Safeguarding fairness in assessments-How teachers develop joint practices.

Introduction: In light of reforms demanding increased transparency of student performance assessments, this study offers an in-depth perspective of how teachers develop their assessment practice. Much is known about factors that influence assessments, and different solutions claim to improve the validity and reliability of assessments of students' clinical competency. However, little is known about how teachers go about improving their assessment practices. This study aims to contribute empirical findings about how teachers' assessment practice may change when shared criteria for assessing students' clinical competency are developed and implemented.

Methods: Using a narrative-in-action research approach grounded in narrative theory about human sense-making, one group including nine health professions teachers was studied over a period of 1 year. Drawing upon data from observations, interviews, formal documents and written reflections from these teachers, we performed a narrative analysis to reveal how these teachers made sense of experiences associated with the development and implementation of joint grading criteria for assessing students' clinical performances.

Results: The findings present a narrative showing how a shared assessment practice took years to develop and was based on the teachers changed approach to scrutiny. The teachers became highly motivated to use grading criteria to ensure fairness in assessments, but more importantly, to fulfil their moral obligation towards patients. The narrative also demonstrates how these teachers reasoned about dilemmas that arose when they applied standardised assessment criteria.

Discussion: The narrative analysis shows clearly how teachers' development and application of assessment standards are embedded in local practices. Our findings highlight the importance of teachers' joint discussions on how to interpret criteria applied in formative and summative assessments of students' performances. In particular, teachers' different approaches to assessing 'pieces of skills' versus making holistic judgements on students' performances, regardless of whether the grading criteria are clear and well-articulated on paper, should be acknowledged. Understanding the journey that these teachers made gives new perspectives as to how faculty can be supported when assessments of professionalism and clinical competency are developed.