Co-Creation in Assessment

Textbook Insights

'Co-creation of learning and teaching occurs when staff and students work collaboratively with one another to create components of curricula and / or pedagogical approaches.' (Bovill et al, 2016: 196)

Case study: DENTL- Co-creating an Assessment matrix

What problems were addressed?

Reflective practice sits at the heart of professional knowledge and competence. Clinical teachers at all levels (both undergraduate and postgraduate) are faced with the challenge of developing and assessing this important skill. Structured, objective rubrics for assessing reflection do exist; however, no single rubric has been widely adopted, perhaps because they are complex.

What was tried?

A focused literature review facilitated the development of three important domains of reflective practice and reflective writing; these were entered into a 4-domain assessment matrix

Stage 2 dentistry, and hygiene and therapy students were asked to write a clinical reflective report. The grading matrix was published in advance and students were asked to grade their work prior to submission. The reports were team-marked by six members of staff.

The domains were:

Level of reflection: a poor report would be descriptive and make no attempt at reasoning, describing events in this manner: ‘I asked the receptionist to reschedule the patient.’ A failing report would contain only descriptive reflection, in which reasons are provided but only in a reportive way, such as: ‘I asked the receptionist to reschedule the patient because I was running late.’ A satisfactory report would also contain dialogic reflection in which the writer mulls over the reasons and explores alternatives, using expressions such as ‘perhaps…’, ‘I wonder…’ and ‘maybe…’. Finally, a meritorious report would contain mostly critical reflection that takes into account the social context in which events took place and decisions were made, and would make mention of, for example, roles, relationships, gender and ethnicity.

Level of exploration: a poor report would be purely descriptive and would make no consideration of other factors. A failing report would be overly descriptive or lengthy at the expense of influencing and alternative factors. A satisfactory report would contain a brief description and consider influencing and alternative factors. A meritorious report would do the same, but would also consider clear and explicit learning points.

Frames of reference (FoR): a poor report would take no account of other FoR and would not stand back from the situation. It would be written only from the observer's point of view. A failing report would pay only minor consideration to FoR. A satisfactory report would consider FoR for most reported events, and a meritorious report would clearly demonstrate that FoR had been considered for all events reported during the clinical encounter.

Kappa scores between staff and student grades improved each year, reaching 0.677 for the last cohort (n = 110; standard error 0.093; p < 0.000).

What lessons were learned?

Students and staff reported that the matrix helped them to understand the process of reflection. When the matrix was published in advance, failure rates dropped from circa 15% to 2%. All individuals who failed to write a satisfactory report graded themselves as satisfactory; these students must be identified for further tutoring. Clinical teachers and postgraduate clinical trainers found the matrix useful for developing reflective skills and for quickly assessing the level of reflection within a report. The grading matrix was shown to be a valid and reliable tool.

Here is the Assessment matrix