Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background & Purpose TLHP is a medical education course at Bristol University. As with many such courses we have predominantly written assignments where students are required to demonstrate reflecting learning and critical engagement with literature. Mindful that our students are required to join an unfamiliar discourse (in education) we have moved to an innovative formative assessment strategy using patchwork texts, as proposed by the HEA and educational literature. These short pieces of writing are generated by students before and during Certificate units encouraging reflective writing and self & peer assessment. Furthermore, they are mapped to the Professional Standards Framework of the HEA, thereby demonstrating achievement through the course of the HEA fellowship. Methodology The evaluation of this initiative is ongoing. All 69 students entering the Certificate in 2017/18 have written at least two patchworks, with a further 31 writing 2 patchworks for their second unit. Ongoing analysis is looking at the development of a depth of reflective analysis as measured against Koole et al’s operational indicators of the reflection process, which is now embedded in our marking criteria. Furthermore, student and teacher evaluations of the scheme will be collected at the end of the academic year and thematically analysed to show impact on teaching and learning. Results Early analysis of the patches show students reflecting on their own learning and teaching, and in particular identifying areas that they want to improve. One patchwork asks for a definition of learning and although the ‘acquisition’ metaphor of learning is prevalent, there is also discussion of what it means to ‘know’ something. In addition, teachers report they are able to use the patches (which are produced before teaching sessions) to drive early discussions on teaching and learning. In the first teaching assessment a small number of students have quoted from their patchwork texts as part of the reflective assignment (6%), which we are now encouraging in later units. A fuller description of the patchwork texts strategy will be shared at the conference. In addition, further content analysis of the patches and the student and staff evaluations will be presented. Discussion & Conclusions Students are already demonstrating progression in reflective writing. The final unit of the Certificate will also incorporate peer assessment and feedback into the process. We expect the use of patchwork texts as a formative assessment strategy to strengthen our students’ confident use of educational discourse and to find their own ‘educational voice’ more quickly and confidently than in previous years. References Winter, 2010, Race, 1995. Brown, 1994. Prosser, 1999. Mabbett, 2011. Brockbank and McGill, 1998 Koole et al (2011) Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review. BMC Medical Education 2011, 11:104 Wegner, E. & Nückles, M. (2015) Knowledge acquisition or participation in communities of practice? Academics’ metaphors of teaching and learning at the university. Studies In Higher Education 40: 4
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,114 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,009 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».