Well-being and learning in school

Although there are various definitions for the term “well-being,” it is agreed that well-being in school represents a set of subjective feelings and attitudes toward school. Moreover, enjoyment (some use the term “happiness”) is recognized as a core element of well-being in general as well as at school. Well-being in school is defined as an indicator of the quality of scholastic life, and contributes to students’ physical and psychological health and development. As such it is strongly connected to learning. Well-being in school consists of cognitive, emotional, and physical components, i.e., a learner’s thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations. Consequently, it differs significantly from an individual’s cognitive appraisals like satisfaction, or from discrete positive emotions like enjoyment. Well-being in school can be described through the relationship of positive and negative aspects of school life

Alignment between learning needs and learning goals of Mini-CEX in clerkships

Background: Defining learning goals (LG) in alignment with learning needs (LN) is one of the key purposes of formative workplace-based assessment, but studies about this topic are scarce. Summary of Work: We analysed quantitatively and qualitatively how often trainer-student pairs identified the same LN during Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercises (Mini-CEX) in clerkships and to what degree those LNs were in line with the recorded LGs. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to predict LGs by identified LNs, controlling for context variables. Summary of Results: 512 trainers and 165 students conducted 1783 Mini-CEX (98% completion rate). Concordantly, trainer-student pairs most often identified LNs in the domains ‘clinical reasoning’ (23% of 1167 complete forms), ‘organisation / efficiency’ (20%) and ‘physical examination’ (20%). At least one ‘defined’ LG was noted on 313 student forms (18% of 1710), with a total of 446 LGs. Of these, the most frequent LGs were ‘physical examination’ (49% of 446 LGs) and ‘history taking’ (21%); corresponding LNs as well as context variables (e.g. clinic size) were found to be predictors of these LGs. Discussion and Conclusions: Although trainer-student pairs often agreed in their identified LNs, many assessments did not result in an aligned LG or a LG at all. Interventions are needed to enhance the proportion of (aligned) LGs in Mini-CEX in order to tap into its full potential not only as a ‘diagnostic’ but also as an ‘educational tool’. Take-home messages: The sparseness of LGs, their dependency on context variables and their partial non-alignment with students’ LNs raise the question of how the effectiveness of Mini-CEX can be further enhanced.