PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10336758

Evaluating assessment: the missing link?

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Methods chosen for assessment and the manner in which they are applied are so intimately associated with how individuals learn that developing appropriate assessment strategies is a key part of effective curriculum development. THE ASSESSMENT CYCLE: We describe a four-stage assessment cycle identifying important steps in assessment. Each step is described in detail, stressing its key aspects, including: the need for clear assessment policy and strategy, the importance of assessment blueprints in planning assessment, the need for effective feedback when presenting results, and the essential, but often overlooked, need to evaluate the assessment process itself. EVALUATING ASSESSMENT: This final evaluation stage is the most important part of the assessment cycle and can be divided into four levels. The first level includes evaluating each question in the assessment, the second level is concerned with establishing validity and reliability, the third level centres on the assessment process and review of assessments by external examiners and the fourth level involves evaluation over several assessments. RELATING ASSESSMENT TO THE CURRICULUM: This long-term evaluation should examine whether existing assessments are congruent with the curriculum and relate to all facets of the students' learning experiences. This is particularly important in a curriculum where the learning outcomes of student-centred learning are emphasized. Changes in the assessment of postgraduate trainees and increasing emphasis on peer review of clinicians will raise the profile of these outcomes in undergraduate education.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S L Fowell, L J Southgate, J G Bligh. 1999. Evaluating assessment: the missing link?. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00405.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Myco-Ed: Mycological curriculum for education and discovery.

Fungi are important and hyperdiverse organisms, yet chronically understudied. Most fungal clades have no reference genomes, impeding our understanding of their ecosystem functions and use as solutions in health and biotechnology. Also, opportunities for training in fungal biology and genomics are lacking, creating a bottleneck that hinders the recruitment and cultivation of a talented future mycological workforce. To address these issues, we developed Myco-Ed, an educational program offering training and scientific contributions through genome sequencing and analysis. Myco-Ed empowers students to pursue careers in fungal biology while improving fungal resources. Myco-Ed has been piloted at 12 institutions (15 classrooms) ranging from online e-Campuses to R1 universities, resulting in hundreds of fungal observations and many new high-quality reference genomes.

Curriculum↗

Toward a national consensus: teaching radiobiology to radiation oncology residents.

PURPOSE: The ASTRO Joint Working Group on Radiobiology Teaching, a committee composed of members having affiliations with several national radiation oncology and biology-related societies and organizations, commissioned a survey designed to address issues of manpower, curriculum standardization, and instructor feedback as they relate to resident training in radiation biology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation biology instructors at U.S. radiation oncology training programs were identified and asked to respond to a comprehensive electronic questionnaire dealing with instructor educational background, radiation biology course content, and sources of feedback with respect to curriculum planning and resident performance on standardized radiation biology examinations. RESULTS: Eighty-five radiation biology instructors were identified, representing 73 radiation oncology residency training programs. A total of 52 analyzable responses to the questionnaire were received, corresponding to a response rate of 61.2%. CONCLUSION: There is a decreasing supply of instructors qualified to teach classic, and to some extent, clinical, radiobiology to radiation oncology residents. Additionally, those instructors with classic training in radiobiology are less likely to be comfortable teaching cancer molecular biology or other topics in cancer biology. Thus, a gap exists in teaching the whole complement of cancer and radiobiology curricula, particularly in those programs in which the sole responsibility for teaching falls to one faculty member (50% of training programs are in this category). On average, the percentage of total teaching time devoted to classic radiobiology (50%), clinical radiobiology (30%), and molecular and cancer biology (20%) is appropriate, relative to the current makeup of the board examination. Nevertheless large variability exists between training programs with respect to the total number of contact hours per complete radiobiology course (ranging from approximately 10 to >50 h). A number of lecture topics, particularly in clinical radiobiology, are covered by fewer than 60% of training programs. A sizeable minority of radiation biology instructors are dissatisfied with the feedback they receive with respect to both course content and the performance of their residents on standardized radiobiology examinations administered by the American College of Radiology and/or the American Board of Radiology.

Curriculum↗