Éric Dionne

Bio: Éric Dionne is an academic researcher from University of Ottawa. The author has contributed to research in topics: Humanities & Summative assessment. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 16 publications receiving 336 citations. Previous affiliations of Éric Dionne include Queen's University.

To quiz or not to quiz: Formative tests help detect students at risk of failing the clinical anatomy course.

Abstract: Through a modified team-based learning (TBL) in the anatomy pre-clerkship curriculum, formative evaluations are utilized in the University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine to assess and predict students' outcomes on summative examinations. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficiency of formative assessments to predict student's performance on summative examinations, during the first two semesters of medical school. Formative assessments included multiple-choice quizzes (MCQ) for each laboratory session and a practical midterm examination (MIDTERM), while the summative assessment corresponded to the final practical examination (FINAL). A moderate correlation between MCQs and FINAL (r = 0.353 and 0.301, respectively), and strong correlation between MIDTERM and FINAL assessments (r = 0.688 and 0.610, respectively) were found in the first two semesters. The MIDTERM-FINAL correlations were enhanced for students who scored under 61% in the MIDTERM (r = 0.887 and 0.717, respectively). Despite limitations, mostly related to particularities of the used tests, the analysis revealed an efficient method to identify students at risk of failing the FINAL in a TBL-based anatomy program. Future developments include the elaboration of strategies to predict and support those underperforming students. Anat Sci Educ 8: 413–420. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists.

Evaluation des apprentissages dans le contexte québécois : Entre décisions politiques et pratiques en salle de classe

Abstract: Cet article presente une analyse de l’application des decisions politiques en salle de classe au Quebec concernant les questions liees a l’evaluation des apprentissages. Pour ce faire, nous avons examine, d’un point de vue historique et conceptuel, les politiques d’evaluation des apprentissages en vigueur au Quebec au cours des vingt-cinq dernieres annees. Par la suite, nous nous sommes interesses aux retombees de ces dernieres en salle de classe au secondaire en mettant l’accent sur l’evaluation dans un contexte a enjeux eleves. Nos conclusions tentent de demontrer que le transfert entre le « politique » et le « pedagogique » se realise difficilement.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

Abstract: Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

تقويم البرنامج : طرق بديلة و إرشادات عملية = Program evaluation Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION. 1. Evaluation's Basic Purpose, Uses, and Conceptual Distinctions. 2. Origins of Modern Program Evaluation. 3. Recent Developments and Trends in Evaluation. II. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PROGRAM EVALUATION. 4. Alternative Views of Evaluation. 5. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 6. Management-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 7. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 8. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 9. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 10. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 11. Alternative Evaluation Approaches: A Summary and Comparative Analysis. III. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING EVALUATION. 12. Clarifying the Evaluation Request and Responsibilities. 13. Setting Boundaries and Analyzing the Evaluation Context. 14. Identifying and Selecting the Evaluative Questions and Criteria. 15. Planning How to Conduct the Evaluation. IV. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING AND USING EVALUATIONS. 16. Dealing with Political, Ethical, and Interpersonal Aspects of Evaluation. 17. Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Quantitative Information. 18. Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Qualitative Information. 19. Reporting and Using Evaluation Information. 20. Evaluating Evaluations. V. EMERGING AND FUTURE SETTINGS FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION. 21. Conducting Multiple-Site Evaluation Studies. 22. Conducting Evaluations of Organizations Renewal and Training in Corporate and Nonprofit Settings. 23. The Future of Evaluation. Appendix: Some General Areas of Competence Important in Education Evaluation.

Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress

Abstract: A central trend in qualitative studies investigating doctoral students’ dropout is to stress the importance of students’ integration and socialisation in their working environment. Yet, few of these studies actually compared the experiences of doctoral students who completed or quit their PhD. In order to overcome this limitation and identify the factors that differentiate these two groups, the present study interviewed 21 former doctoral students: 8 completers and 13 non-completers. The results show that what best differentiates these two groups of participants is the extent to which they feel that they are moving forward, without experiencing too much distress, on a research project that makes sense to them. We assume that this set of factors is central in the dropout process. Support from doctoral peers was found to play a positive role overall but did not contribute to differentiating the two groups, presumably because peers have a limited impact on dissertation progress. Supervisors’ support was central to the participants’ stories; it is thus assumed to play a role in the process, but this role is complex and needs further investigation. These results call for a stronger consideration of the doctoral task itself when investigating the process of persistence and attrition and for a more integrated framework that considers jointly both task- and environment-related aspects.