通过考虑三个方向,明确并扩大评估中的公平性:公平、包容和公正。

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Hannah L Kakara Anderson, Marjan Govaerts, Layla Abdulla, Dorene F Balmer, Jamiu O Busari, Daniel C West
{"title":"通过考虑三个方向,明确并扩大评估中的公平性:公平、包容和公正。","authors":"Hannah L Kakara Anderson, Marjan Govaerts, Layla Abdulla, Dorene F Balmer, Jamiu O Busari, Daniel C West","doi":"10.1111/medu.15534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Despite increasing discussion and scholarship, equity in assessment is rarely defined and distinguished in a way that allows for shared understanding in medical education. This paper seeks to clarify and expand the conversation about equity in assessment by critically reviewing three distinct and evolving orientations toward equity in assessment. Orientations refers to the positions, attitudes, interests or priorities individuals can hold toward equity in assessment. The three orientations include fairness-oriented assessment, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment. While fairness-oriented assessment is a prevailing orientation in medical education, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment, originally developed in other fields of education, deserve careful consideration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this paper, the authors explore unique underpinning assumptions of each orientation by critically examining the foundational literature of each orientation. They reflect on the unique perspectives each orientation provides, including the actions one might take and what advantages and disadvantages might result from looking at equity in assessment from any one orientation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Informed by this reflection, the authors propose that to more effectively advance equity in assessment in medical education, those working in the field should clearly identify their respective orientations, intentionally choose methods, tools and measures aligned with their orientations and expand their work by exploring alternative orientations.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clarifying and expanding equity in assessment by considering three orientations: Fairness, inclusion and justice.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah L Kakara Anderson, Marjan Govaerts, Layla Abdulla, Dorene F Balmer, Jamiu O Busari, Daniel C West\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.15534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Despite increasing discussion and scholarship, equity in assessment is rarely defined and distinguished in a way that allows for shared understanding in medical education. This paper seeks to clarify and expand the conversation about equity in assessment by critically reviewing three distinct and evolving orientations toward equity in assessment. Orientations refers to the positions, attitudes, interests or priorities individuals can hold toward equity in assessment. The three orientations include fairness-oriented assessment, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment. While fairness-oriented assessment is a prevailing orientation in medical education, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment, originally developed in other fields of education, deserve careful consideration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this paper, the authors explore unique underpinning assumptions of each orientation by critically examining the foundational literature of each orientation. They reflect on the unique perspectives each orientation provides, including the actions one might take and what advantages and disadvantages might result from looking at equity in assessment from any one orientation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Informed by this reflection, the authors propose that to more effectively advance equity in assessment in medical education, those working in the field should clearly identify their respective orientations, intentionally choose methods, tools and measures aligned with their orientations and expand their work by exploring alternative orientations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15534\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15534","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管有越来越多的讨论和学术研究,但在医学教育中,公平评估的定义和区分却很少能达成共识。本文试图通过批判性地回顾三种不同的、不断发展的评估公平取向,来澄清和扩大有关评估公平的讨论。取向是指个人对评估公平所持的立场、态度、兴趣或优先事项。这三种取向包括以公平为导向的评估、以包容为导向的评估和以公正为导向的评估。以公平为导向的评估是医学教育的主流取向,而以包容为导向的评估和以公正为导向的评估最初是在其他教育领域发展起来的,值得认真考虑:在本文中,作者通过批判性地研究每种取向的基础文献,探讨了每种取向独特的基本假设。他们反思了每种取向所提供的独特视角,包括可能采取的行动,以及从任何一种取向来看待评估公平性可能产生的利弊:通过反思,作者建议,为了更有效地推进医学教育评估的公平性,该领域的工作者应明确各自的取向,有意识地选择与其取向一致的方法、工具和措施,并通过探索其他取向来扩展他们的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clarifying and expanding equity in assessment by considering three orientations: Fairness, inclusion and justice.

Context: Despite increasing discussion and scholarship, equity in assessment is rarely defined and distinguished in a way that allows for shared understanding in medical education. This paper seeks to clarify and expand the conversation about equity in assessment by critically reviewing three distinct and evolving orientations toward equity in assessment. Orientations refers to the positions, attitudes, interests or priorities individuals can hold toward equity in assessment. The three orientations include fairness-oriented assessment, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment. While fairness-oriented assessment is a prevailing orientation in medical education, assessment for inclusion and justice-oriented assessment, originally developed in other fields of education, deserve careful consideration.

Methods: In this paper, the authors explore unique underpinning assumptions of each orientation by critically examining the foundational literature of each orientation. They reflect on the unique perspectives each orientation provides, including the actions one might take and what advantages and disadvantages might result from looking at equity in assessment from any one orientation.

Conclusions: Informed by this reflection, the authors propose that to more effectively advance equity in assessment in medical education, those working in the field should clearly identify their respective orientations, intentionally choose methods, tools and measures aligned with their orientations and expand their work by exploring alternative orientations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
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