Tyler Clark
Nidhi Garg¹, Lauren O'Mullane¹ and Deborah O'Mara²
1 The University of Sydney
2 University of Sydney Medical School/ AMEE/ ANZAHPE

Programmatic Assessment (PA) involves a longitudinal mix of high and low stake assessment (Schuwirth & Van der Vleuten, 2011). Handling extensive and intricate data can lead to challenges, such as a reluctance to identify struggling students (Ryan et al., 2023). 

In the 2021 implementation of PA at Sydney Medical School some students with a borderline assessment portfolio officially progressed but were told in writing that the Portfolio committee had concerns about their content knowledge, clinical skills, or professionalism. 

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the use of progression with concern decisions by tracking the performance of these students in subsequent years. The study is based on the 314 students who completed Year 1 in 2021, focusing on those who were required to complete further assessment (FA) as their portfolio did not meet expected standards. 

Almost 1 in 5 students (17%) who progressed from Year 1 to Year 2 completed FA, half (55%) progressed with concerns. 

Most (70%) met Year 2 expected standards with no FA; 18% advanced to Year 3 after FA and 12% were required to repeat Year 2. Students with concerns were more likely to repeat Year 2 or FA (49%), compared to those without concerns (8%). Year 3 results will be available 2023. 

The dynamics of qualifying academic transcript progression decisions with faculty correspondence will be discussed as well as the student support required. 

The Year 2 academic performance gap between students with and without concerns highlights the supplementary classification's importance. Consequently, a Student Support Liaison role was established based on best practice (Van Der Vleuten, 2015) to aid those identified with academic issues. 

A tiered progression decision, with expert judges noting students with concerns, assist those making difficult decisions with PA data and ultimately students. 

References (maximum three) 

Schuwirth, L. W., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. (2011). Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical teacher, 33(6), 478-485. 

Ryan, A., O’Mara D, Tweed, M. (2023) Evolution or revolution to programmatic assessment: considering unintended consequences of assessment change. FOPE, 50th Anniversary Edition (In press). 

Van Der Vleuten, C, P., Schuwirth L. W., Driessen, E.W., Govaerts, M. B., & Heeneman, S. (2015). Twelve Tips for programmatic assessment. Medical Teacher, 37(7), 641-646.