A philosophical history of programmatic assessment: tracing shifting configurations

The Importance of Professional Development in a Programmatic Assessment System: One Medical School’s Experience

“…Descriptions of programmatic assessment consistently emphasize the need for faculty and student development [24,29,30]; yet, few published implementations address this important topic. Those that do note the challenges of moving from theory to practice, especially if an institution underestimates the importance of ongoing professional development for key stakeholders [31,32].…”

What do student experiences of programmatic assessment tell us about scoring programmatic assessment data?

“…Is this a hangover from years of traditional assessment experiences? Or perhaps it's just students being fearful of committee bias (e.g., being overly influenced by one bad memory or “red flag” in a dataset when discussing a student) 8 . These concerns are legitimate, especially considering the diversity of approaches for data accumulation and review informing progress decisions, and the often implicit and unexamined philosophical presuppositions driving committee decision‐making 9 …”

The burden of proof

“…One of the metaphors often used is that programmatic assessment thereby allows 'to obtain a whole picture' of students' competence. 1,58 In practice, programmes in many contexts need to comply to a national assessment or accreditation framework containing a set of predetermined outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes. Although the top-down determination of assessment objectives might be helpful 'to obtain a whole picture' of students' competence, to ensure certain desired outcomes, and to effectively design coherent programmes, it risks constraining learner agency and could limit the opportunity for them 'to construct a whole picture' of their performance level.…”

“…As I set out to explore how and why programmatic assessment and assessment stakes influence assessment perceptions, a constructivist grounded theory approach made an appropriate fit, which is also rooted in an interpretive tradition. 58,62,63 Essentially, constructivist grounded theory is a direct methodological descendent of the pragmatist tradition and focusses on dynamic relationships between meaning and action. 61 A constructivist grounded theory approach provides a way of showing and theorising how meaning and action influence each other.…”

“…The methodological choices in this work stem from qualitative research approaches which are particularly appropriate for such an explorative aim. 58,59 Although there are some differences and adaptations, I have used research methodologies originating from an interpretivist paradigm which hold similar stances and assumptions as those in which the questions and aim of this research are positioned. I embrace the idea and value of multiple realities and view myself, as well as the participants, as social beings who construct assessment according to their own values, beliefs and experiences.…”