双阶段个人评估:二次机会评估策略与个性化反馈,促进学习评估。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Munder Zagaar, Sandra B Haudek, Peter Boedeker
{"title":"双阶段个人评估:二次机会评估策略与个性化反馈,促进学习评估。","authors":"Munder Zagaar, Sandra B Haudek, Peter Boedeker","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Problem: </strong>High-stakes multiple-choice question (MCQ) exams in medical education typically focus on assessment of learning at a single point without providing feedback for improvement. Educators can achieve a more balanced approach to MCQ exams by combining efficient assessment of learning with the feedback and improvement opportunities of assessment for learning.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>As part of a curriculum renewal at Baylor College of Medicine's MD program, the Two-Phase Individual Assessment (TPIA) model was launched within a 4-week preclinical Foundations of Medicine course in August 2023. The TPIA model featured weekly assessments, each consisting of 2 MCQ exams given on the same day with a 4-hour study period in between. Exams were paired, consisting of an equal number of items that addressed the same learning objectives. After the initial exam, students received an individualized feedback report indicating correctly and incorrectly answered objectives. Students applied individualized feedback reports to self-identify and remediate deficiencies in preparation for the second-chance exam. Only the highest score counted toward the final grade.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Among 230 medical student participants, significant performance improvements between morning and afternoon exams were observed across the first 3 weekly TPIAs, with mean score increases of 4.93, 5.06, and 10.86. Mean change in performance in week 4 was not significant. Student end-of-course survey responses indicated a strong preference for the TPIA format. Responses highlighted the value of offering individualized feedback, providing unstructured time to address knowledge gaps, and ensuring a corresponding opportunity for improvement.</p><p><strong>Next steps: </strong>Future research will extend TPIA's implementation in more clinical-oriented courses to validate TPIA's effectiveness and explore its effect on long-term knowledge retention through more cumulative examinations. Integrating TPIA-based approaches may advance educational systems toward developing a culture of feedback and embracing second chances to support learning and professional growth, thereby preparing medical professionals for the demands of 21st-century medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two-Phase Individual Assessments: A Second-Chance Assessment Strategy With Individualized Feedback to Promote Assessment for Learning.\",\"authors\":\"Munder Zagaar, Sandra B Haudek, Peter Boedeker\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Problem: </strong>High-stakes multiple-choice question (MCQ) exams in medical education typically focus on assessment of learning at a single point without providing feedback for improvement. Educators can achieve a more balanced approach to MCQ exams by combining efficient assessment of learning with the feedback and improvement opportunities of assessment for learning.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>As part of a curriculum renewal at Baylor College of Medicine's MD program, the Two-Phase Individual Assessment (TPIA) model was launched within a 4-week preclinical Foundations of Medicine course in August 2023. The TPIA model featured weekly assessments, each consisting of 2 MCQ exams given on the same day with a 4-hour study period in between. Exams were paired, consisting of an equal number of items that addressed the same learning objectives. After the initial exam, students received an individualized feedback report indicating correctly and incorrectly answered objectives. Students applied individualized feedback reports to self-identify and remediate deficiencies in preparation for the second-chance exam. Only the highest score counted toward the final grade.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Among 230 medical student participants, significant performance improvements between morning and afternoon exams were observed across the first 3 weekly TPIAs, with mean score increases of 4.93, 5.06, and 10.86. Mean change in performance in week 4 was not significant. Student end-of-course survey responses indicated a strong preference for the TPIA format. Responses highlighted the value of offering individualized feedback, providing unstructured time to address knowledge gaps, and ensuring a corresponding opportunity for improvement.</p><p><strong>Next steps: </strong>Future research will extend TPIA's implementation in more clinical-oriented courses to validate TPIA's effectiveness and explore its effect on long-term knowledge retention through more cumulative examinations. Integrating TPIA-based approaches may advance educational systems toward developing a culture of feedback and embracing second chances to support learning and professional growth, thereby preparing medical professionals for the demands of 21st-century medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005876\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005876","RegionNum":2,"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

问题:医学教育中的高风险选择题(MCQ)考试通常只注重单点学习评估,而不提供改进反馈。教育者可以通过将高效的学习评估与学习评估的反馈和改进机会相结合,以更平衡的方式对待 MCQ 考试:作为贝勒医学院医学博士课程更新的一部分,2023 年 8 月,在为期 4 周的临床前医学基础课程中推出了两阶段个人评估(TPIA)模式。TPIA 模式的特点是每周进行一次评估,每次评估由 2 个 MCQ 考试组成,考试在同一天进行,中间有 4 小时的学习时间。考试成绩成对,由相同数量的题目组成,涉及相同的学习目标。初次考试结束后,学生会收到一份个性化的反馈报告,其中标明了答对和答错的目标。学生利用个性化反馈报告自我发现和弥补不足,为第二次考试做准备。只有最高分才能计入最终成绩:在 230 名医学生参与者中,观察到前 3 次每周 TPIA 考试的上午和下午考试成绩均有显著提高,平均分分别提高了 4.93 分、5.06 分和 10.86 分。第 4 周的平均成绩变化不大。学生在课程结束时的调查反馈表明,他们非常喜欢 TPIA 的形式。答复强调了提供个性化反馈的价值,提供非结构化时间来解决知识差距,并确保相应的改进机会:未来的研究将在更多临床导向的课程中推广 TPIA 的实施,以验证 TPIA 的有效性,并通过更多的累积考试来探索其对长期知识保留的影响。整合基于 TPIA 的方法可推动教育系统发展反馈文化,并接受第二次机会,以支持学习和专业成长,从而为医学专业人员适应 21 世纪医学的需求做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two-Phase Individual Assessments: A Second-Chance Assessment Strategy With Individualized Feedback to Promote Assessment for Learning.

Problem: High-stakes multiple-choice question (MCQ) exams in medical education typically focus on assessment of learning at a single point without providing feedback for improvement. Educators can achieve a more balanced approach to MCQ exams by combining efficient assessment of learning with the feedback and improvement opportunities of assessment for learning.

Approach: As part of a curriculum renewal at Baylor College of Medicine's MD program, the Two-Phase Individual Assessment (TPIA) model was launched within a 4-week preclinical Foundations of Medicine course in August 2023. The TPIA model featured weekly assessments, each consisting of 2 MCQ exams given on the same day with a 4-hour study period in between. Exams were paired, consisting of an equal number of items that addressed the same learning objectives. After the initial exam, students received an individualized feedback report indicating correctly and incorrectly answered objectives. Students applied individualized feedback reports to self-identify and remediate deficiencies in preparation for the second-chance exam. Only the highest score counted toward the final grade.

Outcomes: Among 230 medical student participants, significant performance improvements between morning and afternoon exams were observed across the first 3 weekly TPIAs, with mean score increases of 4.93, 5.06, and 10.86. Mean change in performance in week 4 was not significant. Student end-of-course survey responses indicated a strong preference for the TPIA format. Responses highlighted the value of offering individualized feedback, providing unstructured time to address knowledge gaps, and ensuring a corresponding opportunity for improvement.

Next steps: Future research will extend TPIA's implementation in more clinical-oriented courses to validate TPIA's effectiveness and explore its effect on long-term knowledge retention through more cumulative examinations. Integrating TPIA-based approaches may advance educational systems toward developing a culture of feedback and embracing second chances to support learning and professional growth, thereby preparing medical professionals for the demands of 21st-century medicine.

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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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