educationwhydotheymeetwithmixedsuccessasystemat.docVIP

Portfolios in medical education: why do they meet with mixed success? A systematic review Table S1. Studies examining the use of portfolios in preclinical undergraduate medical education Source; Research Question Study design Population; Participation rate; Setting Portfolio (Aim; Content; Mentoring; Assessment) Effect level; Findings Limitations Driessen et al.33 2003 To evaluate first-year students’ perceptions on reflective portfolio use. Single group, no comparison, post-test only, interviews. 38 first-year undergraduate students; 15%; Preclinical Aim: mentoring and assessment of reflective skills; Content: reflections and materials (open structure); Mentoring: yes by staff mentor; Assessment: yes. Level 1; 95% of students perceived portfolio as an important stimulus for reflection, 80% of students perceived reflection as useful, one of the competence areas in the portfolio proved difficult to perform in practice. Limited number of respondents, limited information on study methods. Driessen et al.32 2005 To examine the conditions for successful use of portfolios. Single group, no comparison, qualitative study, grounded theory. 13 staff mentors for first-year undergraduate students; 100%; Preclinical Aim: mentoring and assessment of reflective skills; Content: reflections and materials (open structure); Mentoring: yes by staff mentor; Assessment: yes. Level 1; Portfolios are valuable for assessing and developing reflective skills, provided the following conditions are met:appropriate portfolio structure, appropriate assessment procedure, enough new experiences for student, sufficient teacher capacity for mentoring and assessment. Teachers’ perspective only Finlay et al.21 1998 To evaluate effect of portfolio learning. Randomized controlled trial, post-test, learning outcomes, content analyses. 68 students study group and 69 control group; Study group 85% and control group 87%, content analyses 31%; Preclinical third year undergraduate longitudinal oncol