Attending to Variable Interpretations of Assessment Science and Practice.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-11 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2023.2231923
Walter Tavares, Jacob Pearce
{"title":"Attending to Variable Interpretations of Assessment Science and Practice.","authors":"Walter Tavares, Jacob Pearce","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2023.2231923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Issue</i></b>: The way educators think about the nature of competence, the approaches one selects for the assessment of competence, what generated data implies, and what counts as good assessment now involve broader and more diverse <i>interpretive processes</i>. Broadening philosophical positions in assessment has educators applying different <i>interpretations</i> to similar assessment concepts. As a result, what is claimed through assessment, including what counts as quality, can be different for each of us despite using similar activities and language. This is leading to some uncertainty on how to proceed or worse, provides opportunities for questioning the legitimacy of any assessment activity or outcome. While some debate in assessment is inevitable, most have been <i>within</i> philosophical positions (e.g., how best to minimize error), whereas newer debates are happening <i>across</i> philosophical positions (e.g., whether error is a useful concept). As new ways of approaching assessment have emerged, the interpretive nature of underlying philosophical positions has not been sufficiently attended to. <b><i>Evidence</i></b>: We illustrate <i>interpretive processes</i> of assessment in action by: (a) summarizing the current health professions assessment context from a philosophical perspective as a way of describing its evolution; (b) demonstrating implications in practice using two examples (i.e., analysis of assessment work and validity claims); and (c) examining <i>pragmatism</i> to demonstrate how even within specific philosophical positions opportunities for variable interpretations still exist. <b><i>Implications</i></b>: Our concern is not that assessment designers and users have different assumptions, but that practically, educators may unknowingly (or insidiously) apply different assumptions, and methodological and interpretive norms, and subsequently settle on different views on what serves as quality assessment even for the same assessment program or event. With the state of assessment in health professions in flux, we conclude by calling for a philosophically explicit approach to assessment, and underscore assessment as, fundamentally, an interpretive process - one which demands the careful elucidation of philosophical assumptions to promote understanding and ultimately defensibility of assessment processes and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"244-252"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2231923","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Issue: The way educators think about the nature of competence, the approaches one selects for the assessment of competence, what generated data implies, and what counts as good assessment now involve broader and more diverse interpretive processes. Broadening philosophical positions in assessment has educators applying different interpretations to similar assessment concepts. As a result, what is claimed through assessment, including what counts as quality, can be different for each of us despite using similar activities and language. This is leading to some uncertainty on how to proceed or worse, provides opportunities for questioning the legitimacy of any assessment activity or outcome. While some debate in assessment is inevitable, most have been within philosophical positions (e.g., how best to minimize error), whereas newer debates are happening across philosophical positions (e.g., whether error is a useful concept). As new ways of approaching assessment have emerged, the interpretive nature of underlying philosophical positions has not been sufficiently attended to. Evidence: We illustrate interpretive processes of assessment in action by: (a) summarizing the current health professions assessment context from a philosophical perspective as a way of describing its evolution; (b) demonstrating implications in practice using two examples (i.e., analysis of assessment work and validity claims); and (c) examining pragmatism to demonstrate how even within specific philosophical positions opportunities for variable interpretations still exist. Implications: Our concern is not that assessment designers and users have different assumptions, but that practically, educators may unknowingly (or insidiously) apply different assumptions, and methodological and interpretive norms, and subsequently settle on different views on what serves as quality assessment even for the same assessment program or event. With the state of assessment in health professions in flux, we conclude by calling for a philosophically explicit approach to assessment, and underscore assessment as, fundamentally, an interpretive process - one which demands the careful elucidation of philosophical assumptions to promote understanding and ultimately defensibility of assessment processes and outcomes.

关注评估科学与实践的各种解释。
问题:现在,教育者对能力性质的思考方式,对能力评估所选择的方法,对所产生的数 据的含义,以及对什么是好的评估,都涉及到更广泛、更多样的解释过程。评估哲学立场的扩大使得教育者对类似的评估概念做出不同的解释。因此,尽管我们每个人都使用类似的活动和语言,但通过评估所要求的东西,包括什么算作质量,可能是不同的。这就导致了如何进行评估的不确定性,更有甚者,为质疑任何评估活动或结果的 合法性提供了机会。虽然评估中的一些争论是不可避免的,但大多数争论都是在哲学立场范围内进行的 (例如,如何最好地减少误差),而新的争论则是跨哲学立场进行的(例如,误差是否 是一个有用的概念)。随着新的评估方法的出现,基本哲学立场的解释性却没有得到足够的重视。证据:我们通过以下方式说明评估的解释过程(a) 从哲学角度总结当前健康专业评估的背景,以此描述其演变过程;(b) 用两个例子(即评估工作分析和有效性要求)说明实践中的影响;(c) 研究实用主义,以说明即使在特定的哲学立场下,仍然存在各种解释的机会。影响:我们担心的不是评估设计者和使用者有不同的假设,而是在实践中,教育者可能会不知不觉地(或潜移默化地)应用不同的假设、方法和解释规范,从而对什么是高质量的评估产生不同的看法,即使是对同一个评估项目或活动也是如此。鉴于卫生专业评估的变化状况,我们最后呼吁对评估采取一种哲学上明确的方法,并强调评估从根本上说是一个解释过程--一个需要仔细阐明哲学假设的过程,以促进对评估过程和结果的理解和最终辩护。
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
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
×
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