Search

This paper reflects on the importance of 'time spent' in understanding the international student experience. Short‐term mobility programmes (involving stays of between 1 week and 2 months) attracting less privileged students, such as the relatively new Turing Scheme in the United Kingdom, have been hailed as a potential 'solution' to the fact that, traditionally, wealthier individuals have been far more likely to engage in study abroad. However, we do not yet know how short‐term and longer duration programmes compare in terms of the value they confer to students (in relation to their experiences and outcomes). How likely is it that short‐term mobility at undergraduate level is as valuable, according to different measures, as mobility lasting 6 months to several years (as with degree mobility)? This paper reviews some of the evidence to date on shorter duration mobility, addressing how value in international study is constructed and conferred and how this relates to 'time spent'. The paper concludes by arguing that the picture is mixed: although short‐term mobility will be beneficial to students, those engaging in longer term exchanges (usually more privileged students) are likely to derive greater benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding how early reading and mathematics co‐develop is important from both theoretical and pedagogical standpoints. Previous research has provided mixed results. This paper investigates the development of reading and mathematics in a longitudinal sample of N = 355,883 students from the United Kingdom (2005–2019) aged 5 to 12 (49% girls). Results indicate a positive relation between the development of the two domains. In addition, a substantial statistically significant positive association between prior reading scores and subsequent changes in achievement in mathematics was found, whereas changes in reading were smaller for students with a higher prior performance in mathematics. The findings suggest that acquiring good reading skills is highly relevant for developing mathematics skills. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequity in assessment can lead to differential attainment. Degree classifications, such as 'Honours', are an assessment outcome used to differentiate students after graduation. However, there are no standardised criteria used to determine what constitutes these awards. Methods: We contacted all medical schools in the UK and collected data relating to classifications awarded, criteria used and percentage of students receiving classifications across the 5‐year period prior to the 2019/2020 academic year. Results: All 42 UK medical schools responded, and 36 universities provided usable data. Of these 36 universities, 30 (83%) awarded classifications above a 'Pass'. We identified four classifications above a 'Pass', and these were 'Commendation', 'Merit', 'Distinction' and 'Honours'. Sixteen (44%) universities awarded a single additional classification, and 14 (39%) universities awarded two or more. There was considerable variation in the criteria used by each university to award classifications. For example, 30 (67%) out of 45 classifications were dependent on all examined years, 9 (20%) for a combination of years and 6 (13%) for final year alone. Twenty‐five of 30 universities that awarded classifications provided data on the percentage of students awarded a classification, and a median of 15% of students received any type of classification from their university (range 5.3% to 38%). There was a wide range in the percentage of students awarded each classification type across the universities (e.g. Honours, range = 3.1%–24%). Conclusions: We demonstrate considerable variation in the way UK medical degree classifications are awarded—regarding terminology, criteria and percentage of students awarded classifications. We highlight that classifications are another form of inequity in medical education. There is a need to fully evaluate the value of hierarchical degree awards internationally as the consequential validity of these awards is understudied. Degree classifications may be another form of inequity in medical education given variation in terminology, criteria, and percentage of students awarded. Byrne et al. argue a need to better understand the consequential validity of these awards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Successful completion of clinical education experiences is a graduation requirement for students in occupational therapy and physical therapy programmes. A scoping review was conducted to determine what is known about possible clinical experience performance predictors and to find associated research gaps. Methods: The search included one hand‐searched journal and seven databases, which were used to identify related relevant studies: CINAHL, Education Database, Education Source, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PubMed, REHABDATA, and Web of Science. A research librarian guided the search process, and the review's reporting is structured by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) Checklist. Studies were included if they contained predictors of clinical experience success indicated by validated performance evaluation tools that were scored by clinical instructors. A multidisciplinary team reviewed the title, abstract, and full text for inclusion and conducted thematic data synthesis to categorise findings. Findings: Twenty‐six articles met the inclusion criteria. The majority of articles were of correlational design and included single institutions. Seventeen articles included occupational therapy, eight included physical therapy, with only one article including both programmes. Four categories of predictors of clinical experience success were identified: pre‐admission variables, academic preparation, learner characteristics, and demographics. Each of the main categories included three to six subcategories. Key findings included the following: (a) The most common cited predictors in clinical experiences are academic preparation and learner characteristics, (b) more experimental design studies are needed to determine the causal relationship between predictors and clinical experience success, and (c) future research is needed on ethnic disparities and clinical experience success. Conclusion: Findings from this review show that possible predictors of clinical experience success include a wide range of factors when correlating success with a standardised tool. Academic preparation and learner characteristics were the most investigated predictors. There were only a small number of studies that found a correlation with pre‐admission variables. The findings of this study suggest that students' academic achievement may be a critical element of clinical experience preparation. Future research using experimental designs and across institutions is needed to determine the main predictors for student success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to Higher Education (HE) is based on the idea that all students should have the same opportunities, and that merit and hard work, regardless of students' backgrounds, will lead to success. However, inequalities remain despite efforts to provide equal access to HE, raising questions about the validity of such a meritocratic approach. Using qualitative analysis, we interviewed UK university students to understand students' perceptions of meritocracy in HE, and if and how students associated these perceptions with their gender and subjective socioeconomic status identity experiences. Students' perceptions could be described in two main ideas: (a) the perceived commitment of their universities to meritocracy, and (b) their endorsement and rejection of meritocracy as an identity enhancement strategy. Hence, both support and lack of support for meritocracy are strategies used by disadvantaged groups to navigate and cope with the lack of opportunities and socioeconomic disadvantages in HE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Situational judgement tests (SJTs) have been widely adopted, internationally, into medical selection. It was hoped that such assessments could identify candidates likely to exhibit future professional behaviours. Understanding how performance on such tests may predict the risk of disciplinary action during medical school would provide evidence for the validity of such SJTs within student selection. It would also inform the implementation of such tests within student recruitment. Methods: This cohort study used data for 6910 medical students from 36 UK medical schools who sat the University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT) SJT in 2013. The relationship between SJT scores at application and the risk of subsequent disciplinary action during their studies was modelled. The incremental ability of the SJT scores to predict the risk of disciplinary action, above that already provided by UCAT cognitive test scores and secondary (high) school achievement, was also evaluated in 5535 of the students with information available on this latter metric. Results: Two hundred and ten (3.05%) of the students in the cohort experienced disciplinary action. The risk of disciplinary action reduced with increasing performance on the admissions SJT (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.92, p = 0.002). This effect remained similar after adjusting for cognitive performance and prior academic attainment (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92, p = 0.004). The overall estimated effect‐size was small (Cohen's d = 0.08) and no evidence of 'threshold' effects were observed for the SJT scores and risk of disciplinary action. Conclusions: Performance on admissions SJTs can, at least modestly, incrementally predict the risk of subsequent disciplinary action, supporting their use in this context. However, for this SJT and outcome, there did not seem a distinct threshold score above which the risk of disciplinary action disproportionately increased. This should be considered when using the scores within medical selection. Performance on an admissions Situational Judgment Test is reported to predict risk of formal disciplinary action in medical students with implications for how such tests should be used to improve medical professionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]