Cargando…

Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment

OBJECTIVES: Programmatic assessment attempts to facilitate learning through individual assessments designed to be of low‐stakes and used only for high‐stake decisions when aggregated. In practice, low‐stake assessments have yet to reach their potential as catalysts for learning. We explored how teac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schut, Suzanne, Heeneman, Sylvia, Bierer, Beth, Driessen, Erik, van Tartwijk, Jan, van der Vleuten, Cees
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31998987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14075
_version_ 1783550806454173696
author Schut, Suzanne
Heeneman, Sylvia
Bierer, Beth
Driessen, Erik
van Tartwijk, Jan
van der Vleuten, Cees
author_facet Schut, Suzanne
Heeneman, Sylvia
Bierer, Beth
Driessen, Erik
van Tartwijk, Jan
van der Vleuten, Cees
author_sort Schut, Suzanne
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Programmatic assessment attempts to facilitate learning through individual assessments designed to be of low‐stakes and used only for high‐stake decisions when aggregated. In practice, low‐stake assessments have yet to reach their potential as catalysts for learning. We explored how teachers conceptualise assessments within programmatic assessment and how they engage with learners in assessment relationships. METHODS: We used a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore teachers' assessment conceptualisations and assessment relationships in the context of programmatic assessment. We conducted 23 semi‐structured interviews at two different graduate‐entry medical training programmes following a purposeful sampling approach. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively until we reached theoretical sufficiency. We identified themes using a process of constant comparison. RESULTS: Results showed that teachers conceptualise low‐stake assessments in three different ways: to stimulate and facilitate learning; to prepare learners for the next step, and to use as feedback to gauge the teacher's own effectiveness. Teachers intended to engage in and preserve safe, yet professional and productive working relationships with learners to enable assessment for learning when securing high‐quality performance and achievement of standards. When teachers' assessment conceptualisations were more focused on accounting conceptions, this risked creating tension in the teacher‐learner assessment relationship. Teachers struggled between taking control and allowing learners' independence. CONCLUSIONS: Teachers believe programmatic assessment can have a positive impact on both teaching and student learning. However, teachers' conceptualisations of low‐stake assessments are not focused solely on learning and also involve stakes for teachers. Sampling across different assessments and the introduction of progress committees were identified as important design features to support teachers and preserve the benefits of prolonged engagement in assessment relationships. These insights contribute to the design of effective implementations of programmatic assessment within the medical education context.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7318263
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73182632020-06-29 Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment Schut, Suzanne Heeneman, Sylvia Bierer, Beth Driessen, Erik van Tartwijk, Jan van der Vleuten, Cees Med Educ Assessment OBJECTIVES: Programmatic assessment attempts to facilitate learning through individual assessments designed to be of low‐stakes and used only for high‐stake decisions when aggregated. In practice, low‐stake assessments have yet to reach their potential as catalysts for learning. We explored how teachers conceptualise assessments within programmatic assessment and how they engage with learners in assessment relationships. METHODS: We used a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore teachers' assessment conceptualisations and assessment relationships in the context of programmatic assessment. We conducted 23 semi‐structured interviews at two different graduate‐entry medical training programmes following a purposeful sampling approach. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively until we reached theoretical sufficiency. We identified themes using a process of constant comparison. RESULTS: Results showed that teachers conceptualise low‐stake assessments in three different ways: to stimulate and facilitate learning; to prepare learners for the next step, and to use as feedback to gauge the teacher's own effectiveness. Teachers intended to engage in and preserve safe, yet professional and productive working relationships with learners to enable assessment for learning when securing high‐quality performance and achievement of standards. When teachers' assessment conceptualisations were more focused on accounting conceptions, this risked creating tension in the teacher‐learner assessment relationship. Teachers struggled between taking control and allowing learners' independence. CONCLUSIONS: Teachers believe programmatic assessment can have a positive impact on both teaching and student learning. However, teachers' conceptualisations of low‐stake assessments are not focused solely on learning and also involve stakes for teachers. Sampling across different assessments and the introduction of progress committees were identified as important design features to support teachers and preserve the benefits of prolonged engagement in assessment relationships. These insights contribute to the design of effective implementations of programmatic assessment within the medical education context. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-04-06 2020-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7318263/ /pubmed/31998987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14075 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Medical Education published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Assessment
Schut, Suzanne
Heeneman, Sylvia
Bierer, Beth
Driessen, Erik
van Tartwijk, Jan
van der Vleuten, Cees
Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
title Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
title_full Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
title_fullStr Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
title_full_unstemmed Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
title_short Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
title_sort between trust and control: teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment
topic Assessment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31998987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14075
work_keys_str_mv AT schutsuzanne betweentrustandcontrolteachersassessmentconceptualisationswithinprogrammaticassessment
AT heenemansylvia betweentrustandcontrolteachersassessmentconceptualisationswithinprogrammaticassessment
AT biererbeth betweentrustandcontrolteachersassessmentconceptualisationswithinprogrammaticassessment
AT driessenerik betweentrustandcontrolteachersassessmentconceptualisationswithinprogrammaticassessment
AT vantartwijkjan betweentrustandcontrolteachersassessmentconceptualisationswithinprogrammaticassessment
AT vandervleutencees betweentrustandcontrolteachersassessmentconceptualisationswithinprogrammaticassessment