美国医学教育分层分级的历史根源

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
James F Smith, Nicole M Piemonte
{"title":"美国医学教育分层分级的历史根源","authors":"James F Smith, Nicole M Piemonte","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluation of medical students remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in academic medicine. Evaluation occurs in an educational environment that must cultivate a diverse, collaborative, and resilient physician workforce imbued with skills, drive, and stamina for a lifelong commitment to patient care, self-care, and professional development. Additionally, evaluation must not only be valid and reliable but also relevant to the public who medical students will eventually serve. In U.S. medical education, evaluation, and the assessments on which evaluation is based, has evolved over several centuries. Understanding the history of how, when, and why U.S. medical students have been assessed and subsequently evaluated can inform contemporary dialogue on curricular reform. In exploring this history, several important considerations emerge. First, tiered grading arose through the historical assimilation of U.S. medical schools into universities rather than as a mechanism for assessing clinical competence or acumen. Second, even before influences of university academia suffused medical education, imprudent academic emphasis on the memorization of facts over deeper understanding of, and reflection on, medical sciences and practice was already entrenched. Evaluation systems like tiered grading served to validate-if not accelerate-overreliance on the memorization and recall of scientific facts. As a result, other professional attributes important for medical practice, including intrinsic motivation, group cohesiveness, and diversity of the physician workforce were, and remain, adversely affected. Finally, despite early observations that tiered grading is associated with medical student stress and anxiety, there has been insufficient attention to and mitigation of these effects on medical student wellbeing over the last century. Our collective response to controversies surrounding tiered grading should account for the historical rationality of the adoption of this form of evaluation and its enduring effects on contemporary medical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Historical Roots of Tiered Grading in U.S. Medical Education.\",\"authors\":\"James F Smith, Nicole M Piemonte\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Evaluation of medical students remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in academic medicine. Evaluation occurs in an educational environment that must cultivate a diverse, collaborative, and resilient physician workforce imbued with skills, drive, and stamina for a lifelong commitment to patient care, self-care, and professional development. Additionally, evaluation must not only be valid and reliable but also relevant to the public who medical students will eventually serve. In U.S. medical education, evaluation, and the assessments on which evaluation is based, has evolved over several centuries. Understanding the history of how, when, and why U.S. medical students have been assessed and subsequently evaluated can inform contemporary dialogue on curricular reform. In exploring this history, several important considerations emerge. First, tiered grading arose through the historical assimilation of U.S. medical schools into universities rather than as a mechanism for assessing clinical competence or acumen. Second, even before influences of university academia suffused medical education, imprudent academic emphasis on the memorization of facts over deeper understanding of, and reflection on, medical sciences and practice was already entrenched. Evaluation systems like tiered grading served to validate-if not accelerate-overreliance on the memorization and recall of scientific facts. As a result, other professional attributes important for medical practice, including intrinsic motivation, group cohesiveness, and diversity of the physician workforce were, and remain, adversely affected. Finally, despite early observations that tiered grading is associated with medical student stress and anxiety, there has been insufficient attention to and mitigation of these effects on medical student wellbeing over the last century. Our collective response to controversies surrounding tiered grading should account for the historical rationality of the adoption of this form of evaluation and its enduring effects on contemporary medical education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teaching and Learning in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"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/10.1080/10401334.2025.2495352\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2025.2495352","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医学生评价一直是医学学术中最复杂、最具挑战性的问题之一。评估发生在教育环境中,必须培养一支多样化、协作性和弹性的医生队伍,他们具有技能、动力和毅力,终身致力于病人护理、自我保健和专业发展。此外,评估不仅要有效和可靠,而且要与医学生最终将为之服务的公众相关。在美国医学教育中,评估以及评估所依据的评估已经发展了几个世纪。了解美国医学生如何、何时、为何被评估以及随后被评估的历史,可以为当代课程改革的对话提供信息。在探索这段历史的过程中,出现了几个重要的考虑。首先,分层分级是在美国医学院被大学同化的历史过程中产生的,而不是作为一种评估临床能力或敏锐度的机制。第二,即使在大学学术的影响渗透到医学教育之前,轻率的学术强调对事实的记忆,而不是对医学科学和实践的更深入的理解和反思,已经根深蒂固。像分层评分这样的评估系统,即使没有加速,也证实了对记忆和回忆科学事实的过度依赖。因此,其他对医疗实践很重要的专业属性,包括内在动机、团队凝聚力和医生队伍的多样性,都受到了不利影响。最后,尽管早期观察到分层评分与医学生的压力和焦虑有关,但在上个世纪,对这些对医学生福祉的影响的关注和缓解不足。我们对围绕分层评分的争议的集体反应应该考虑到采用这种评估形式的历史合理性及其对当代医学教育的持久影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Historical Roots of Tiered Grading in U.S. Medical Education.

Evaluation of medical students remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in academic medicine. Evaluation occurs in an educational environment that must cultivate a diverse, collaborative, and resilient physician workforce imbued with skills, drive, and stamina for a lifelong commitment to patient care, self-care, and professional development. Additionally, evaluation must not only be valid and reliable but also relevant to the public who medical students will eventually serve. In U.S. medical education, evaluation, and the assessments on which evaluation is based, has evolved over several centuries. Understanding the history of how, when, and why U.S. medical students have been assessed and subsequently evaluated can inform contemporary dialogue on curricular reform. In exploring this history, several important considerations emerge. First, tiered grading arose through the historical assimilation of U.S. medical schools into universities rather than as a mechanism for assessing clinical competence or acumen. Second, even before influences of university academia suffused medical education, imprudent academic emphasis on the memorization of facts over deeper understanding of, and reflection on, medical sciences and practice was already entrenched. Evaluation systems like tiered grading served to validate-if not accelerate-overreliance on the memorization and recall of scientific facts. As a result, other professional attributes important for medical practice, including intrinsic motivation, group cohesiveness, and diversity of the physician workforce were, and remain, adversely affected. Finally, despite early observations that tiered grading is associated with medical student stress and anxiety, there has been insufficient attention to and mitigation of these effects on medical student wellbeing over the last century. Our collective response to controversies surrounding tiered grading should account for the historical rationality of the adoption of this form of evaluation and its enduring effects on contemporary medical education.

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
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