Where are we with assessment and where are we going?

Where are we with assessment and where are we going?
Cees van der Vleuten University of Maastricht This presentation can be found at:

Overview of presentation
Where is education going? Where are we with assessment? Where are we going with assessment? Conclusions

Where is education going?
School-based learning Discipline-based curricula (Systems) integrated curricula Problem-based curricula Outcome/competency-based curricula

Underlying educational principles: Continuous learning of, or practicing with, authentic tasks (in steps of complexity; with constant attention to transfer) Integration of cognitive, behavioural and affective skills Active, self-directed learning & in collaboration with others Fostering domain-independent skills, competencies (e.g. team work, communication, presentation, science orientation, leadership professional behaviour….).

Constructivism Cognitive psychology Underlying educational principles: Continuous learning of, or practicing with, authentic tasks (in steps of complexity; with constant attention to transfer) Integration of cognitive, behavioural and affective skills Active, self-directed learning & in collaboration with others Fostering domain-independent skills, competencies (e.g. team work, communication, presentation, science orientation, leadership professional behaviour….). Collaborative learning theory Cognitive load theory Empirical evidence

Work-based learning Practice, practice, practice…. Optimising learning by: More reflective practice More structure in the haphazard learning process More feedback, monitoring, guiding, reflection, role modelling Fostering of learning culture or climate Fostering of domain-independent skills (professional behaviour, team skills, etc).

Work-based learning Practice, practice, practice…. Optimising learning by: More reflective practice More structure in the haphazard learning process More feedback, monitoring, guiding, reflection, role modelling Fostering of learning culture or climate Fostering of domain-independent skills (professional behaviour, team skills, etc). Deliberate practice Emerging work-based learning theories Empirical evidence

Educational reform is on the agenda everywhere Education is professionalizing rapidly A lot of ‘educational technology’ is available How about assessment?

Expanding our toolbox…..
Established technology of efficient written or computer-based high fidelity simulations (MCQ, Key Feature, Script Concordance Test, MEQs….) Does Shows how Knows how Knows how Knows Knows

Established technology of structured high fidelity in vitro simulations requiring behavioural performance (OSCE, SP-based testing, OSPE….) Does Shows how Shows how Knows how Knows how Knows

Emerging technology of appraising in vivo performance (Work-based assessment: Clinical work-sampling, Mini-CEX, Portfolio, practice visits, case orals….) Does Does Shows how Shows how Knows how Knows

Emerging technology of appraising in vivo performance (self-, peer, co-assessment, portfolio, multisource feedback, learning process evaluations……) “Domain independent” skills Does Shows how Knows how Knows “Domain specific” skills

What have we learned? Competence is specific, not generic

Reliability as a function of testing time
Case- Based Short Essay2 0.68 0.73 0.84 0.82 Mini CEX6 0.73 0.84 0.92 0.96 Practice Video Assess- ment7 0.62 0.76 0.93 In- cognito SPs8 0.61 0.76 0.92 0.93 Testing Time in Hours 1 2 4 8 MCQ1 0.62 0.76 0.93 PMP1 0.36 0.53 0.69 0.82 Oral Exam3 0.50 0.69 0.82 0.90 Long Case4 0.60 0.75 0.86 0.90 OSCE5 0.47 0.64 0.78 0.88 1Norcini et al., 1985 2Stalenhoef-Halling et al., 1990 3Swanson, 1987 4Wass et al., 2001 5Petrusa, 2002 6Norcini et al., 1999 7Ram et al., 1999 8Gorter, 2002

What have we learned? Competence is specific, not generic
Any single point measure is flawed One measure is no measure No method is inherently superior Subjectivity/unstandardised conditions is not something to be afraid of.

One method can’t do it all

Magic expectations……. Direct observation methods, Portfolio Does Does
Shows how Shows how Shows how OSCEs Shows how Knows how Knows how Key features (short cases) Knows how Knows Knows Knows

One method can’t do it all One measure is no measure We need a mixture of methods to cover the entire pyramid We can choose from a rich toolbox!

One method can’t do it all Assessment drives learning

Assessment and learning
“The in-training assessment programme was perceived to be of benefit in making goals and objectives clear and in structuring training and learning. In addition, and not surprisingly, this study demonstrated that assessment fosters teaching and learning.….” (Govaerts et al, 2004, p. 774)

“Feedback generally inconsistent with and lower than self-perceptions elicited negative emotions. They were often strong, pervasive and long-lasting….” (Sargeant et al., under editorial review)

“You just try and cram - try and get as many of those facts into your head just that you can pass the exam and it involves… sadly it involves very little understanding because when they come to the test, when they come to the exam, they’re not testing your understanding of the concept. They test whether you can recall ten facts in this way? ” (Student quote from Cilliers et al., in preparation)

The continuous struggle
Curriculum Assessment Content Format Programming/ scheduling Regulations Standards Examiners… Learner

What do we know? Competence is specific, not generic
One method can’t do it all Assessment drives learning Verify the consequences Use the effect strategically Educational reforms are as good as the assessment allows it to be.

My assumptions Innovation in education programmes can only be as successful as the assessment programme is Assessment should reinforce the direction of education that we are going Future directions should use our existing evidence on what matters in assessment.

The Big Challenge Established assessment technologies have been developed in the conventional psychometric tradition of standardisation, objectification & structuring Emerging technologies are in vivo and by nature less standardized, unstructured, noisy, heterogeneous, subjective Finding an assessment answer beyond the classic psychometric solutions is The Big Challenge for the future.

Design requirements future assessment
Dealing with real-life: In vivo assessment cannot and should not be (fully) standardized, structured and objectified Includes quantitative AND qualitative information Professional and expert judgement play a central role.

Dealing with learning: All assessment should be meaningful to learning, thus information rich Assessment should be connected to learning (framework of the curriculum and the assessment are identical) Assessment is ‘embedded’ in learning (equals the ‘in vivo of educational practice’ and adds significantly to the complexity).

Dealing with sampling: Assessment is programmatic Comprehensive, includes domain-specific and domain independent skills Combines sampling across many information sources, methods, examiners/judges/ occasions….. Is planned, coordinated, implemented, evaluated, revised (just like a curriculum design).

Challenges we face Dealing with real life:
How to use professional judgement? Do we understand judgment? How to elicit, structure and record qualitative information? How to use (flexible) standards? What strategies for sampling should we use? When is enough enough? How to demonstrate rigour? What (psychometric, statistical, qualitative) models are appropriate?

Challenges we face Dealing with learning:
What are methodologies for embedding assessment (e.g. Wilson & Sloane, 2000)? How to deal with the confounding of the teaching and assessor role? How to combine formative and summative assessment? How to involve stakeholders? How to educate stakeholders?

Challenges we face Dealing with sampling at the programme level:
What strategies are useful in designing a sampling plan or structure of an assessment programme? How to combine qualitative and quantitative information? How to use professional judgement in decision making on aggregated information? How to longitudinally monitor competence development? What are (new) strategies for demonstrating rigour in decision making? What formal models are helpful?

Contrasting views in approach
Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Assessment separate from learning Assessment as part of learning Method-centred Programme-centred (based on overarching cohesive structure) Context free Context matters (dynamic relation between an ability, a task and a context in which the task occurs - Epstein & Hundert, 2002)

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Separation of formative and summative assessment Combined formative and summative assessment Traits (inferred dispositions) States (directly meaningful entities; situational) ‘Hard’ competencies ‘Hard’ & ‘soft’ competencies

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Standardized and structured Real life circumstances Decision driven (pass/fail) Feedback driven (what needs improvement) Reductionistic (ticking boxes, scoring, grading, qualifying) Information rich (including narrative, descriptive, qualitative information) Fixed standards Flexible standards

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Ownership lies with external administrative bodies Ownership lies with teachers and learners (within a master plan) Analytical scoring; restricted human judgement Holistic appraisal; relying on professional judgement (both at the individual situation level as well at the programme level)

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Point assessment Longitudinal, developmental, continuous Credit points in a database Thorough documentation of progress One method on skill Multimodal

Contrasting approaches in research
Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Rigour defined in direct (statistical) outcome measures Rigour defined by evidence on thrustworthiness or credibility on the assessment process Reliability/validity Saturation of information, triangulation Benchmarking Accounting

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Psychometric Edumetric/ educational Evidence to predict future performance Evidence of being exposed to the right training Controlled experimentation Naturalistic experimentation

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Instrument improvement Instrument utility = reliability + validity System or programme improvement Instrument utility = depends on place and function in the assessment programme

Programmatic embedded assessment Conventional assessment Confused

Conclusions Assessment has made tremendous progress
Good assessment practices based on established technology are implemented widely Sharing of high quality assessment material has begun (IDEAL, UMAP, Dutch consortium)

Conclusions We are facing a major next step in assessment
We have to deal with the real world The real world is not only the work-based setting but also the educational training setting

Conclusions To make that step: We need to think out of the box
New methodologies to support assessment strategies New methodologies to validate the assessment

Conclusions There is a lot at stake: Educational reform depends on it
I’m here because I couldn’t change the assessment

Conclusions Let’s join forces to make that next step!

This presentation can be found on:

Where are we with assessment and where are we going?

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Where are we with assessment and where are we going?"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Where are we with assessment and where are we going?

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Where are we with assessment and where are we going?"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback