XML Persian Abstract Print


Educational Development Center, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran , mahdavifh1@mums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (85 Views)
Letter to the Editor
Over the past few decades, education programs in health professions have moved toward a competency-based paradigm throughout the world. Competency-based education (CBE) relies on the fundamental principle that predetermined outcomes (competencies) guide teaching, learning, and assessment to ensure that graduates demonstrate proficiency in key competency domains and are able to provide care for patients with high quality throughout their careers. The purpose of CBE is to transform learners into healthcare workers who have lifelong learning and are committed to professional excellence, and the necessary competencies have been created in them. In CBE, learners are usually the center of attention and are actively involved in the learning and assessment process. Providing frequent and meaningful performance feedback enables learners to shape their learning paths by identifying appropriate learning opportunities for further development.
Assessment is critical in achieving the goals of CBE. However, traditional approaches to assessment, which generally focus exclusively on the summative function of assessment, are not appropriate in CBE. Assessment programs should not only ensure robust decision-making about the progress and development of learners' competence but also facilitate the production of high-quality feedback for learning and support reflective practice and the use of feedback. Therefore, to continuously improve performance in CBE, assessment programs and assessment functions should be combined and integrated for learning.
Programmatic assessment is a comprehensive approach in the assessment system that is theoretically aligned with key principles of CBE, as it aims to optimize assessment for learning while ensuring informed decision-making about learners' achievement of intended outcomes.
In programmatic assessment, low-stakes assessments are continuously and purposefully considered to provide meaningful feedback on the longitudinal performance of learners to develop their competencies, while high-stakes assessments are based on the meaningful aggregation of data from multiple low-stakes assessments, which are collected over longer periods of time, at different periods in different contexts, and with multiple raters.
However, while programmatic assessment approaches are increasingly being accepted as essential tools in the effective implementation of CBE, various research findings have indicated that it is difficult to merge different assessment performances in programmatic assessment. Performing programmatic assessment requires a change not only in assessment design but also in instructors and learners' views and data about objective and high-quality evaluation performance. Therefore, changing the assessment culture and fundamental data is necessary. Capacity building is a key element in any change process. All stakeholders involved in programmatic assessment must develop the capabilities needed to bring about the desired change in assessment culture. However, research findings suggest that stakeholders may not always be willing or able to perform the new roles as intended for them; instead, old behaviors "simply" adapt to new environments.      
Full-Text [PDF 345 kb]   (27 Downloads)    
Type of Study: letter to Editor | Subject: assessment and evaluation

References
1. Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Medical teacher 2010;32(8):638-45. [DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2010.501190]
2. Frank JR, Snell L, Englander R, Holmboe ES, Collaborators I. Implementing competency-based medical education: Moving forward. Medical teacher 2017;39(6):568-73. [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315069]
3. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR, Collaborators IC. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Medical teacher 2010;32(8):676-82. [DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704]
4. Harris P, Bhanji F, Topps M, Ross S, Lieberman S, Frank JR, et al. Evolving concepts of assessment in a competency-based world. Medical teacher 2017;39(6):603-8. [ https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315071 [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315071]]
5. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M-K, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Medical teacher 2017;39(6):609-16. [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315082]
6. Schellekens LH, Bok HG, de Jong LH, van der Schaaf MF, Kremer WD, van der Vleuten CP. A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2021;71:101094. [DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094]
7. Van Der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth L, Driessen E, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman L, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose 2012;34(3):205-14. [DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2012.652239]
8. Heeneman S, de Jong LH, Dawson LJ, Wilkinson TJ, Ryan A, Tait GR, et al. Ottawa 2020 consensus statement for programmatic assessment-1. Agreement on the principles. 2021;43(10):1139-48. [DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2021.1957088]
9. Iobst WF, Holmboe ES. Programmatic assessment: the secret sauce of effective CBME implementation. J Grad Med Educ (2020) 12 (4): 518-521. [DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-20-00702.1]
10. Eva KW, Bordage G, Campbell C, Galbraith R, Ginsburg S, Holmboe E, et al. Towards a program of assessment for health professionals: from training into practice. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2016; 21:897-913. [DOI:10.1007/s10459-015-9653-6]
11. Bennett RE. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice 2011;18(1):5-25. [DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678]
12. Harlen W, James M. Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice 1997;4(3):365-79. [DOI:10.1080/0969594970040304]
13. Pryor J, Crossouard B. A socio‐cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford review of Education 2008;34(1):1-20. [DOI:10.1080/03054980701476386]
14. Taras M. Assessment-summative and formative-some theoretical reflections. British journal of educational studies 2005;53(4):466-78. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x]
15. Govaerts M, Van der Vleuten C, Schut S. Implementation of programmatic assessment: challenges and lessons learned. Education Sciences 2022; 12(10):717. [DOI:10.3390/educsci12100717]
16. Evans R. The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
17. Rich JV, Cheung WJ, Cooke L, Oswald A, Gauthier S, Hall AK. Do Resident Archetypes Influence the Functioning of Programs of Assessment? Education Sciences 2022;12(5):293. [DOI:10.3390/educsci12050293]

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Research in Medical Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb