Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to elucidate how the learning environment and the student-preceptor relationship influence student experiences of being assessed and receiving feedback on performance. Thus, we examined how long-term clinical clerkship placements influence students' experiences of and views about assessment and feedback. METHODS: We took a constructivist grounded approach, using authentic assessment and communities of practice as sensitising concepts. We recruited and interviewed 13 students studying in longitudinal integrated clerkships across two medical schools and six settings, using a semi-structured interview framework. We used an iterative coding process to code the data and arrive at a coding framework and themes. RESULTS: Students valued the unstructured assessment and informal feedback that arose from clinical supervision, and the sense of progress derived from their increasing responsibility for patients and acceptance into the health care community. Three themes emerged from the data. Firstly, students characterised their assessment and feedback as integrated, developmental and longitudinal. They reported authenticity in the monitoring and feedback that arose from the day-to-day delivery of patient care with their preceptors. Secondly, students described supportive and caring relationships and a sense of safety. These enabled them to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and to interpret critical feedback as supportive. Students developed similar relationships across the health care team. Thirdly, the long-term placement provided for multiple indicators of progress for students. Patient outcomes were perceived as representing direct feedback about students' development as doctors. Taking increasing responsibility for patients over time is an indicator to students of their increasing competence and contributes to the developing of a doctor identity. CONCLUSIONS: Clerkship students studying for extended periods in one environment with one preceptor perceive assessment and feedback as authentic because they are embedded in daily patient care, useful because they are developmental and longitudinal, and constructive because they occur in the context of a supportive learning environment and relationship.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle