PLUMX
Almetrics
 
Dimensions
 

Google Scholar
 
Search GoogleScholar


Angelika Kuhlmann Lüdeke

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Resumen
La educación médica actual exige una gama de nuevas habilidades y competencias, necesarias para la atención de alta calidad en salud. Constituye una necesidad moderna, dada la alta complejidad que implican los cuidados de pacientes y que se están incorporando en los nuevos currículos. La evaluación tradicional es inadecuada para examinar los aspectos formativos que exigen estos nuevos dominios. Trabajos de investigación han demostrado la retroalimentación efectiva entre pares como una herramienta adecuada para la evaluación con fines formativos. Adoptar estrategias educativas diseñadas para escenarios socioculturales diferentes al propio requiere un análisis previo, para determinar la necesidad de ajustes. Estas modificaciones asegurarán mejores resultados si se basan en las recomendaciones, producto de los trabajos de investigación disponibles. La construcción conjunta del instrumento entre docentes y estudiantes ha demostrado lograr mayor aceptación. Numerosos estudios demuestran resultados adecuados de validez y confiabilidad de la herramienta, si están provistos de suficiente muestreo.
Keywords

evaluación formativa, retroalimentación entre pares, retroalimentación efectiva, Formative assessment, peer-feedback, effective feedback,

References
1. Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J. Peer learning and assessment. Assess Eval High Educ. 1999;24:413-426.
2. Harden R. International medical education and future directions: a global perspective. Acad Med. 2006;81(12):S22-29.
3. Irby D, Cooke M, O’Brien B. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the advancementof teaching: 1910-2010. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):220-7.
4. Parmelee D, Michaelsen L K, Cook, Hudes P. Team-based learning: A practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 65. Med Teach. 2012;34:e275-87.
5. Henderson P, Ferguson-Smith A, Johnson M. Developing essential professional skills: a framework for teaching and learning about feedback. BMC Med Educ. 2005:5:1-6.
6. Baartman L, Bastiens T, Kirschner P, Van der Vleuten C. Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education:a qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educ Res Rev. 2007;2:114-29.
7. Holmboe E, Ward D, Reznick R, et al. Faculty development in assessment: The missing link in competency-based medical education. Acad Med. 2011;86:460-7.
8. Brown S. Assessment for learning. LATHE. 2004;1:81-9.
9. Epstein R. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):387-96.
10. Sargeant J, Mann K, Van der Vleuten C, Metsemaker J. Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2008;13(3):275-288.
11. Dent J, Harden R. A practical guide for medical teachers. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2009.
12. Boon K, Turner J. Ethical and professional conduct of medical students: review of current assessment measures and controversies. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:221-6.
13. Wood L, Hassell A, Whitehouse A, Bullock A, Wall D. A literature review of multi-source feedback systems within and without health services, leading to 10 tips for their successful design. Med Teach. 2006;28(7):e185-91.
14. Schönrock-Adema J, Heijne-Penninga M, Van Duijn M, Geertsma J, Chen-Schotanus J. Assessment of professional behavior in undergraduate medical education: peer assessment enhances performance. Med Educ. 2007;41:836-42.
15. Müller P. Incorporating professionalism into medical education: the Mayo Clinic experience. Keio J Med. 2009;58(3):133-43.
16. Sluijsmans D. Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills [Doctoral dissertation]. [internet]. Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands; 2002. Disponible en: http://indl.handle.net/1820/1034.
17. Milan F, Parish S, Reichgott M. A model for educational feedback based on clinical communication skills strategies. Teach Learn Med. 2006;18:42-7.
18. Hawkins R, Holmboe E. Constructing an evaluation system for en educational program. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby-Elsevier; 2008.
19. Van Zundert M6, Sluijmans D, Van Merriënboer J. Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learn Instr. 2010;20(4):270-9.
20. Harden R. Outcome-based education: the future is today. Med Teach. 2007;29:625-9.
21. Archer J. State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Med Educ. 2010;44:101-8.
22. Arnold L, Shue C, Kritt B, Ginsburg S, Stern D. Medical students’ view on peer assessment of professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:819-24.
23. Bryan R, Krych A, Carmichael S, Viggiano T, Pawlina W. Assessing professionalism in early medical education: experience with peer evaluation and self-evaluation in the Gross Anatomy course. Annals Acad Med Singapore. 2005;34:486-91.
24. Papinczak T, Young L, Groves M. Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2007;12:169-86.
25. Van der Vleuten C, Schuwirth L, Scheel F, et al. The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development. Best Pract Res Cl Ob. 2010;24:703-19.
26. Sambell K, Mc Dowell L. The construction of the hidden curriculum: message and meanings in the assessment of student learning. Assess Eval High Educ. 1998;23 (4):391-402.
27. Sluijsmans D, Dochy F, Moerkerke G. Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learn Environ Res. 1999;1:293-319.
28. Kamp R, Van Berkel H, Popeijus H, et al. Midterm peer feedback in problem-based learning groups: the effect on individual contribution and achievement. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2014;19(1):53-69.
29. Cate T. Summative assessment of medical students in the affective domain. Med Teach. 2000;22:40-3.
30. Boud D, Kalchikov N. Quantitative studies of self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings. High Educ. 1989;18:529-49.
31. Norcini J. Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ. 2003;37:539-43.
32. Davies H, Archer J. Multi source feedback: development and practical aspects. Clin Teach. 2005;2(2):77-81.
33. Kluger A, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(2):254-84.
34. Dominick P, Reilly R, McGourty J. The effects of peer-feedback on team member motivation. Group Organ Manage. 1997;22(4):508-20.
35. Geister S, Konradt U, Hertel G. Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction and performance in virtual teams. Small Gr Res. 2006;37(5):459-89.
36. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112.
37. Kamp R, Dolmans D, Van Berkel H, Schmidt H. The relationship between students’ small group activities, time spent on self- study and achievement. High Educ. 2012;64:385-97.
38. Van del Vleuten C. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1996;1(1):41-67.
39. Prins F, Sluijmans D, Kirschner P. Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Adv Health Sci Edu. 2006;11:289-303.
40. Van den Bossche P, Segers M, Jansen N. Transfer of training: the role of feedback in supportive social networks. Int J Tra Dev. 2010;14(2):81-94.
41. Epstein R, Hundert E. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002;287(2):226-35.
42. Shue C, Arnold L, Stern D. Maximizing participation in peer assessment of professionalism: The students speak. Acad Med. 2005;80(10):S1-S5.
43. Segers M, Gijbels D, Gijselaers W. Redesigning a learning and assessment environment: The influence on student’s perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Stud Educ Eval. 2006;32(3):223-42.
44. Stevens F, Simmonds-Goulbourne J. Globalization and the modernization of medical education. Med Teach. 2012;34: e684-e689.
45. Schwarz M. Globalization and medical education. Med Teach. 2001;23:533-4.
46. Hawthorne L, Minas I, Singh B. A case study in the globalization of medical education: assisting overseas-borne students at the University of Melbourne. Med Teach. 2004;26:150-9.
47. Eva K. Assessing tutorial-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Edu. 2001; 6:243-57.
48. Papinczak T, Young L, Groves M, Haynes M. An analysis of peer, self and tutor assessment in problem-based learning tutorials. Med Teach. 2007;29:122-32.
49. Kamp R, Dolmans D, Van Berkel H, Schmidt H. Can students adequately evaluate the activities of their peers in PBL? Med Teach. 2011;33:145-50.
50. Van der Vleuten C, Norman G, De Graaf E. Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of reliability. Med Educ. 1991;25(2):110-8.
51. Davis M, Ponnamperuma G, Wall D. A practical guide for medical teachers. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2009.
52. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, et al. Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33:206-14.
53. Van der Vleuten C, Schuwirth L. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39:309-17.
Cómo citar
Kuhlmann Lüdeke, A. (2016). Retroalimentación efectiva entre pares como estrategia de evaluación formativa en educación médica. Universitas Medica, 56(3), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.umed56-3.reep
Sección
Artículos de revisión