Premium
A Consensus Model: Shifting assessment practices in dietetics tertiary education
Author(s) -
Bacon Rachel,
Kellett Jane,
Dart Janeane,
KnightAgarwal Cathy,
Mete Rebecca,
Ash Susan,
Palermo Claire
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
nutrition and dietetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.479
H-Index - 31
eISSN - 1747-0080
pISSN - 1446-6368
DOI - 10.1111/1747-0080.12415
Subject(s) - internship , stakeholder , medical education , thematic analysis , competence (human resources) , psychology , authentic assessment , focus group , delphi method , qualitative research , curriculum , pedagogy , medicine , sociology , political science , computer science , public relations , anthropology , social psychology , social science , artificial intelligence
Aim The aim of this research was to evaluate a Consensus Model for competency‐based assessment. Methods An evaluative case study was used to allow a holistic examination of a constructivist‐interpretivist programmatic model of assessment. Using a modified Delphi process, the competence of all 29 students enrolled in their final year of a Master of Nutrition and Dietetics course was assessed by a panel (with expertise in competency‐based assessment; industry and academic representation) from a course e‐portfolio (that included the judgements of student performance made by worksite educators) and a panel interview. Data were triangulated with assessments from a capstone internship. Qualitative descriptive studies with worksite educators (focus groups n = 4, n = 5, n = 8) and students (personal interviews n = 29) explored stakeholder experiences analysed using thematic analysis. Results Panel consensus was achieved for all cases by the third‐round and corroborated by internship outcomes. For 34% of students this differed to the ‘interpretations’ of their performance made by their worksite educator/s. Emerging qualitative themes from stakeholder data found the model: (i) supported sustainable assessment practices; (ii) shifted the power relationship between students and worksite educators and (iii) provided a fair method to assess competence. To maximise benefits, more refinement, resources and training are required. Conclusions This research questions competency‐based assessment practices based on discrete placement units and supports a constructivist–interpretivist programmatic approach where evidence across a whole course of study is considered by a panel of assessors.