| Autor: |
Bullock JL; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA., Seligman L; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA., Lai CJ; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA., O'Sullivan PS; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.; Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA., Hauer KE; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
Problem Clerkship grades contribute to a summative assessment culture in clerkships and can therefore interfere with students' learning. For example, by focusing on summative, tiered clerkship grades, students often discount accompanying feedback that could inform future learning. This case report seeks to explore whether an assessment system intervention which eliminated tiered grades and enhanced feedback was associated with changes in student perceptions of clerkship assessment and perceptions of the clinical learning environment. Intervention: In January 2019, our institution eliminated tiered clerkship grading (honors/pass/fail) for medical students during the core clerkship year and implemented pass/fail clerkship grading along with required twice weekly, work-based assessments for formative feedback. Context: In this single institution, cross-sectional survey study, we collected data from fourth-year medical students one year after an assessment system intervention. The intervention entailed changing from honors/pass/fail to pass/fail grading in all eight core clerkships and implementing an electronic system to record twice-weekly real-time formative work-based assessments. The survey queried student perceptions on the fairness and accuracy of grading and the clinical learning environment-including whether clerkships were mastery- or performance-oriented. We compared responses from students one year after the assessment intervention to those from the class one year before the intervention. Comparisons were made using unpaired, two-tailed t-tests or chi-squared tests as appropriate with Cohen's d for effect size estimation for score differences. Content analysis was used to analyze responses from two open-ended questions about feedback and grading. Impact: Survey response rates were similar before and after intervention (76% (127/168) vs. 72% (118/163), respectively) with no between-group differences in demographics. The after-intervention group showed statistically significant increases in the following factors: "grades are transparent and fair" (Cohen's d = 0.80), "students receive useful feedback" (d = 0.51), and "resident evaluation procedures are fair" (d = 0.40). After-intervention respondents perceived the clerkship learning environment to be more mastery-oriented (d = 0.52), less performance approach-oriented (d = 0.63), and less performance avoid-oriented (d = 0.49). There were no statistical differences in the factors "attending evaluation procedures are fair," "evaluations are accurate," "evaluations are biased," or "perception of stereotype threat." Open-ended questions revealed student recommendations to improve clerkship summary narratives, burden of work-based assessment, and in-person feedback. Lessons Learned: After an assessment system change to pass/fail grading with work-based assessments, we observed moderate to large improvements in student perceptions of clerkship grading and the mastery orientation of the learning environment. Our intervention did not improve perceptions around bias in assessment in clerkships. Other medical schools may consider similar interventions to begin to address student concerns with clerkship assessment and promote a more adaptive learning environment. |
