ArticleBMC medical education2024
Why do instructors pass underperforming students? A Q-methodology study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFormal evaluations are an integral part of a student's learning and encourage students to learn and help instructors identify students' weaknesses. Over the past few decades there have been growing concerns that instructors and evaluators are passing students who do not meet expectations. This phenomenon, in which instructors pass students who do not meet expectations, has been referred to as "failure-to-fail". In this study, we used Q-methodology to identify instructors' justifications for failure-to-fail.
methodsA Q-methodology study was conducted to identify the major viewpoints of instructors at a Canadian university. A by-person factor analysis with principal component factor extraction and Varimax rotation was used. The analysis was conducted using the QFACTOR program in Stata. A Cohen's effect size of 0.80 was used to identify distinguishing statements.
resultsFifty seven instructors participated in this study. Through a by-person factor analysis, three factors representing three viewpoints emerged: Intrinsically Motivated, Extrinsically Motivated, and Administratively & Emotionally Deterred. The Intrinsically Motivated group perceived mental barriers that prevented them from failing students. They strongly disagreed that they experienced pressure from either students or their schools to pass students. The Extrinsically Motivated believed that their higher-ups and the university encouraged them to pass all students. They perceived discomfort associated with defending their reasons for failing students and were concerned that failing students would damage their own career advancements. The Administratively & Emotionally Deterred group believed that the process of failing a student was stressful and exhausting. They disagreed that a failed student is a result of the instructor's own inadequate guidance or mentorship.
conclusionsThis study identified three distinctive viewpoints that outline areas of consideration for addressing the failure-to-fail mechanism. More transparent discussions within schools, as well as identifying solutions, are required to create systems that ensure educational and professional standards are maintained. Further replication of this study in various disciplines may be used to determine whether these findings are consistent in different fields.
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.