Inclusive assessment in health professions education: Balancing global goals and local contexts

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1111/medu.15535
Gabrielle M. Finn, Joanna Tai, Vishna Devi Nadarajah
{"title":"Inclusive assessment in health professions education: Balancing global goals and local contexts","authors":"Gabrielle M. Finn, Joanna Tai, Vishna Devi Nadarajah","doi":"10.1111/medu.15535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ContextIn this article, we draw upon diverse and contextually different experiences of working on inclusive assessment, with the aim of bridging and enhancing practices of inclusive assessments for health professions education (HPE) within universities. Instead of juxtaposing our views from three countries, we combine our perspectives to advocate for inclusive assessment.DiscussionCreating an inclusive assessment culture is important for equitable education, even if priorities for inclusion might differ between contexts. We recognise challenges in the enactment of inclusive assessment, namely, the notion of lowering standards, harming reliability and robustness of assessment design and inclusion as a poorly defined and catchall term. Importantly, the lack of awareness that inclusion means recognising intersectionality is a barrier for well‐designed inclusive assessments. This is why we offer considerations for HPE practitioners that can guide towards a unified direction of travel for inclusive assessments. This article highlights the importance of contextual prioritisation and initiatives to be considered at the global level to national, institutional, programme and the individual level. Utilising experience and literature from undergraduate, higher education contexts, we offer considerations with applicability across the assessment continuum.ContextIn this state of science paper, we were set the challenge of providing cross‐cultural viewpoints on inclusive assessment. In this discursive article, we focus on inclusive assessment within undergraduate health professions education whilst looking to the wider higher education literature, since institutional policies and procedures frequently drive assessment decisions and influence the environment in which they occur. We explore our experiences of working in inclusive assessment, with the aim of bridging and enhancing practices of inclusive assessments for HPE. Unlike other articles that juxtapose views, we all come from the perspective of supporting inclusive assessment.We begin with a discussion on what inclusive assessment is and then describe our contexts as a basis for understanding differences and broadening conversations. We work in the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia, having undertaken research, facilitated workshops and seminars on inclusive assessment nationally and internationally. We recognise our perspectives will differ as a consequence of our global context, institutional culture, individual characteristics and educational experiences. (<jats:italic>Note that individual characteristics are also known as protected characteristics in some countries</jats:italic>).Then, we outline challenges and opportunities associated with inclusive assessment, drawing on evidence within our contexts, acknowledging that our understanding of inclusive assessment research is limited to publications in English and currently tilted to publications from the Global North. In the final section, we then offer recommendations for championing inclusion, focussing firstly on assessment designs, and then broader considerations to organise collective action.Our article is unapologetically practical; the deliberate divergence from a theoretical piece is with the intent that anyone who reads this paper might enact even one small change progressing towards more inclusive assessment practices within their context.","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15535","RegionNum":1,"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

ContextIn this article, we draw upon diverse and contextually different experiences of working on inclusive assessment, with the aim of bridging and enhancing practices of inclusive assessments for health professions education (HPE) within universities. Instead of juxtaposing our views from three countries, we combine our perspectives to advocate for inclusive assessment.DiscussionCreating an inclusive assessment culture is important for equitable education, even if priorities for inclusion might differ between contexts. We recognise challenges in the enactment of inclusive assessment, namely, the notion of lowering standards, harming reliability and robustness of assessment design and inclusion as a poorly defined and catchall term. Importantly, the lack of awareness that inclusion means recognising intersectionality is a barrier for well‐designed inclusive assessments. This is why we offer considerations for HPE practitioners that can guide towards a unified direction of travel for inclusive assessments. This article highlights the importance of contextual prioritisation and initiatives to be considered at the global level to national, institutional, programme and the individual level. Utilising experience and literature from undergraduate, higher education contexts, we offer considerations with applicability across the assessment continuum.ContextIn this state of science paper, we were set the challenge of providing cross‐cultural viewpoints on inclusive assessment. In this discursive article, we focus on inclusive assessment within undergraduate health professions education whilst looking to the wider higher education literature, since institutional policies and procedures frequently drive assessment decisions and influence the environment in which they occur. We explore our experiences of working in inclusive assessment, with the aim of bridging and enhancing practices of inclusive assessments for HPE. Unlike other articles that juxtapose views, we all come from the perspective of supporting inclusive assessment.We begin with a discussion on what inclusive assessment is and then describe our contexts as a basis for understanding differences and broadening conversations. We work in the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia, having undertaken research, facilitated workshops and seminars on inclusive assessment nationally and internationally. We recognise our perspectives will differ as a consequence of our global context, institutional culture, individual characteristics and educational experiences. (Note that individual characteristics are also known as protected characteristics in some countries).Then, we outline challenges and opportunities associated with inclusive assessment, drawing on evidence within our contexts, acknowledging that our understanding of inclusive assessment research is limited to publications in English and currently tilted to publications from the Global North. In the final section, we then offer recommendations for championing inclusion, focussing firstly on assessment designs, and then broader considerations to organise collective action.Our article is unapologetically practical; the deliberate divergence from a theoretical piece is with the intent that anyone who reads this paper might enact even one small change progressing towards more inclusive assessment practices within their context.
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
卫生专业教育中的包容性评估:平衡全球目标与当地情况
背景在这篇文章中,我们借鉴了从事全纳评估工作的各种不同背景的经验,目的是在大学内的卫生专业教育(HPE)中,衔接和加强全纳评估的实践。我们并没有将三个国家的观点并列起来,而是将我们的观点结合起来,倡导全纳评估。讨论创建全纳评估文化对于公平教育非常重要,即使不同背景下的全纳优先事项可能有所不同。我们认识到全纳评估在实施过程中面临的挑战,即降低标准、损害评估设计的可靠 性和稳健性,以及全纳是一个定义不清、包罗万象的术语。重要的是,缺乏对全纳意味着承认交叉性的认识是设计良好的全纳评估的障碍。这就是为什么我们要为 HPE 从业人员提供一些考虑因素,以便为全纳评估指引一个统一的前进方向。本文强调了从全球层面到国家、机构、计划和个人层面都应考虑的背景优先事项和举措的重要性。我们利用本科生和高等教育背景下的经验和文献,提出了适用于整个评估过程的考虑因素。 在这篇科学现状论文中,我们面临的挑战是提供有关全纳评估的跨文化观点。在这篇论述性文章中,我们在关注更广泛的高等教育文献的同时,重点关注本科健康专业教育中的全纳评估,因为机构政策和程序经常会推动评估决策并影响评估环境。我们探讨了自己在全纳评估方面的工作经验,目的是为高等教育的全纳评估搭建桥梁,并加强相关实践。我们首先讨论了什么是全纳评估,然后介绍了我们的工作环境,以此作为理解差异和扩大对话的基础。我们在英国、澳大利亚和马来西亚工作,在国内和国际上开展过有关全纳评估的研究,主持过有关全纳评估的讲习班和研讨会。我们认识到,由于全球环境、机构文化、个人特点和教育经历的不同,我们的观点也会有所不同。(然后,我们根据我们各自的情况,概述了与全纳评估相关的挑战和机遇,同时也承认,我们对全纳评估研究的了解仅限于英文出版物,而且目前偏重于全球北方的出版物。在最后一部分,我们提出了倡导全纳的建议,首先侧重于评估设计,然后是组织集体行动的更广泛的考虑因素。我们的文章是不折不扣的实用性文章;刻意偏离理论文章的目的是希望阅读本文的任何人都能在自己的环境中做出哪怕是一个小小的改变,朝着更具全纳性的评估实践迈进。
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 Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
期刊最新文献
The need for critical and intersectional approaches to equity efforts in postgraduate medical education: A critical narrative review. When I say … neurodiversity paradigm. The transition to clerkshIps bootcamp: Innovative and flexible curriculum strategies post COVID-19 adaptation. Issue Information Empowering dental students' collaborative learning using peer assessment.
×
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