The outcome-based iCAN! / theyCAN! feedback paradigm differentiates strong and weak learning outcomes, learner diversity, and the learning outcomes of each learner: A shift to metacognitive assessment

Q4 Medicine
I. Dimoliatis, I. Zerdes, A. Zampeta, Zoi Tziortzioti, E. Briasoulis, I. Souglakos
{"title":"The outcome-based iCAN! / theyCAN! feedback paradigm differentiates strong and weak learning outcomes, learner diversity, and the learning outcomes of each learner: A shift to metacognitive assessment","authors":"I. Dimoliatis, I. Zerdes, A. Zampeta, Zoi Tziortzioti, E. Briasoulis, I. Souglakos","doi":"10.2478/fco-2018-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Can learning outcomes be transformed in useful tools revealing strong and weak learning outcomes, learners, teachers; reporting student self-assessment overestimation; informing formative feedback and summative examinations? Methods Based on the ESMO / ASCO global curriculum, 66 level-two learning outcomes were identified and transformed in the iCAN!-Oncology and theyCAN!-Oncology questionnaires, anonymously completed online, before and after teaching, by trainees and trainers respectively, in a five-day fulltime undergraduate oncology course. Results In total, students assessed themselves (iCAN!) with 55% before and 70% after the course (27% improvement); teachers assessed students (theyCAN!) with 43% before and 69% after (60% improvement). Twenty level-two learning outcomes (30%) were scored below the pass / fail cut-point by students while 46 (70%) by teachers, before the course; none after the course. Students assessed themselves the highest in “TNM system” before (81%) and after (82%), while the teachers assessed students so in “Normal cell biology” before (72%) and “Moral / ethical issues in clinical research” after (83%). The lowest assessed outcome was the “Research protocol” by students (28%) and teachers (18%) before, and the “Anticancer agents” after (54% by both). Individual students self-assessed themselves from 31% to 88% before, and from 54% to 88% after; individual teachers assessed students from 29% to 66% before, and from 55% to 94% after. The iCAN! / theyCAN! provided detailed individual student or teacher profile, tightfisted or generous. Conclusions The iCAN! / theyCAN! differentiate strong and weak learning outcomes, learners, teachers; reveal no student self-assessment overestimation; inform formative feedback and summative exams at a metacognitive level; generalize to any course and assessor; support evidence-based teaching and learning SWOT policy.","PeriodicalId":38592,"journal":{"name":"Forum of Clinical Oncology","volume":"9 1","pages":"17 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/fco-2018-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background Can learning outcomes be transformed in useful tools revealing strong and weak learning outcomes, learners, teachers; reporting student self-assessment overestimation; informing formative feedback and summative examinations? Methods Based on the ESMO / ASCO global curriculum, 66 level-two learning outcomes were identified and transformed in the iCAN!-Oncology and theyCAN!-Oncology questionnaires, anonymously completed online, before and after teaching, by trainees and trainers respectively, in a five-day fulltime undergraduate oncology course. Results In total, students assessed themselves (iCAN!) with 55% before and 70% after the course (27% improvement); teachers assessed students (theyCAN!) with 43% before and 69% after (60% improvement). Twenty level-two learning outcomes (30%) were scored below the pass / fail cut-point by students while 46 (70%) by teachers, before the course; none after the course. Students assessed themselves the highest in “TNM system” before (81%) and after (82%), while the teachers assessed students so in “Normal cell biology” before (72%) and “Moral / ethical issues in clinical research” after (83%). The lowest assessed outcome was the “Research protocol” by students (28%) and teachers (18%) before, and the “Anticancer agents” after (54% by both). Individual students self-assessed themselves from 31% to 88% before, and from 54% to 88% after; individual teachers assessed students from 29% to 66% before, and from 55% to 94% after. The iCAN! / theyCAN! provided detailed individual student or teacher profile, tightfisted or generous. Conclusions The iCAN! / theyCAN! differentiate strong and weak learning outcomes, learners, teachers; reveal no student self-assessment overestimation; inform formative feedback and summative exams at a metacognitive level; generalize to any course and assessor; support evidence-based teaching and learning SWOT policy.
基于结果的iCAN!/他们可以!反馈范式区分强势和弱势学习结果、学习者多样性以及每个学习者的学习结果:向元认知评估的转变
摘要背景学习成果能否转化为有用的工具,揭示学习成果的强弱、学习者、教师;报告学生自我评估高估;为形成性反馈和总结性考试提供信息?方法基于ESMO/ASCO全球课程,在iCAN中识别并转换66个二级学习成果-肿瘤学和他们可以-在为期五天的全日制本科生肿瘤学课程中,学员和培训师分别在教学前后在线匿名完成肿瘤学问卷调查。结果总的来说,学生对自己的评估(iCAN!)在课程前为55%,在课程后为70%(提高27%);老师们对学生的评价(他们可以!),前43%,后69%(提高60%)。在课程开始前,学生的二级学习成绩有20分(30%)低于及格/不及格分,而教师的成绩有46分(70%);课程结束后没有。学生在“TNM系统”之前(81%)和之后(82%)对自己的评价最高,而教师在“正常细胞生物学”之前(72%)和“临床研究中的道德/伦理问题”之后(83%)对学生的评价最高。评估结果最低的是之前学生(28%)和教师(18%)的“研究方案”,以及之后的“抗癌药物”(54%)。个别学生自我评估的比例从31%到88%不等,从54%到88%不等;个别教师对学生的评价从29%到66%不等,从55%到94%不等。iCAN!/他们可以!提供了详细的学生或教师个人资料,吝啬或慷慨。结论iCAN!/他们可以!区分强势和弱势学习成果、学习者、教师;没有发现学生自我评估过高;在元认知水平上为形成性反馈和总结性考试提供信息;推广到任何课程和评估员;支持循证教学SWOT政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forum of Clinical Oncology
Forum of Clinical Oncology Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信