目标:技术在医学中普遍存在,但是我们很少研究它是如何形成评估的,学习,知识,和性能。评估的文化也塑造了身份,社会关系,以及被职业认可为合法的知识和行为。因此,医学教育中技术与评估的结合值得回顾。在Covid-19大流行期间,在线监督服务变得更加普遍,作为继续高风险在线监考的一种手段。随着对加强监控的批评,歧视,以及将控制权外包给商业供应商,这是简单的“在线移动考试”,这个极端的例子可以告诉我们我们的评估技术如何影响受训者与医学教育机构之间的关系?
方法:我们结合了后数字和后现象学方法来分析2020年在线监督的英国皇家内科医学院(MRCP)会员考试的书面组成部分。我们检查脚本,规范,通过这个在线监督的例子产生的信任关系,然后在历史和经济背景下定位它们。我们发现,监考服务投射出一种虚假的客观性,由于考生必须遵守严格的监督规范而受到损害,以及看不见的人类监督者对数字数据的解释。尽管如此,这种监督服务是由数据驱动的创新形象推动的,为了应对日益严重的在线作弊问题,和厌恶,在医学教育机构内,改变评估格式(因此需要接受不同形式的知识是合法的)。
结论:医学教育机构对在线监督技术的使用加强了既定的规范,已经出现在考试中,监视和不信任。此外,它加剧了相互冲突的商业化议程之间的紧张关系,问责制,和值得信赖的专业人员的教育。我们的分析提供了一个例子,说明为什么必须停止并考虑引入技术“解决方案”的整体含义,并询问与医学教育更广泛目标相关的技术和评估实践的交集。
OBJECTIVE: Technology is pervasive in medicine, but we too rarely examine how it shapes assessment, learning, knowledge, and performance. Cultures of assessment also shape identities, social relations, and the knowledge and behavior recognized as legitimate by a profession. Therefore, the combination of technology and assessment within medical education is worthy of review. Online proctoring services have become more prevalent during the Covid-19 pandemic, as a means of continuing high-stakes invigilated examinations online. With criticisms about increased surveillance, discrimination, and the outsourcing of control to commercial vendors, is this simply \"moving exams online\", or are there more serious implications? What can this extreme example tell us about how our technologies of assessment influence relationships between trainees and medical education institutions?
METHODS: We combine postdigital and postphenomenology approaches to analyze the written component of the 2020 online proctored United Kingdom Royal College of Physicians (MRCP) membership exam. We examine the scripts, norms, and trust relations produced through this example of online proctoring, and then locate them in historical and economic contexts. We find that the proctoring service projects a false objectivity that is undermined by the tight script with which examinees must comply in an intensified norm of surveillance, and by the interpretation of digital data by unseen human proctors. Nonetheless, such proctoring services are promoted by an image of data-driven innovation, a rhetoric of necessity in response to a growing problem of online cheating, and an aversion, within medical education institutions, to changing assessment formats (and thus the need to accept different forms of knowledge as legitimate).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of online proctoring technology by medical education institutions intensifies established norms, already present within examinations, of surveillance and distrust. Moreover, it exacerbates tensions between conflicting agendas of commercialization, accountability, and the education of trustworthy professionals. Our analysis provides an example of why it is important to stop and consider the holistic implications of introducing technological \"solutions\", and to interrogate the intersection of technology and assessment practices in relation to the wider goals of medical education.