ArticleBritish journal of biomedical science2024
Embedding Assessment Literacy Can Enhance Graduate Attribute Development in a Biomedical Sciences Curriculum.
Article in British journal of biomedical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper describes the successful implementation of an assessment literacy strategy within a Biomedical Sciences degree. Teaching was aligned with an assessment literacy framework and aimed to prepare undergraduates for a literature comprehension assessment. Students were introduced to the assessment purpose and an adapted Miller's pyramid model illustrated how the assessment contributed to competency development during their degree. Students read primary research papers and answered questions relating to the publications. They were then introduced to the processes of assessment and collaboratively graded answers of different standards. Finally, student and faculty grades were compared, differences considered, and key characteristics of answers discussed. Most students reported that they understood more about assessment standards than prior to the intervention [139/159 (87.4%)] and felt it had helped prepare them for their exam [138/159 (86.8%)]. The majority also reported they had increased confidence in evaluating data [118/159 (74%)], communicating their reasoning [113/159 (71%)] and considering what a reader needs to know [127/159 (79.9%)]. Students were asked to state the most important thing they had learned from the assessment literacy teaching. Notably, no responses referred to domain-specific knowledge. 129 free text responses were mapped to the University of Edinburgh graduate attribute framework. 93 (72%) statements mapped to the graduate attribute category "Research and Enquiry," 66 (51.16%) mapped to "Communication" and 21 (16.27%) mapped to "Personal and Intellectual Autonomy." To explore any longer-term impact of the assessment literacy teaching, a focus group was held with students from the same cohort, 2 years after the original intervention. Themes from this part of the study included that teaching had provided insights into standards and expectations for the assessment and the benefits of domain specific knowledge. A variety of aspects related to graduate attributes were also identified. Here, assessment literacy as a vehicle for graduate attribute development was an unexpected outcome. We propose that by explicitly engaging students with purpose, process, standards, and expectations, assessment literacy strategies may be used to successfully raise awareness of developmental progression, and enhance skills, aptitudes, and dispositions beneficial to Biomedical Sciences academic achievement
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.