"Praise in Public; Criticize in Private": Unwritable Assessment Comments and the Performance Information That Resists Being Written.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005839
Andrea Gingerich, Lorelei Lingard, Stefanie S Sebok-Syer, Christopher J Watling, Shiphra Ginsburg
{"title":"\"Praise in Public; Criticize in Private\": Unwritable Assessment Comments and the Performance Information That Resists Being Written.","authors":"Andrea Gingerich, Lorelei Lingard, Stefanie S Sebok-Syer, Christopher J Watling, Shiphra Ginsburg","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Written assessment comments are needed to archive feedback and inform decisions. Regrettably, comments are often impoverished, leaving performance-relevant information undocumented. Research has focused on content and supervisor's ability and motivation to write it but has not sufficiently examined how well the undocumented information lends itself to being written as comments. Because missing information threatens the validity of assessment processes, this study examined the performance information that resists being written.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two sequential data collection methods and multiple elicitation techniques were used to triangulate unwritten assessment comments. Between November 2022 and January 2023, physicians in Canada were recruited by email and social media to describe experiences with wanting to convey assessment information but feeling unable to express it in writing. Fifty supervisors shared examples via survey. From January to May 2023, a subset of 13 participants were then interviewed to further explain what information resisted being written and why it seemed impossible to express in writing and to write comments in response to a video prompt or for their own \"unwritable\" example. Constructivist grounded theory guided data collection and analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Not all performance-relevant information was equally writable. Information resisted being written as assessment comments when it would require an essay to be expressed in writing, belonged in a conversation and not in writing, or was potentially irrelevant and unverifiable. In particular, disclosing sensitive information discussed in a feedback conversation required extensive recoding to protect the learner and supervisor-learner relationship.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When documenting performance information as written comments is viewed as an act of disclosure, it becomes clear why supervisors may feel compelled to leave some comments unwritten. Although supervisors can be supported in writing better assessment comments, their failure to write invites a reexamination of expectations for documenting feedback and performance information as written comments on assessment forms.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1240-1246"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005839","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Written assessment comments are needed to archive feedback and inform decisions. Regrettably, comments are often impoverished, leaving performance-relevant information undocumented. Research has focused on content and supervisor's ability and motivation to write it but has not sufficiently examined how well the undocumented information lends itself to being written as comments. Because missing information threatens the validity of assessment processes, this study examined the performance information that resists being written.

Method: Two sequential data collection methods and multiple elicitation techniques were used to triangulate unwritten assessment comments. Between November 2022 and January 2023, physicians in Canada were recruited by email and social media to describe experiences with wanting to convey assessment information but feeling unable to express it in writing. Fifty supervisors shared examples via survey. From January to May 2023, a subset of 13 participants were then interviewed to further explain what information resisted being written and why it seemed impossible to express in writing and to write comments in response to a video prompt or for their own "unwritable" example. Constructivist grounded theory guided data collection and analysis.

Results: Not all performance-relevant information was equally writable. Information resisted being written as assessment comments when it would require an essay to be expressed in writing, belonged in a conversation and not in writing, or was potentially irrelevant and unverifiable. In particular, disclosing sensitive information discussed in a feedback conversation required extensive recoding to protect the learner and supervisor-learner relationship.

Conclusions: When documenting performance information as written comments is viewed as an act of disclosure, it becomes clear why supervisors may feel compelled to leave some comments unwritten. Although supervisors can be supported in writing better assessment comments, their failure to write invites a reexamination of expectations for documenting feedback and performance information as written comments on assessment forms.

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
"公开表扬,私下批评":无法书写的评估意见和拒绝被书写的绩效信息。
目的:需要书面评估评语来将反馈归档并为决策提供依据。遗憾的是,评语往往内容贫乏,没有记录与成绩相关的信息。研究的重点是评语的内容以及督导人员撰写评语的能力和动机,但还没有充分研究未记录的信息是否适合写成评语。由于缺失的信息会威胁到评估过程的有效性,因此本研究对那些不愿意被写入评语的绩效信息进行了研究:方法:采用了两种连续的数据收集方法和多种诱导技术,对未写入的评估评语进行三角测量。在 2022 年 11 月至 2023 年 1 月期间,通过电子邮件和社交媒体招募了加拿大的医生,让他们描述想要传达评估信息但又觉得无法以书面形式表达的经历。50 名督导通过调查分享了实例。从 2023 年 1 月到 5 月,13 位参与者接受了访谈,进一步解释了哪些信息无法以书面形式表达,以及为什么似乎无法以书面形式表达,并根据视频提示或自己 "无法书写 "的例子撰写了评论。建构主义基础理论指导了数据的收集和分析:结果:并非所有与成绩相关的信息都可以写。如果信息需要以书面形式写成文章,或者属于对话而非书面形式,或者可能无关紧要且无法核实,那么这些信息就不愿意写成评语。特别是,披露反馈谈话中讨论的敏感信息需要大量的重新编码,以保护学习者和督导与学习者之间的关系:如果将记录绩效信息的书面意见要求视为一种披露行为,那么就会明白为什么督导人员会觉得不得不让某些意见不以书面形式发表。尽管可以支持督导写出更好的评估评语,但如果他们不写评语,就需要重新审视在评估表上以书面评语的形式记录反馈和绩效信息的期望。
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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
Validating the 2023 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduate Medical Education Leadership Competencies. World Federation for Medical Education Recognizes 5 International Accrediting Bodies. Irony. Teaching Opportunities for Postgraduate Trainees in Primary Care. How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees.
×
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