Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, near-peer and faculty assessment of a clinical history taking task in Australia.

Fitzgerald, K; Vaughan, B

Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, near-peer and faculty assessment of a clinical history taking task in Australia.

Fitzgerald, K Vaughan, B

Permalink

Publisher:: Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: J Educ Eval Health Prof, 2018, 15, pp. 22
Issue Date:: 2018

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (348.99 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Fitzgerald, K
dc.contributor.author	Vaughan, B https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8623-4558
dc.date.accessioned	2022-09-13T07:15:41Z
dc.date.available	2018-09-18
dc.date.available	2022-09-13T07:15:41Z
dc.date.issued	2018
dc.identifier.citation	J Educ Eval Health Prof, 2018, 15, pp. 22
dc.identifier.issn	1975-5937
dc.identifier.issn	1975-5937
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161790
dc.description.abstract	PURPOSE: Peer assessment may offer a framework for expected skill development and feedback appropriate to the learner level. Near-peer (NP) assessment may elevate expectations and motivate student learning. Feedback from peers and NPs may offer a sustainable approach to enhancing student assessment feedback. The aim was to analyze the relationship and attitudes of self, peer, NP and faculty marking of an assessment. METHODS: A cross sectional study design was used. Year 2 osteopathy students (n = 86) were invited to self and peer assess a clinical history-taking and communication skills assessment. Near-peers and faculty also marked the assessment. Year 2 students also completed a peer/NP attitudes questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and Spearman's rho were used to evaluate the relationships across marker groups. RESULTS: Year 2 students (n=9), near-peers (n=3) and faculty (n=5) were recruited. Correlations between self and peer (r=0.38) and self and faculty (r = 0.43) marks were moderate. A weak correlation was observed between self and near-peer marks (r = 0.25). Perceptions of peer and near-peer marking were varied with over half of the cohort suggesting peer or NP assessments marks should not contribute to a grade. CONCLUSION: Framing peer and NP assessment as another feedback source may offer a sustainable method for enhancing feedback without overloading faculty resources. Multiple sources of feedback may assist in developing assessment literacy and calibrate a students' self-assessment capability. The small number of students recruited may indicate some acceptability of peer and NP assessment however further work is required to increase its acceptability.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
dc.relation.ispartof	J Educ Eval Health Prof
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.22
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.mesh	Adolescent
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Communication
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Education, Medical, Undergraduate
dc.subject.mesh	Educational Measurement
dc.subject.mesh	Faculty, Medical
dc.subject.mesh	Feedback
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Learning
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Medical History Taking
dc.subject.mesh	Osteopathic Medicine
dc.subject.mesh	Peer Group
dc.subject.mesh	Self-Assessment
dc.subject.mesh	Students, Health Occupations
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Medical History Taking
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Communication
dc.subject.mesh	Peer Group
dc.subject.mesh	Learning
dc.subject.mesh	Osteopathic Medicine
dc.subject.mesh	Education, Medical, Undergraduate
dc.subject.mesh	Educational Measurement
dc.subject.mesh	Faculty, Medical
dc.subject.mesh	Students, Health Occupations
dc.subject.mesh	Feedback
dc.subject.mesh	Adolescent
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Self-Assessment
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title	Learning through multiple lenses: analysis of self, peer, near-peer and faculty assessment of a clinical history taking task in Australia.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	15
utslib.location.activity	Korea (South)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Public Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-09-13T07:15:39Z
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	15

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Peer assessment may offer a framework for expected skill development and feedback appropriate to the learner level. Near-peer (NP) assessment may elevate expectations and motivate student learning. Feedback from peers and NPs may offer a sustainable approach to enhancing student assessment feedback. The aim was to analyze the relationship and attitudes of self, peer, NP and faculty marking of an assessment. METHODS: A cross sectional study design was used. Year 2 osteopathy students (n = 86) were invited to self and peer assess a clinical history-taking and communication skills assessment. Near-peers and faculty also marked the assessment. Year 2 students also completed a peer/NP attitudes questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and Spearman's rho were used to evaluate the relationships across marker groups. RESULTS: Year 2 students (n=9), near-peers (n=3) and faculty (n=5) were recruited. Correlations between self and peer (r=0.38) and self and faculty (r = 0.43) marks were moderate. A weak correlation was observed between self and near-peer marks (r = 0.25). Perceptions of peer and near-peer marking were varied with over half of the cohort suggesting peer or NP assessments marks should not contribute to a grade. CONCLUSION: Framing peer and NP assessment as another feedback source may offer a sustainable method for enhancing feedback without overloading faculty resources. Multiple sources of feedback may assist in developing assessment literacy and calibrate a students' self-assessment capability. The small number of students recruited may indicate some acceptability of peer and NP assessment however further work is required to increase its acceptability.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161790