The Noteworthiness of Constructive Feedback and Student-Reflection to Approach Competence-Based Curriculum: An Explanatory Study of Medical Schools in Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.87750

Achmad Yarziq Mubarak Salis Salamy(1*), Mora Claramita(2), Yoyo Suhoyo(3)

(1) Faculty of Medicine Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Surabaya
(2) Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta
(3) Department of Medical Education and Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: Competence-based medical curriculum requires the acquisition of complex abilities that should be assessed longitudinally. The programmatic assessment model can facilitate a complete picture of students' competencies. The five components of learning, assessment, supporting activities; and intermediate to final evaluation provide holistic learning experiences for students and mentors to participate in the learning strategies. We aim to assess the application of longitudinal components of the programmatic assessment model to the current assessment system based on student perceptions.

Methods: This study used a cross-sectional mixed-method sequential explanatory design at six medical schools in Surabaya, East Java of Indonesia. The instrument was 43 items of validated questionnaire based on the five components and the focus group discussions. 

Results: This study obtained 442 respondents. The results reflected high reliability with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.969, and the validity test showed R arithmetic > R table (R table 0.128 for n 442). The current assessment system was perceived as ‘good’, with 3.9 on 5 points Likert scale; but the ‘supporting activities’ where reflection and feedback lied; was at the lowest score although insignificant. Students underlined the lack of formative aspects (reflection, feedback, mentorship, and middle evaluation).

Conclusion: The overall assessment system is well-perceived by the students; however, the 'supportive activities' component has been minimally applied. So the 'assessment of previous learning' is still prominent in the current assessment system.


Keywords


programmatic assessment, supporting activity, constructive feedback, student-reflection

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, Galbraith R, Hays R, Kent A, Perrott V, Roberts T. Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Medical Teacher 2011; 33:206-214.

  2. Epstein RM. Assessment in Medical Education. Medical Education 2007; 356:387-396.

  3. Schuwirt L, Vleuten C V D. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher 2011; 33:478-485.

  4. Sabey, A., & Harris, M. Training in hospitals: what do GP specialist trainees think of workplace-based assessment. Education Primary Care 2011;22: 90-99

  5. Vleuten CPM. A Programmatic Approach to Assessment. Medical Science Education 2016: 26: S9-S10.

  6. Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Govaerts MJB, Heeneman S. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Medical Teacher 2015:1-6.

  7. Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Tigelaar D, Baartman LKJ, Tartwijk JV. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Medical Teacher 2012; 34: 205-214.

  8. Vleuten CPM, Lindemann I, Schmidt L. Programmatic assessment: the process, rationale and evidence for modern evaluation approaches in medical education. Medical Education 2018; 209: 386-388.

  9. Nurhadi S, Massi K. The relationship of students admission process and academic achievement. The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education 2020: 1-6.

  10. Suhoyo Y, Schonrock-Adema J, Emilia O, Kuks JBM, Cohen-Schotanus J. Clinical workplace learning: perceived learning value of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture. BMC Med Educ 2018; 18(1): 79

  11. Mustika R, Nishigori H, Ronokusumo S, Scherpbier A. The odyssey of medical education in Indonesia. The Asia Pacific Scholar 2019: 4-8.

  12. Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes Medical Education 2005; 39: 309-317

  13. Suhoyo Y, Hell EAV, Kerdijk W, Emilia O, Schonrock-Adema J, Kuks JBM, Cohen-Schotanus J. Influence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning value of feedback in clerkship: does culture matter? BMC Medical Education 2017; 17: 69.

  14. Claramita M, Utarini A, Soebono H, Van Dalen J, Vleuten CPM. Doctor-patient communication in a Southeast Asian setting: the conflict between ideal and reality. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011; 16(1)

  15. Soemantri D, Nurokhmantri H, Qomariyah N, Claramita M. The practice of feedback in health professions education in a hierarchical and collectivistic culture: a scoping review. Medical Science Educator 2022; 32: 1219-1229

  16. Cresswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Sage Publication 2019.

  17. Adam AM. Sample size determination in survey research. Journal of Scientific Research & Reports 2020; 26: 90-97.

  18. Ainin DQ. Development of a self-evaluation instrument with programmatic assessment components for undergraduate Medical Students. European Journal of Educational Research 2023; 12(2): 649-662

  19. Mayers A. Introduction to statistics and SPSS in Psychology. Pearson Education Inc 2013.

  20. Shute V. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ 2008; 78: 153-189.

  21. Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, Hays R, Mackay FP, Roberts T, Swanson D. 2018 Consensus framework for good assessment. Medical Teacher 2018; 40: 1102-1109.

  22. Bok HGJ, Vleuten CPM, Jong LH. "Prevention is better than cure": A plea to emphasize the learning function of competence committees in programmatic assessment. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2021; 8: 638455.

  23. Sargeant J, Vleuten CPM, Metsemakers J. Reflection: A link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Health Science Education: Theory Practice 2009; 14: 399-410.

  24. Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Medical Teacher 2013; 35: e1561-e1572.

  25. Driessen E, Overeem K. Mentoring. In K. Walsh (Ed.), Oxford textbook of medical education 2013 (pp. 265-284). Oxford University Press.

  26. Heeneman S, Schut S, Donkers J, Vleuten CPM, Muijtjens A. Embedding the progress test in an assessment program designed according the principles of programmatic assessment. Medical Teacher 2016

  27. Jong LH, Bok HGJ, Schellekens LH, Kremer WDJ, Jonker FH, Vleuten CPM. Shaping the right conditions in programmatic assessment: how quality of narrative information affects the quality of high-stakes decision-making. BMC Medical Education 2022; 22: 409.

  28. Lockyer J, Carracio C, Chan M. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Medical Teacher 2017; 39: 609-616.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.87750

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 690 | views : 556

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Achmad Yarziq Mubarak Salis Salamy

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:

  

 JPKI Stats