Search

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: Portfolios are used to support self-regulated learning (SRL), but the research literature is still inconclusive on their effectiveness. This study explored experiences with portfolio use among different stakeholders, to answer the research question: How does portfolio use support SRL during general practitioner (GP) specialty training? DESIGN: We used a qualitative research design, based on phenomenology. SETTING: Three of the eight training institutes of Dutch GP specialty training participated in this study. PARTICIPANTS: The three stakeholder groups that use the portfolio were included in nine homogenous focus groups: trainees (n=16), supervisors (n=16) and faculty (n=17). All participants had at least 6-month experience with portfolio use. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: SRL with(out) the portfolio, stakeholder dynamics and ambiguities. Respondents were doubtful about the learning benefits of portfolio use, as most trainees used their portfolio to 'check off' what was considered required. Stakeholder dynamics contributed to checking off behaviour in two ways. First, trainees experienced documenting learning activities to be superfluous, since the close relationship with their supervisor already supported SRL sufficiently. Second, faculty often (unintentionally) took portfolio ownership away from trainees, as they instructed trainees to deliver portfolio content that was valuable for assessment. Without ownership, trainees struggled to use the portfolio for SRL. Besides, ambiguities related to portfolio use amplified checking off behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Portfolio use did not support SRL in our setting. The multipurpose use of the portfolio (for the support of SRL and assessment) was identified as the primary obstacle. Underlying is a conflict that is often present in current medical curricula: agency versus accountability. If the support of SRL is considered a valuable and attainable purpose of portfolio use, it is important to realise that del

Radboud University, 02 mei 2023, Promotores : Scherpbier-de Haan, N.D., Heeneman, S. Co-promotores : Thoonen, B.P.A., Timmerman, A., Contains fulltext : 292266.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 299625.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Issue: Many current educational approaches are intended to cultivate learners' full (learning) potential by fostering self-regulated learning (SRL), as it is expected that those learners with a high degree of SRL learn more effectively than those with a low degree of SRL. However, these attempts to foster SRL are not always successful. Evidence: We considered complexities related to fostering self-regulated learning by use of an analogy. This analogy was based on two (Dutch) children's games: the treasure hunt (children can find a "treasure" by following directions, completing assignments and/or answering questions) and the dropping (pre-teens are dropped in the woods at nighttime with the assignment to find their way back home). We formulated four interrelated philosophical questions. These questions were not formulated with the intention to provide clear-cut answers, but were instead meant to evoke contemplation about the SRL concept. During this contemplation, the implications of definitional issues regarding SRL were discussed by use of the first question: What are the consequences of the difficulties to explicate what is (not) SRL? The second question (How does SRL relate to autonomy?) touched upon the intricate relationship between SRL and autonomy, by discussing the role of social interaction and varying degrees of instruction when fostering SRL. Next, a related topic was addressed by the third question: How much risk are we willing and able to take when fostering SRL? And finally, the importance of and possibilities to assess SRL were discussed by the fourth question (Should SRL be assessed?). Implications: From our contemplations it has become clear that approaches to foster SRL are often insufficiently aligned with the experience and needs of learners. Instead these approaches are commonly defined by contextual factors, such as misconceptions about SRL and lack of leeway for learners. Consequently, we have used principles that apply to both treasure hunts

Item does not contain fulltext, INTRODUCTION: Portfolio use to support self-regulated learning (SRL) during clinical workplace learning is widespread, but much is still unknown regarding its effectiveness. This review aimed to gain insight in the extent to which portfolio use supports SRL and under what circumstances. METHODS: A realist review was conducted in two phases. First, stakeholder interviews and a scoping search were used to formulate a program theory that explains how portfolio use could support SRL. Second, an in-depth literature search was conducted. The included papers were coded to extract context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs). These were synthesized to answer the research question. RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included (four fulfilled all qualitative rigor criteria). Two primary portfolio mechanisms were established: documenting as a moment of contemplation (learners analyze experiences while writing portfolio reports) and documentation as a reminder of past events (previous portfolio reports aid recall). These mechanisms may explain the positive relationship between portfolio use and self-assessment, reflection, and feedback. However, other SRL outcomes were only supported to a limited extent: formulation of learning objectives and plans, and monitoring. The partial support of the program theory can be explained by interference of contextual factors (e.g., system of assessment) and portfolio-related mechanisms (e.g., mentoring). DISCUSSION: Portfolio research is falling short both theoretically-in defining and conceptualizing SRL-and methodologically. Nevertheless, this review indicates that portfolio use has potential to support SRL. However, the working mechanisms of portfolio use are easily disrupted. These disruptions seem to relate to tensions between different portfolio purposes, which may undermine learners' motivation.

Contains fulltext : 285277.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 221509.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 226246.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)