An Interprofessional Faculty Development Program for Workplace-Based Learning.

Background: Most faculty development programs in health professions education, pivotal in cultivating competent and effective teachers, focus on systematic, planned and formal learning opportunities. A large part of clinical teaching however, encompasses ad-hoc, informal and interprofessional workplace-based learning whereby individuals learn as part of everyday work activities. To fully harness the educational potential embedded in daily healthcare practices, prioritizing interprofessional faculty development for workplace-based learning is crucial. Approach: Utilizing the 'ADDIE' instructional design framework we developed, implemented and evaluated an interprofessional faculty development program for workplace-based learning. This program, encompassing seven formal training sessions each with a different theme and five individual workplace-based assignments, aimed to support clinical teachers in recognizing and optimizing informal learning. Outcomes: The pilot program (n = 10) and first two regular courses (n = 13 each) were evaluated using questionnaires containing Likert scale items and open textboxes for narrative comments. The quality and relevance of the program to the clinical work-place were highly appreciated. Additional valued elements included practical knowledge provided and tools for informal workplace-based teaching, the interprofessional aspect of the program and the workplace-based assignments. Since its development, the program has undergone minor revisions twice and has now become a successful interprofessional workplace-based alternative to existing faculty development programs. Reflection: This faculty development program addresses the specific needs of healthcare professionals teaching in clinical settings. It stands out by prioritizing informal learning, fostering collaboration, and supporting integration of formal training into daily practice, ensuring practical application of learned knowledge and skills. Furthermore, it emphasizes interprofessional teaching and learning, enhancing workplace environments.

Improving Self-Reflection Assessment Practices: Comparative Judgment as an Alternative to Rubrics.

CONSTRUCT: The authors aimed to investigate the utility of the comparative judgment method for assessing students' written self-reflections. BACKGROUND: Medical practitioners' reflective skills are increasingly considered important and therefore included in the medical education curriculum. However, assessing students' reflective skills using rubrics does not appear to guarantee adequate inter-rater reliabilities. Recently, comparative judgment was introduced as a new method to evaluate performance assessments. This study investigates the merits and limitations of the comparative judgment method for assessing students' written self-reflections. More specifically, it examines the reliability in relation to the time spent assessing, the correlation between the scores obtained using the two methods (rubrics and comparative judgment), and, raters' perceptions of the comparative judgment method. APPROACH: Twenty-two self-reflections, that had previously been scored using a rubric, were assessed by a group of eight raters using comparative judgment. Two hundred comparisons were completed and a rank order was calculated. Raters' impressions were investigated using a focus group. FINDINGS: Using comparative judgment, each self-reflection needed to be compared seven times with another self-reflection to reach a scale separation reliability of .55. The inter-rater reliability of rating (ICC, (1, k)) using rubrics was .56. The time investment required for these reliability levels in both methods was around 24 minutes. The Kendall's tau rank correlation indicated a strong correlation between the scores obtained via both methods. Raters reported that making comparisons made them evaluate the quality of self-reflections in a more nuanced way. Time investment was, however, considered heavy, especially for the first comparisons. Although raters appreciated that they did not have to assign a grade to each self-reflection, the fact that the method does not automatically lead to a grade or feedback was considered a downside. CONCLUSIONS: First evidence was provided for the comparative judgment method as an alternative to using rubrics for assessing students' written self-reflections. Before comparative judgment can be implemented for summative assessment, more research is needed on the time investment required to ensure no contradictory feedback is given back to students. Moreover, as the comparative judgment method requires an additional standard setting exercise to obtain grades, more research is warranted on the merits and limitations of this method when a pass/fail approach is used.

How are learning strategies reflected in the eyes? Combining results from self-reports and eye-tracking.

BACKGROUND: Up until now, empirical studies in the Student Approaches to Learning field have mainly been focused on the use of self-report instruments, such as interviews and questionnaires, to uncover differences in students' general preferences towards learning strategies, but have focused less on the use of task-specific and online measures. AIMS: This study aimed at extending current research on students' learning strategies by combining general and task-specific measurements of students' learning strategies using both offline and online measures. We want to clarify how students process learning contents and to what extent this is related to their self-report of learning strategies. SAMPLE: Twenty students with different generic learning profiles (according to self-report questionnaires) read an expository text, while their eye movements were registered to answer questions on the content afterwards. METHODS: Eye-tracking data were analysed with generalized linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: The results indicate that students with an all-high profile, combining both deep and surface learning strategies, spend more time on rereading the text than students with an all-low profile, scoring low on both learning strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that we can use eye-tracking to distinguish very strategic students, characterized using cognitive processing and regulation strategies, from low strategic students, characterized by a lack of cognitive and regulation strategies. These students processed the expository text according to how they self-reported.