Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393668›Full record

ArticleMedical education2022

Student perspectives on programmatic assessment in a large medical programme: A critical realist analysis.

Chris Roberts, Priya Khanna, Jane Bleasel, Stuart Lane, Annette Burgess, Kellie Charles, Rosa Howard, Deborah O'Mara, Inam Haq, Timothy Rutzou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Evidence-informed propositions for a whole-of-program assessment approach.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Chris RobertsFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0001-8613-682X
Priya KhannaFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0002-8441-2322
Jane BleaselFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.
Stuart LaneFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0001-8650-5509
Annette BurgessFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0001-9617-3819
Kellie CharlesFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.
Rosa HowardFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.
Deborah O'MaraFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0001-5131-4227
Inam HaqFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Timothy RutzouSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame, Chippendale, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFundamental challenges exist in researching complex changes of assessment practice from traditional objective-focused 'assessments of learning' towards programmatic 'assessment for learning'. The latter emphasise both the subjective and social in collective judgements of student progress. Our context was a purposively designed programmatic assessment system implemented in the first year of a new graduate entry curriculum. We applied critical realist perspectives to unpack the underlying causes (mechanisms) that explained student experiences of programmatic assessment, to optimise assessment practice for future iterations.

methodsData came from 14 in-depth focus groups (N = 112/261 students). We applied a critical realist lens drawn from Bhasker's three domains of reality (the actual, empirical and real) and Archer's concept of structure and agency to understand the student experience of programmatic assessment. Analysis involved induction (pattern identification), abduction (theoretical interpretation) and retroduction (causal explanation).

resultsAs a complex educational and social change, the assessment structures and culture systems within programmatic assessment provided conditions (constraints and enablements) and conditioning (acceptance or rejection of new 'non-traditional' assessment processes) for the actions of agents (students) to exercise their learning choices. The emergent underlying mechanism that most influenced students' experience of programmatic assessment was one of balancing the complex relationships between learner agency, assessment structures and the cultural system.

conclusionsOur study adds to debates on programmatic assessment by emphasising how the achievement of balance between learner agency, structure and culture suggests strategies to underpin sustained changes (elaboration) in assessment practice. These include; faculty and student learning development to promote collective reflexivity and agency, optimising assessment structures by enhancing integration of theory with practice, and changing learning culture by both enhancing existing and developing new social structures between faculty and the student body to gain acceptance and trust related to the new norms, beliefs and behaviours in assessing for and of learning.

Indexed as

CurriculumStudentsFacultyHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID35393668
PMCPMC9542097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.