Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures

Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Harrison, Christopher J. [verfasserIn] Könings, Karen D. [verfasserIn] Dannefer, Elaine F. [verfasserIn] Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. [verfasserIn] Wass, Valerie [verfasserIn] van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	Feedback Summative assessment Programmatic assessment

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Perspectives on medical education - Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012, 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:5 ; year:2016 ; number:5 ; day:20 ; month:09 ; pages:276-284

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x

Katalog-ID:	SPR03268665X

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR03268665X
003	DE-627
005	20230520003859.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR03268665X
035			\|a (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q ASE
100	1		\|a Harrison, Christopher J. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.
650		4	\|a Feedback \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Summative assessment \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Programmatic assessment \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Könings, Karen D. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Dannefer, Elaine F. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Wass, Valerie \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Perspectives on medical education \|d Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012 \|g 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 \|w (DE-627)719410169 \|w (DE-600)2670231-9 \|x 2212-277X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:5 \|g year:2016 \|g number:5 \|g day:20 \|g month:09 \|g pages:276-284
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 5 \|j 2016 \|e 5 \|b 20 \|c 09 \|h 276-284

Indexfelder

author_variant	c j h cj cjh k d k kd kdk e f d ef efd l w t s lwt lwts v w vw d v c p m v dvcpm dvcpmv
matchkey_str	article:2212277X:2016----::atrifunigtdnseetvttfraieedakmrigrm
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x doi (DE-627)SPR03268665X (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Harrison, Christopher J. verfasserin aut Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback. Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Summative assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Programmatic assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Könings, Karen D. verfasserin aut Dannefer, Elaine F. verfasserin aut Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. verfasserin aut Wass, Valerie verfasserin aut van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 (DE-627)719410169 (DE-600)2670231-9 2212-277X nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 5 20 09 276-284
spelling	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x doi (DE-627)SPR03268665X (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Harrison, Christopher J. verfasserin aut Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback. Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Summative assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Programmatic assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Könings, Karen D. verfasserin aut Dannefer, Elaine F. verfasserin aut Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. verfasserin aut Wass, Valerie verfasserin aut van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 (DE-627)719410169 (DE-600)2670231-9 2212-277X nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 5 20 09 276-284
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x doi (DE-627)SPR03268665X (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Harrison, Christopher J. verfasserin aut Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback. Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Summative assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Programmatic assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Könings, Karen D. verfasserin aut Dannefer, Elaine F. verfasserin aut Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. verfasserin aut Wass, Valerie verfasserin aut van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 (DE-627)719410169 (DE-600)2670231-9 2212-277X nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 5 20 09 276-284
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x doi (DE-627)SPR03268665X (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Harrison, Christopher J. verfasserin aut Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback. Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Summative assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Programmatic assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Könings, Karen D. verfasserin aut Dannefer, Elaine F. verfasserin aut Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. verfasserin aut Wass, Valerie verfasserin aut van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 (DE-627)719410169 (DE-600)2670231-9 2212-277X nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 5 20 09 276-284
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x doi (DE-627)SPR03268665X (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Harrison, Christopher J. verfasserin aut Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback. Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Summative assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Programmatic assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Könings, Karen D. verfasserin aut Dannefer, Elaine F. verfasserin aut Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. verfasserin aut Wass, Valerie verfasserin aut van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 (DE-627)719410169 (DE-600)2670231-9 2212-277X nnns volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2016 5 20 09 276-284
language	English
source	Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284
sourceStr	Enthalten in Perspectives on medical education 5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284 volume:5 year:2016 number:5 day:20 month:09 pages:276-284
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Feedback Summative assessment Programmatic assessment
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Perspectives on medical education
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Harrison, Christopher J. @@aut@@ Könings, Karen D. @@aut@@ Dannefer, Elaine F. @@aut@@ Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. @@aut@@ Wass, Valerie @@aut@@ van der Vleuten, Cees P. M. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-09-20T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	719410169
dewey-sort	3610
id	SPR03268665X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR03268665X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003859.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR03268665X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Harrison, Christopher J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Feedback</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Summative assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Programmatic assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Könings, Karen D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dannefer, Elaine F.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schuwirth, Lambert W. T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wass, Valerie</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van der Vleuten, Cees P. M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Perspectives on medical education</subfield><subfield code="d">Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)719410169</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2670231-9</subfield><subfield code="x">2212-277X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:20</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:276-284</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">5</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">20</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield><subfield code="h">276-284</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Harrison, Christopher J.
spellingShingle	Harrison, Christopher J. ddc 610 misc Feedback misc Summative assessment misc Programmatic assessment Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
authorStr	Harrison, Christopher J.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)719410169
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2212-277X
topic_title	610 ASE Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Summative assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Programmatic assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 610 misc Feedback misc Summative assessment misc Programmatic assessment
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 misc Feedback misc Summative assessment misc Programmatic assessment
topic_browse	ddc 610 misc Feedback misc Summative assessment misc Programmatic assessment
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Perspectives on medical education
hierarchy_parent_id	719410169
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	Perspectives on medical education
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)719410169 (DE-600)2670231-9
title	Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR03268665X (SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e
title_full	Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
author_sort	Harrison, Christopher J.
journal	Perspectives on medical education
journalStr	Perspectives on medical education
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	276
author_browse	Harrison, Christopher J. Könings, Karen D. Dannefer, Elaine F. Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. Wass, Valerie van der Vleuten, Cees P. M.
container_volume	5
class	610 ASE
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Harrison, Christopher J.
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
title_auth	Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
abstract	Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.
abstractGer	Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.
abstract_unstemmed	Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	5
title_short	Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x
remote_bool	true
author2	Könings, Karen D. Dannefer, Elaine F. Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. Wass, Valerie van der Vleuten, Cees P. M.
author2Str	Könings, Karen D. Dannefer, Elaine F. Schuwirth, Lambert W. T. Wass, Valerie van der Vleuten, Cees P. M.
ppnlink	719410169
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x
up_date	2024-07-03T14:11:33.632Z
_version_	1803567385682116609
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR03268665X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003859.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR03268665X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40037-016-0297-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Harrison, Christopher J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction Feedback after assessment is essential to support the development of optimal performance, but often fails to reach its potential. Although different assessment cultures have been proposed, the impact of these cultures on students’ receptivity to feedback is unclear. This study aimed to explore factors which aid or hinder receptivity to feedback. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted six focus groups in three medical schools, in three separate countries, with different institutional approaches to assessment, ranging from a traditional summative assessment structure to a fully implemented programmatic assessment system. The authors analyzed data iteratively, then identified and clarified key themes. Results Helpful and counterproductive elements were identified within each school’s assessment system. Four principal themes emerged. Receptivity to feedback was enhanced by assessment cultures which promoted students’ agency, by the provision of authentic and relevant assessment, and by appropriate scaffolding to aid the interpretation of feedback. Provision of grades and comparative ranking provided a helpful external reference but appeared to hinder the promotion of excellence. Conclusions This study has identified important factors emerging from different assessment cultures which, if addressed by programme designers, could enhance the learning potential of feedback following assessments. Students should be enabled to have greater control over assessment and feedback processes, which should be as authentic as possible. Effective long-term mentoring facilitates this process. The trend of curriculum change towards constructivism should now be mirrored in the assessment processes in order to enhance receptivity to feedback.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Feedback</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Summative assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Programmatic assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Könings, Karen D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dannefer, Elaine F.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schuwirth, Lambert W. T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wass, Valerie</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van der Vleuten, Cees P. M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Perspectives on medical education</subfield><subfield code="d">Houten : Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">5(2016), 5 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 276-284</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)719410169</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2670231-9</subfield><subfield code="x">2212-277X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:20</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:276-284</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">5</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">20</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield><subfield code="h">276-284</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4017096

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?