The Noteworthiness of Constructive Feedback and Student-Reflection to Approach Competence-Based Curriculum: An Explanatory Study of Medical Schools in Indonesia

Achmad Yarziq Mubarak Salis Salamy, M. Claramita, Yoyo Suhoyo
{"title":"The Noteworthiness of Constructive Feedback and Student-Reflection to Approach Competence-Based Curriculum: An Explanatory Study of Medical Schools in Indonesia","authors":"Achmad Yarziq Mubarak Salis Salamy, M. Claramita, Yoyo Suhoyo","doi":"10.22146/jpki.87750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Competence-based medical curriculum requires the acquisition of complex abilities that should be assessed longitudinally. The programmatic assessment model can facilitate a complete picture of students' competencies. The five components of learning, assessment, supporting activities; and intermediate to final evaluation provide holistic learning experiences for students and mentors to participate in the learning strategies. We aim to assess the application of longitudinal components of the programmatic assessment model to the current assessment system based on student perceptions.Methods: This study used a cross-sectional mixed-method sequential explanatory design at six medical schools in Surabaya, East Java of Indonesia. The instrument was 43 items of validated questionnaire based on the five components and the focus group discussions. Results: This study obtained 442 respondents. The results reflected high reliability with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.969, and the validity test showed R arithmetic > R table (R table 0.128 for n 442). The current assessment system was perceived as ‘good’, with 3.9 on 5 points Likert scale; but the ‘supporting activities’ where reflection and feedback lied; was at the lowest score although insignificant. Students underlined the lack of formative aspects (reflection, feedback, mentorship, and middle evaluation).Conclusion: The overall assessment system is well-perceived by the students; however, the 'supportive activities' component has been minimally applied. So the 'assessment of previous learning' is still prominent in the current assessment system.","PeriodicalId":17805,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education","volume":"34 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.87750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Competence-based medical curriculum requires the acquisition of complex abilities that should be assessed longitudinally. The programmatic assessment model can facilitate a complete picture of students' competencies. The five components of learning, assessment, supporting activities; and intermediate to final evaluation provide holistic learning experiences for students and mentors to participate in the learning strategies. We aim to assess the application of longitudinal components of the programmatic assessment model to the current assessment system based on student perceptions.Methods: This study used a cross-sectional mixed-method sequential explanatory design at six medical schools in Surabaya, East Java of Indonesia. The instrument was 43 items of validated questionnaire based on the five components and the focus group discussions. Results: This study obtained 442 respondents. The results reflected high reliability with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.969, and the validity test showed R arithmetic > R table (R table 0.128 for n 442). The current assessment system was perceived as ‘good’, with 3.9 on 5 points Likert scale; but the ‘supporting activities’ where reflection and feedback lied; was at the lowest score although insignificant. Students underlined the lack of formative aspects (reflection, feedback, mentorship, and middle evaluation).Conclusion: The overall assessment system is well-perceived by the students; however, the 'supportive activities' component has been minimally applied. So the 'assessment of previous learning' is still prominent in the current assessment system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
建设性反馈和学生反思对实施能力本位课程的重要意义:印度尼西亚医学院的解释性研究
背景:以能力为基础的医学课程要求学生掌握复杂的能力,应对这些能力进行纵向评估。课程评估模式有助于全面了解学生的能力。学习、评估、辅助活动和中期至最终评估这五个组成部分为学生和导师提供了参与学习策略的整体学习体验。我们旨在根据学生的看法,评估计划评估模式的纵向组成部分在当前评估系统中的应用情况:本研究在印度尼西亚东爪哇省泗水市的六所医学院中采用了横断面混合方法序列解释设计。研究工具是基于五个组成部分和焦点小组讨论的 43 项有效问卷。研究结果本研究共收到 442 份问卷。结果表明,问卷具有较高的可靠性,Cronbach alpha 值为 0.969,有效性测试表明 R 算术大于 R 表(442 人的 R 表为 0.128)。目前的评估系统被认为是 "良好 "的,在李克特 5 点量表中得分为 3.9;但 "辅助活动",即反思和反馈,得分最低,但不明显。学生们强调缺乏形成性环节(反思、反馈、指导和中间评价):结论:学生对整个评估系统的评价良好,但 "辅助活动 "部分的应用却很少。因此,"对以往学习的评估 "在目前的评估系统中仍然很突出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inquiry Learning Methods to Increase Student Motivation and Learning Outcomes The Noteworthiness of Constructive Feedback and Student-Reflection to Approach Competence-Based Curriculum: An Explanatory Study of Medical Schools in Indonesia The Relationship Between Anatomy Identification Test Scores and The Suitability in V/A/R/K Modality Usage Between Study Habit and Learning Style COMPARISON OF HISTOLOGY PRACTICUM EXAM RESULTS BASED ON THE LEARNING STYLE OF MEDICAL STUDENTS Description of The Professional Identity of First-Level Clinical Medical Students and The Various Factors That Facilitate Its Formation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1