{"title":"物理治疗师教育中的公平评分实践:案例报告。","authors":"Shannon Richardson, Monica Dial, Janet Kneiss, Nipaporn Somyoo, Kimberly Varnado","doi":"10.1093/ptj/pzae084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To optimize learning in physical therapist education, learners need opportunities to grow from their unique starting points. Traditional grading practices like A to F grades, zero grades, and grading on timeliness and professionalism hinder content mastery and accurate competency assessment. Grading should focus on mastery of skill and content, using summative assessments for final grades, a no-zero policy, and actionable feedback. Equitable grading supports learners from all backgrounds and identities and promotes academic success. This case study provides guidance and recommendations for implementing equitable grading practices in academic physical therapist programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Over a 2-year period, a doctor of physical therapy program began implementing 5 strategies to create more equitable grading practices: (1) eliminating zero grades, (2) allowing late assignment submissions without penalty, (3) using low-stakes formative assessments throughout the semester, (4) weighing end-of-course assessments more heavily than initial ones, and (5) offering a no-stakes anatomy prep course before matriculation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Outcomes from implementing equitable grading practices varied. Some learners felt increased stress from fewer points opportunities, while others appreciated the reduced anxiety from low-stakes assessments. Some saw multiple attempts for peers as unfair. Faculty faced higher workloads due to detailed feedback and remediation but believed it benefited learners. Median final grades improved in some courses, remained stable in others, and slightly decreased in one. Overall, the changes had minimal impact on most learners' grades but significantly improved outcomes and retention for struggling learners.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This case report documents the implementation of equitable grading practices in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program, offering valuable insights and recommendations for other institutions aiming to adopt similar practices.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>Inequity in assessment widens the gap between learners entering professional programs. Equitable assessment practices level the playing field, enabling learners from diverse backgrounds and identities to succeed. Increased diversity benefits everyone, especially patients, by reducing health disparities for historically marginalized groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":20093,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equitable Grading Practices in Physical Therapist Education: A Case Report.\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Richardson, Monica Dial, Janet Kneiss, Nipaporn Somyoo, Kimberly Varnado\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ptj/pzae084\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To optimize learning in physical therapist education, learners need opportunities to grow from their unique starting points. Traditional grading practices like A to F grades, zero grades, and grading on timeliness and professionalism hinder content mastery and accurate competency assessment. Grading should focus on mastery of skill and content, using summative assessments for final grades, a no-zero policy, and actionable feedback. Equitable grading supports learners from all backgrounds and identities and promotes academic success. This case study provides guidance and recommendations for implementing equitable grading practices in academic physical therapist programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Over a 2-year period, a doctor of physical therapy program began implementing 5 strategies to create more equitable grading practices: (1) eliminating zero grades, (2) allowing late assignment submissions without penalty, (3) using low-stakes formative assessments throughout the semester, (4) weighing end-of-course assessments more heavily than initial ones, and (5) offering a no-stakes anatomy prep course before matriculation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Outcomes from implementing equitable grading practices varied. Some learners felt increased stress from fewer points opportunities, while others appreciated the reduced anxiety from low-stakes assessments. Some saw multiple attempts for peers as unfair. Faculty faced higher workloads due to detailed feedback and remediation but believed it benefited learners. Median final grades improved in some courses, remained stable in others, and slightly decreased in one. Overall, the changes had minimal impact on most learners' grades but significantly improved outcomes and retention for struggling learners.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This case report documents the implementation of equitable grading practices in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program, offering valuable insights and recommendations for other institutions aiming to adopt similar practices.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>Inequity in assessment widens the gap between learners entering professional programs. Equitable assessment practices level the playing field, enabling learners from diverse backgrounds and identities to succeed. Increased diversity benefits everyone, especially patients, by reducing health disparities for historically marginalized groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae084\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:为了优化理疗师教育中的学习,学习者需要有机会从其独特的起点开始成长。传统的评分方法,如从 A 到 F 的评分、零分,以及根据及时性和专业性评分等,都会阻碍学生对内容的掌握和准确的能力评估。评分应侧重于对技能和内容的掌握,采用终结性评价来评定最终成绩,实行无零分政策,并提供可操作的反馈。公平的评分能为来自各种背景和身份的学习者提供支持,促进学业成功。本案例研究为在物理治疗学术项目中实施公平评分实践提供了指导和建议:在为期两年的时间里,一个 DPT 项目开始实施 5 项策略,以建立更公平的评分方法:(1)取消零分;(2)允许迟交作业而不受惩罚;(3)在整个学期中使用低风险的形成性评估;(4)课程结束评估比初始评估更重要;(5)在入学前提供无风险的解剖预科课程:实施公平评分的结果各不相同。一些学生因得分机会减少而感到压力增大,而另一些学生则因低风险评估而减轻了焦虑。有些人认为对同伴的多次尝试是不公平的。由于要进行详细的反馈和补救,教师的工作量增加了,但他们认为这对学习者有利。一些课程的期末成绩中位数有所提高,另一些保持稳定,还有一门略有下降。总的来说,这些变化对大多数学习者的成绩影响甚微,但对有困难的学习者来说,却大大提高了学习成绩和保留率:本案例报告记录了在一个 DPT 项目中实施公平评分的实践,为其他旨在采用类似实践的机构提供了宝贵的见解和建议:影响:不公平的评估拉大了专业课程学习者之间的差距。公平的评估实践为来自不同背景和身份的学习者提供了公平的竞争环境,使他们能够取得成功。通过减少历史上被边缘化的群体在健康方面的差距,提高多样性对每个人都有好处,尤其是对病人。
Equitable Grading Practices in Physical Therapist Education: A Case Report.
Objective: To optimize learning in physical therapist education, learners need opportunities to grow from their unique starting points. Traditional grading practices like A to F grades, zero grades, and grading on timeliness and professionalism hinder content mastery and accurate competency assessment. Grading should focus on mastery of skill and content, using summative assessments for final grades, a no-zero policy, and actionable feedback. Equitable grading supports learners from all backgrounds and identities and promotes academic success. This case study provides guidance and recommendations for implementing equitable grading practices in academic physical therapist programs.
Methods: Over a 2-year period, a doctor of physical therapy program began implementing 5 strategies to create more equitable grading practices: (1) eliminating zero grades, (2) allowing late assignment submissions without penalty, (3) using low-stakes formative assessments throughout the semester, (4) weighing end-of-course assessments more heavily than initial ones, and (5) offering a no-stakes anatomy prep course before matriculation.
Results: Outcomes from implementing equitable grading practices varied. Some learners felt increased stress from fewer points opportunities, while others appreciated the reduced anxiety from low-stakes assessments. Some saw multiple attempts for peers as unfair. Faculty faced higher workloads due to detailed feedback and remediation but believed it benefited learners. Median final grades improved in some courses, remained stable in others, and slightly decreased in one. Overall, the changes had minimal impact on most learners' grades but significantly improved outcomes and retention for struggling learners.
Conclusion: This case report documents the implementation of equitable grading practices in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program, offering valuable insights and recommendations for other institutions aiming to adopt similar practices.
Impact: Inequity in assessment widens the gap between learners entering professional programs. Equitable assessment practices level the playing field, enabling learners from diverse backgrounds and identities to succeed. Increased diversity benefits everyone, especially patients, by reducing health disparities for historically marginalized groups.
期刊介绍:
Physical Therapy (PTJ) engages and inspires an international readership on topics related to physical therapy. As the leading international journal for research in physical therapy and related fields, PTJ publishes innovative and highly relevant content for both clinicians and scientists and uses a variety of interactive approaches to communicate that content, with the expressed purpose of improving patient care. PTJ"s circulation in 2008 is more than 72,000. Its 2007 impact factor was 2.152. The mean time from submission to first decision is 58 days. Time from acceptance to publication online is less than or equal to 3 months and from acceptance to publication in print is less than or equal to 5 months.