | Machado, José Lúcio Martins Machado, Valéria Menezes Peixeiro Grec, Waldir Bollela, Valdes Roberto Vieira, Joaquim Edson |
author_facet | Machado, José Lúcio Martins Machado, Valéria Menezes Peixeiro Grec, Waldir Bollela, Valdes Roberto Vieira, Joaquim Edson |
author_sort | Machado, José Lúcio Martins |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Universidade Cidade de São Paulo adopted a problem-based learning (PBL) strategy as the predominant method for teaching and learning medicine. Self-, peer- and tutor marks of the educational process are taken into account as part of the final grade, which also includes assessment of content. This study compared the different perspectives (and grades) of evaluators during tutorials with first year medical students, from 2004 to 2007 (n = 349), from seven semesters. METHODS: The tutorial evaluation method was comprised of the students' self assessment (SA) (10%), tutor assessment (TA) (80%) and peer assessment (PA) (10%) to calculate a final educational process grade for each tutorial. We compared these three grades from each tutorial for seven semesters using ANOVA and a post hoc test. RESULTS: A total of 349 students participated with 199 (57%) women and 150 (42%) men. The SA and PA scores were consistently greater than the TA scores. Moreover, the SA and PA groups did not show statistical difference in any semester evaluated, while both differed from tutor assessment in all semesters (Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's test). The Spearman rank order showed significant (p < 0.0001) and positive correlation for the SA and PA groups (r = 0.806); this was not observed when we compared TA with PA (r = 0.456) or TA with SA (r = 0.376). CONCLUSION: Peer- and self-assessment marks might be reliable but not valid for PBL tutorial process, especially if these assessments are used for summative assessment, composing the final grade. This article suggests reconsideration of the use of summative assessment for self-evaluation in PBL tutorials. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2605444 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26054442008-12-19 Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process Machado, José Lúcio Martins Machado, Valéria Menezes Peixeiro Grec, Waldir Bollela, Valdes Roberto Vieira, Joaquim Edson BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Universidade Cidade de São Paulo adopted a problem-based learning (PBL) strategy as the predominant method for teaching and learning medicine. Self-, peer- and tutor marks of the educational process are taken into account as part of the final grade, which also includes assessment of content. This study compared the different perspectives (and grades) of evaluators during tutorials with first year medical students, from 2004 to 2007 (n = 349), from seven semesters. METHODS: The tutorial evaluation method was comprised of the students' self assessment (SA) (10%), tutor assessment (TA) (80%) and peer assessment (PA) (10%) to calculate a final educational process grade for each tutorial. We compared these three grades from each tutorial for seven semesters using ANOVA and a post hoc test. RESULTS: A total of 349 students participated with 199 (57%) women and 150 (42%) men. The SA and PA scores were consistently greater than the TA scores. Moreover, the SA and PA groups did not show statistical difference in any semester evaluated, while both differed from tutor assessment in all semesters (Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's test). The Spearman rank order showed significant (p < 0.0001) and positive correlation for the SA and PA groups (r = 0.806); this was not observed when we compared TA with PA (r = 0.456) or TA with SA (r = 0.376). CONCLUSION: Peer- and self-assessment marks might be reliable but not valid for PBL tutorial process, especially if these assessments are used for summative assessment, composing the final grade. This article suggests reconsideration of the use of summative assessment for self-evaluation in PBL tutorials. BioMed Central 2008-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC2605444/ /pubmed/19038048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-8-55 Text en Copyright © 2008 Machado et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Machado, José Lúcio Martins Machado, Valéria Menezes Peixeiro Grec, Waldir Bollela, Valdes Roberto Vieira, Joaquim Edson Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process |
title | Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process |
title_full | Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process |
title_fullStr | Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process |
title_full_unstemmed | Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process |
title_short | Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process |
title_sort | self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of pbl tutorial process |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605444/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-8-55 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT machadojoseluciomartins selfandpeerassessmentmaynotbeanaccuratemeasureofpbltutorialprocess AT machadovaleriamenezespeixeiro selfandpeerassessmentmaynotbeanaccuratemeasureofpbltutorialprocess AT grecwaldir selfandpeerassessmentmaynotbeanaccuratemeasureofpbltutorialprocess AT bollelavaldesroberto selfandpeerassessmentmaynotbeanaccuratemeasureofpbltutorialprocess AT vieirajoaquimedson selfandpeerassessmentmaynotbeanaccuratemeasureofpbltutorialprocess |