使用单点标准支持跨专业教学的有效性证据

Q3 Social Sciences
Craig Richard St. Jean , Sharla King , Mary Roduta Roberts
{"title":"使用单点标准支持跨专业教学的有效性证据","authors":"Craig Richard St. Jean ,&nbsp;Sharla King ,&nbsp;Mary Roduta Roberts","doi":"10.1016/j.xjep.2023.100631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Single-point rubrics (SPRs) have received little research attention to date. Using an argument-based approach to validation from a functional validation perspective, we collected and assessed validity evidence for the use of a single-point rubric to support teaching and learning in an interprofessional course.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Surveys and focus group interviews were conducted with students (N = 141; 4) and course facilitators (N = 15; 3) to gather both parties’ perceptions of whether the single point rubric was able to assist in providing formative, narrative feedback, whether the feedback supported interprofessional student learning, and whether this method of providing feedback was deemed acceptable.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The majority of students and facilitators surveyed and interviewed agreed that the single point rubric supported student learning via narrative feedback, that the rubrics were completed appropriately, and that the feedback provided via the rubrics was acceptable to students. Facilitators indicated that the rubric helped them craft narrative feedback in a time-efficient manner.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The evidence supports the use of the single point rubric for teaching and learning. The findings suggest that the use of an SPR is an effective and time-efficient approach to provide narrative feedback at multiple checkpoints during an interprofessional course. Implications for the adoption and implementation of the SPR are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37998,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity evidence for the use of a single-point rubric to support interprofessional teaching and learning\",\"authors\":\"Craig Richard St. Jean ,&nbsp;Sharla King ,&nbsp;Mary Roduta Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xjep.2023.100631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Single-point rubrics (SPRs) have received little research attention to date. Using an argument-based approach to validation from a functional validation perspective, we collected and assessed validity evidence for the use of a single-point rubric to support teaching and learning in an interprofessional course.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Surveys and focus group interviews were conducted with students (N = 141; 4) and course facilitators (N = 15; 3) to gather both parties’ perceptions of whether the single point rubric was able to assist in providing formative, narrative feedback, whether the feedback supported interprofessional student learning, and whether this method of providing feedback was deemed acceptable.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The majority of students and facilitators surveyed and interviewed agreed that the single point rubric supported student learning via narrative feedback, that the rubrics were completed appropriately, and that the feedback provided via the rubrics was acceptable to students. Facilitators indicated that the rubric helped them craft narrative feedback in a time-efficient manner.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The evidence supports the use of the single point rubric for teaching and learning. The findings suggest that the use of an SPR is an effective and time-efficient approach to provide narrative feedback at multiple checkpoints during an interprofessional course. Implications for the adoption and implementation of the SPR are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405452623000332\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405452623000332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

迄今为止,单点标准(SPRs)的研究很少受到关注。从功能验证的角度使用基于论证的方法进行验证,我们收集并评估了在跨专业课程中使用单点标准来支持教学的有效性证据。方法采用问卷调查和焦点小组访谈法(N = 141;4)和课程辅导员(N = 15;3)收集双方对单点标题是否能够帮助提供形成性的、叙述性的反馈,反馈是否支持跨专业学生的学习,以及这种提供反馈的方法是否被认为是可接受的看法。结果大部分受访学生和辅导员认为单点题型支持学生叙事反馈学习,题型完成得当,题型提供的反馈是学生可以接受的。主持人表示,标题帮助他们以省时的方式制作叙述反馈。结论证据支持在教学和学习中使用单点评分法。研究结果表明,在跨专业课程中,使用SPR是一种有效且省时的方法,可以在多个检查点提供叙述性反馈。讨论了特别战略资源通过和实施的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity evidence for the use of a single-point rubric to support interprofessional teaching and learning

Purpose

Single-point rubrics (SPRs) have received little research attention to date. Using an argument-based approach to validation from a functional validation perspective, we collected and assessed validity evidence for the use of a single-point rubric to support teaching and learning in an interprofessional course.

Methods

Surveys and focus group interviews were conducted with students (N = 141; 4) and course facilitators (N = 15; 3) to gather both parties’ perceptions of whether the single point rubric was able to assist in providing formative, narrative feedback, whether the feedback supported interprofessional student learning, and whether this method of providing feedback was deemed acceptable.

Results

The majority of students and facilitators surveyed and interviewed agreed that the single point rubric supported student learning via narrative feedback, that the rubrics were completed appropriately, and that the feedback provided via the rubrics was acceptable to students. Facilitators indicated that the rubric helped them craft narrative feedback in a time-efficient manner.

Conclusions

The evidence supports the use of the single point rubric for teaching and learning. The findings suggest that the use of an SPR is an effective and time-efficient approach to provide narrative feedback at multiple checkpoints during an interprofessional course. Implications for the adoption and implementation of the SPR are discussed.

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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, a quarterly online-only journal, provides innovative ideas for interprofessional educators and practitioners through peer-reviewed articles and reports. Each issue examines current issues and trends in interprofessional healthcare topics, offering progressive solutions to the challenges facing the profession. The Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice (JIEP) is affiliated with University of Nebraska Medical Center and the official journal of National Academies of Practice (NAP) and supports its mission to serve the public and the health profession by advancing education, policy, practice & research.
×
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