Is it OK if I cheat? Implementation of, and student response to, iterative change in an undergraduate medical degree high stakes OSCE due to issues of academic integrity.

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2024-06-29 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2372084
Roshan Perera, Tony Zaharic
{"title":"Is it OK if I cheat? Implementation of, and student response to, iterative change in an undergraduate medical degree high stakes OSCE due to issues of academic integrity.","authors":"Roshan Perera, Tony Zaharic","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2372084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of article: </strong>This paper explores issues pertinent to teaching and assessment of clinical skills at the early stages of medical training, aimed at preventing academic integrity breaches. The drivers for change, the changes themselves, and student perceptions of those changes are described.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Iterative changes to a summative high stakes Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) assessment in an undergraduate medical degree were undertaken in response to perceived/known breaches of assessment security. Initial strategies focused on implementing best practice teaching and assessment design principles, in association with increased examination security.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>These changes failed to prevent alleged sharing of examination content between students. A subsequent iteration saw a more radical deviation from classic OSCE assessment design, with students being assessed on equivalent competencies, not identical items (OSCE stations). This more recent approach was broadly acceptable to students, and did not result in breaches of academic integrity that were detectable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ever increasing degrees of assessment security need not be the response to breaches of academic integrity. Use of non-identical OSCE items across a cohort, underpinned by constructive alignment of teaching and assessment may mitigate the incentives to breach academic integrity, though face validity is not universal.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2372084","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

Abstract

Purpose of article: This paper explores issues pertinent to teaching and assessment of clinical skills at the early stages of medical training, aimed at preventing academic integrity breaches. The drivers for change, the changes themselves, and student perceptions of those changes are described.

Methods: Iterative changes to a summative high stakes Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) assessment in an undergraduate medical degree were undertaken in response to perceived/known breaches of assessment security. Initial strategies focused on implementing best practice teaching and assessment design principles, in association with increased examination security.

Results: These changes failed to prevent alleged sharing of examination content between students. A subsequent iteration saw a more radical deviation from classic OSCE assessment design, with students being assessed on equivalent competencies, not identical items (OSCE stations). This more recent approach was broadly acceptable to students, and did not result in breaches of academic integrity that were detectable.

Conclusions: Ever increasing degrees of assessment security need not be the response to breaches of academic integrity. Use of non-identical OSCE items across a cohort, underpinned by constructive alignment of teaching and assessment may mitigate the incentives to breach academic integrity, though face validity is not universal.

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
我作弊可以吗?由于学术诚信问题,在医学本科学位高风险 OSCE 中实施迭代变革以及学生对变革的反应。
文章的目的:本文探讨了医学培训早期阶段临床技能教学与评估的相关问题,旨在防止学术诚信违规。文章阐述了变革的驱动力、变革本身以及学生对这些变革的看法:方法:针对已知的违反评估安全的行为,对医学本科学位中的终结性高风险客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)评估进行了迭代改革。最初的策略侧重于实施最佳实践教学和评估设计原则,同时加强考试安全:结果:这些改变未能阻止学生之间共享考试内容的指控。在随后的迭代中,传统的 OSCE 评估设计出现了更彻底的偏离,学生们接受的是同等能力的评估,而不是相同的项目(OSCE 站)。学生们普遍接受了这种新方法,而且没有发现违反学术诚信的情况:结论:不一定要通过不断提高评估安全性来应对学术诚信问题。尽管表面效度不具有普遍性,但在学生群体中使用非相同的 OSCE 项目,并辅以教学与评估的建设性协调,可能会减轻违反学术诚信的动机。
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
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
Integration of behavioral, social, and humanities sciences into healthcare and education and their alignment with medical education programs. Submitting artificial intelligence in health professions education papers to medical teacher. Transformative power of an early ICU internship: A reflection from our undergraduate medical students. Medical education challenges in Mainland China: An analysis of the application of problem-based learning. Transforming remediation for competency-based medical education.
×
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