Educators as Judges: Applying Judicial Decision-Making Principles to High-Stakes Education Assessment Decisions

References

• Tweed M, Wilkinson T. Student progress decision-making in programmatic assessment: can we extrapolate from clinical decision-making and jury decision-making?. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):176. doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1583-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desy J, Coderre S, Davis M, Cusano R, McLaughlin K. How can we reduce bias during an academic assessment reappraisal? Med Teach. 2019;41(11):1315–1318. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2019.1638503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):205–214. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.652239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pack R, Lingard L, Watling CJ, Chahine S, Cristancho SM. Some assembly required: tracing the interpretative work of clinical competency committees. Med Educ. 2019;53(7):723–734. doi:10.1111/medu.13884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green EP, Gruppuso PA. Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees. Med Educ. 2017;51(6):621–632. doi:10.1111/medu.13280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pack R, Lingard L, Watling C, Cristancho S. Beyond summative decision making: illuminating the broader roles of competence committees. Med Educ. 2020;54(6):517–527. doi:10.1111/medu.14072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. Judicial technique: giving proper and sufficient reasons for decision. Judicial Rev. 2008;8:107–114.
   Google Scholar
• Gleeson M. Judging the judges. In: Dillon H, ed. Advocacy and Judging: Selected Papers of Murray Gleeson. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press; 2017:35. Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond JC. The architecture of argument. Judicial Rev. 2004;7(September):39–56.
   Google Scholar
• Padmore JS, Andolsek KM, Iobst WF, Poulin LJ, Hogan SO, Richard KM. Navigating academic law in competency decisions. J Grad Med Educ. 2021;13(2 Suppl):102–108. doi:10.4300/jgme-d-20-00963.1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kitto F. Why write judgments?. Austral Law J. 1992;66:787.
   Google Scholar
• Friendly HJ. Some kind of hearing. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1975;123(6):1267–1291. doi:10.2307/3311426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harden RM, Crosby JR. AMEE Guide No 20: The good teacher is more than a lecturer - the twelve roles of the teacher. Medical Teach. 2000; 22(4): 334-347. doi:10.1080/014215900409429
   Google Scholar
• Valentine N, Durning S, Shanahan EM, Schuwirth L. Fairness in human judgement in assessment: a hermeneutic literature review and conceptual framework. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021;26(2):713–738. doi:10.1007/s10459-020-10002-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang NS, Lau JN. A call for mixed methods in competency-based medical education: how we can prevent the overfitting of curriculum and assessment. Acad Med. 2018;93(7):996–1001. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Carrión R, Villardón-Gallego L, Martínez-de-la-Hidalga Z, Marauri J. Exploring the impact of dialogic literary gatherings on students’ relationships with a communicative approach. Qual Inq. 2020;26(8-9):996–1002. doi:10.1177/1077800420938879.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox AL, Gingras J. Inside the actors’ studio: exploring dietetics education practices through dialogical inquiry. Qual Inq. 2012;18(8):711–719. doi:10.1177/1077800412452851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells R, Barker S, Boydell K, Buus N, Rhodes P, River J. Dialogical inquiry: multivocality and the interpretation of text. Qual Res. 2021;21(4):498–514. doi:10.1177/1468794120934409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves CG. Dialogic inquiry as a mechanism of the constitutive metamodel. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2019;43(3):240–256. doi:10.1080/23808985.2019.1647444.
   Google Scholar
• Baxter LA, Montgomery BM. Relating Dialogues and Dialectics. New York: Guilford Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. NHMRC, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Currer C, Atherton K. Suitable to remain a student social worker? Decision making in relation to termination of training. Social Work Educ. 2008;27(3):279–292. doi:10.1080/02615470701381343.
   Google Scholar
• Worthington R, Hays R. Practical Professionalism in Medicine: A Global Case-Based Workbook. Oxford: Radcliffe; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Parker M. Unreasonable adjustments: medical education, mental disorder, disability discrimination and public safety. J Law Med. 2014;22(1):31–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holley J, Gillard S. Developing and using vignettes to explore the relationship between risk management practice and recovery-oriented care in mental health services. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(3):371–380. doi:10.1177/1049732317725284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skilling K, Stylianides GJ. Using vignettes in educational research: a framework for vignette construction. Int J Res Method Educ. 2020;43(5):541–556. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2019.1704243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crow GM, Levine L, Nager N. Are three heads better than one? Reflections on doing collaborative interdisciplinary research. Am Educ Res J. 1992;29(4):737–753. doi:10.3102/00028312029004737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon. 1969. 1 QB 577 per Lord Denning.
   Google Scholar
• Brill S. When the government goes judge shopping. In S. Brill (Ed.), Trial by jury. New York: American Lawyer Books/Touchstone; 1989:427–428.
   Google Scholar
• Flick G. Natural Justice: Principles and Practical Application. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• R v Thames Magistrates’ Court; Ex p Polemis. 1974. 1 WLR 1371.
   Google Scholar
• US ex rel Turner v Fisher. 1911. 222 US 204.
   Google Scholar
• Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, et al. 2018 consensus framework for good assessment. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1102–1109. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentine N, Shanahan EM, Durning SJ, Schuwirth L . Making it fair: learners’ and assessors’ perspectives of the attributes of fair judgement. Med Educ. 2021;55(9):1056–1066. doi:10.1111/medu.14574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingham T. The Rule of Law. Melbourne, Australia: Penguin; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Eva KW. Moving beyond childish notions of fair and equitable. Med Educ. 2015;49(1):1–3. doi:10.1111/medu.12640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harden RM, Lilley P, Patricio MT. The Definitive Guide to the OSCE: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination as a Performance Assessment. UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Latham CJ. Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336. In: Australia HCo, editor. Canberra, Australia: Austlii. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/34.html?context=1;query=Briginshaw%20v%20Briginshaw;mask_path=. Published June 30, 1938. Accessed January 24, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Papadakis MA, Teherani A, Banach MA, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2673–2682. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa052596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamvounias P, Varnham S. Legal challenges to university decisions affecting students in Australian courts and tribunals. Melbourne Univ Law Rev. 2010;34:140–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bibby P. Medical student Christina King seeks court injunction after failing first and second year courses. Sydney Morning Herald. 2015, April 4. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/medical-student-christina-king-seeks-court-injunction-after-failing-first-and-second-year-courses-20150403-1meb5t.html. Accessed April 30, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Willis E. Medical Dominance. 2nd ed. Sydney Australia: Allen and Unwin; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Rizvi S. Using fiction to reveal truth: challenges of using vignettes to understand participant experiences within qualitative research. Forum Qual Social Res. 2019;20(1):10. doi:10.17169/fqs-20.1.3101.
   Google Scholar
• Valacich JS, Schwenk C. Devil′s advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer-mediated group decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1995;63(2):158–173. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar