美国实习前的补救、评分和报告做法是否公平?全国调查。

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2024.2366938
William H Eidtson, Abigail Konopasky, Justin Fong, Kerry E Schmitt, Lynn Foster-Johnson, Virginia T Lyons
{"title":"美国实习前的补救、评分和报告做法是否公平?全国调查。","authors":"William H Eidtson, Abigail Konopasky, Justin Fong, Kerry E Schmitt, Lynn Foster-Johnson, Virginia T Lyons","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2024.2366938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Phenomenon:</i></b> With the proliferation of pass/fail grading practices in the pre-clerkship phase of undergraduate medical education, questions arise about the transparency and variability of grading and grade reporting practices, raising issues of equity in assessment, particularly regarding residency matching. The purpose of this survey was to determine the remediation and academic performance reporting practices of United States (U.S.) allopathic medical schools in the pre-clerkship phase of their curricula. <b><i>Approach:</i></b> After an extensive literature search and feedback from curriculum deans and learning experts, we developed a survey that we sent in the Spring of 2022 to pre-clerkship curriculum officials at all 154 accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools. It addressed curriculum content and structure; pre-clerkship remediation (e.g., course retakes) and reporting (e.g., permanency of transcript notation) practices; documentation and reporting of nonacademic competencies; and participant opinions and recommendations regarding reporting, transparency, and equity. We generated descriptive statistics and did manifest coding of open-ended responses. <b><i>Findings:</i></b> We had a response rate of 40% (62/155), with over 71% indicating mainly organ systems-based curricula. Depending on the situation, there were a wide range of remediation approaches for single- and multiple-course failures, including tutoring or learning support, re-exams, and referrals to a promotion board. Professionalism concerns were a top priority to report to residency directors, with significant variability in respondent opinions and practices in reporting remedial activities. Respondents were concerned about equity, both in terms of flexible grading practices and transparency of reporting practices. <b><i>Insights:</i></b> The variability in reporting practices across schools, while allowing holistic and individualized approaches to academic support, also creates potential inequities. More work is needed to understand how different reporting practices across institutions may disadvantage marginalized and minoritized student groups at different points in their preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Pre-clerkship Remediation, Grading, and Reporting Practices Equitable in the U.S.? A National Survey.\",\"authors\":\"William H Eidtson, Abigail Konopasky, Justin Fong, Kerry E Schmitt, Lynn Foster-Johnson, Virginia T Lyons\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10401334.2024.2366938\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Phenomenon:</i></b> With the proliferation of pass/fail grading practices in the pre-clerkship phase of undergraduate medical education, questions arise about the transparency and variability of grading and grade reporting practices, raising issues of equity in assessment, particularly regarding residency matching. The purpose of this survey was to determine the remediation and academic performance reporting practices of United States (U.S.) allopathic medical schools in the pre-clerkship phase of their curricula. <b><i>Approach:</i></b> After an extensive literature search and feedback from curriculum deans and learning experts, we developed a survey that we sent in the Spring of 2022 to pre-clerkship curriculum officials at all 154 accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools. It addressed curriculum content and structure; pre-clerkship remediation (e.g., course retakes) and reporting (e.g., permanency of transcript notation) practices; documentation and reporting of nonacademic competencies; and participant opinions and recommendations regarding reporting, transparency, and equity. We generated descriptive statistics and did manifest coding of open-ended responses. <b><i>Findings:</i></b> We had a response rate of 40% (62/155), with over 71% indicating mainly organ systems-based curricula. Depending on the situation, there were a wide range of remediation approaches for single- and multiple-course failures, including tutoring or learning support, re-exams, and referrals to a promotion board. Professionalism concerns were a top priority to report to residency directors, with significant variability in respondent opinions and practices in reporting remedial activities. Respondents were concerned about equity, both in terms of flexible grading practices and transparency of reporting practices. <b><i>Insights:</i></b> The variability in reporting practices across schools, while allowing holistic and individualized approaches to academic support, also creates potential inequities. More work is needed to understand how different reporting practices across institutions may disadvantage marginalized and minoritized student groups at different points in their preparation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teaching and Learning in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teaching and Learning in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2024.2366938\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2024.2366938","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现象:随着本科医学教育实习前阶段及格/不及格评分方法的普及,人们对评分和成绩报告方法的透明度和可变性产生了疑问,从而引发了评估的公平性问题,尤其是在住院医生匹配方面。本次调查的目的是了解美国(U.S. )对抗疗法医学院在实习前课程阶段的补救和学业成绩报告实践。调查方法经过广泛的文献检索以及课程院长和学习专家的反馈,我们制定了一份调查问卷,并于 2022 年春季发送给所有 154 所经认证的美国对抗疗法医学院的实习前课程官员。调查内容包括课程内容和结构;实习前补救(如重修课程)和报告(如成绩单的永久记录)实践;非学术能力的记录和报告;以及参与者对报告、透明度和公平性的意见和建议。我们进行了描述性统计,并对开放式回答进行了显式编码。调查结果:我们的回复率为 40%(62/155),其中超过 71% 的人表示主要是基于器官系统的课程。针对单门课程和多门课程不及格的情况,有多种补救方法,包括辅导或学习支持、重新考试和提交晋升委员会。专业性问题是向住院实习主任报告的重中之重,在报告补救活动方面,受访者的意见和做法存在很大差异。受访者关注公平问题,包括灵活的评分方法和报告方法的透明度。启示各学校在报告做法上的差异,虽然允许采用全面和个性化的方法来提供学业支持,但也造成了潜在的不公平。我们还需要做更多的工作,以了解各院校不同的报告做法会如何在学生备考的不同阶段不利于边缘化和少数民族学生群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Are Pre-clerkship Remediation, Grading, and Reporting Practices Equitable in the U.S.? A National Survey.

Phenomenon: With the proliferation of pass/fail grading practices in the pre-clerkship phase of undergraduate medical education, questions arise about the transparency and variability of grading and grade reporting practices, raising issues of equity in assessment, particularly regarding residency matching. The purpose of this survey was to determine the remediation and academic performance reporting practices of United States (U.S.) allopathic medical schools in the pre-clerkship phase of their curricula. Approach: After an extensive literature search and feedback from curriculum deans and learning experts, we developed a survey that we sent in the Spring of 2022 to pre-clerkship curriculum officials at all 154 accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools. It addressed curriculum content and structure; pre-clerkship remediation (e.g., course retakes) and reporting (e.g., permanency of transcript notation) practices; documentation and reporting of nonacademic competencies; and participant opinions and recommendations regarding reporting, transparency, and equity. We generated descriptive statistics and did manifest coding of open-ended responses. Findings: We had a response rate of 40% (62/155), with over 71% indicating mainly organ systems-based curricula. Depending on the situation, there were a wide range of remediation approaches for single- and multiple-course failures, including tutoring or learning support, re-exams, and referrals to a promotion board. Professionalism concerns were a top priority to report to residency directors, with significant variability in respondent opinions and practices in reporting remedial activities. Respondents were concerned about equity, both in terms of flexible grading practices and transparency of reporting practices. Insights: The variability in reporting practices across schools, while allowing holistic and individualized approaches to academic support, also creates potential inequities. More work is needed to understand how different reporting practices across institutions may disadvantage marginalized and minoritized student groups at different points in their preparation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
期刊最新文献
Policy analysis: an underutilised methodology in health professions education research. Psychometric properties of the Ethiopian national licensing exam in medicine: an analysis of multiple-choice questions using classical test theory. Disability Education for Health Personnel and Impact on Health Outcomes for Persons with Autism: A Scoping Review. Examining Scientific Inquiry of Queerness in Medical Education: A Queer Reading. "I have established this support network": How Chosen Kin Support Women Medical Students During their First Two Years in Medical School.
×
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