Moderation of a foodservice assessment artefact in nutrition and dietetics programs

Judi Porter, Eleanor Beck, Danielle Gallegos, Claire Palermo, Karen Walton, Alison Yaxley, Evelyn Volders, Amanda Wray, Mary Hannan-Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: Foodservice is a key component of dietetics education and practice internationally yet benchmarks for competency are limited. This study sought to review and moderate an assessment artefact of foodservice work integrated learning (WIL) to develop a shared understanding of one tool which may be used in a suite of evidence to demonstrate competence. Methods: The foodservice curricula and assessment artefacts were described for the foodservice program at each of four participating universities. An assessment artefact from WIL, the report, was identified as an indicator of foodservice competence common to each program. Each university provided four purposively sampled WIL reports, assessed in duplicate by two academics from other participating universities using the corresponding university assessment rubric. Collated assessment results, along with the original assessment, were presented back to assessors. A semi-structured group discussion explored variations in assessment results, factors influencing decisions, and potential changes needed for assessment documentation. Results: There was variation in assessment outcomes between independent assessors. In some instances assessors did not consistently deliver the same assessment outcome, nor rank students in sequential order of performance. This variation was less where an absolute ranking of satisfactory/unsatisfactory was applied. The assessor discussion revealed three key concepts: importance of understanding the project scope; challenges which influence assessment decision making; importance of understanding the broader program of assessment. Conclusions: Assessment inconsistencies emphasise the importance of multiple assessors and assessment artefacts across a programmatic assessment model, and the need for a clear understanding of competence in nutrition and dietetics.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)233-239
Number of pages7
JournalNutrition and Dietetics
Volume76
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Keywords

  • assessment
  • dietitian
  • education
  • foodservice
  • work integrated learning

Cite this

Porter, Judi ; Beck, Eleanor ; Gallegos, Danielle ; Palermo, Claire ; Walton, Karen ; Yaxley, Alison ; Volders, Evelyn ; Wray, Amanda ; Hannan-Jones, Mary. / Moderation of a foodservice assessment artefact in nutrition and dietetics programs. In: Nutrition and Dietetics. 2019 ; Vol. 76, No. 2. pp. 233-239.
@article{fc415f30aed0412ebdb26f38cfe23f39,
title = "Moderation of a foodservice assessment artefact in nutrition and dietetics programs",
abstract = "Aim: Foodservice is a key component of dietetics education and practice internationally yet benchmarks for competency are limited. This study sought to review and moderate an assessment artefact of foodservice work integrated learning (WIL) to develop a shared understanding of one tool which may be used in a suite of evidence to demonstrate competence. Methods: The foodservice curricula and assessment artefacts were described for the foodservice program at each of four participating universities. An assessment artefact from WIL, the report, was identified as an indicator of foodservice competence common to each program. Each university provided four purposively sampled WIL reports, assessed in duplicate by two academics from other participating universities using the corresponding university assessment rubric. Collated assessment results, along with the original assessment, were presented back to assessors. A semi-structured group discussion explored variations in assessment results, factors influencing decisions, and potential changes needed for assessment documentation. Results: There was variation in assessment outcomes between independent assessors. In some instances assessors did not consistently deliver the same assessment outcome, nor rank students in sequential order of performance. This variation was less where an absolute ranking of satisfactory/unsatisfactory was applied. The assessor discussion revealed three key concepts: importance of understanding the project scope; challenges which influence assessment decision making; importance of understanding the broader program of assessment. Conclusions: Assessment inconsistencies emphasise the importance of multiple assessors and assessment artefacts across a programmatic assessment model, and the need for a clear understanding of competence in nutrition and dietetics.",
keywords = "assessment, dietitian, education, foodservice, work integrated learning",
author = "Judi Porter and Eleanor Beck and Danielle Gallegos and Claire Palermo and Karen Walton and Alison Yaxley and Evelyn Volders and Amanda Wray and Mary Hannan-Jones",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/1747-0080.12484",
language = "English",
volume = "76",
pages = "233--239",
journal = "Nutrition and Dietetics",
issn = "1446-6368",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Moderation of a foodservice assessment artefact in nutrition and dietetics programs. / Porter, Judi; Beck, Eleanor; Gallegos, Danielle; Palermo, Claire; Walton, Karen; Yaxley, Alison; Volders, Evelyn; Wray, Amanda; Hannan-Jones, Mary.

In: Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 76, No. 2, 04.2019, p. 233-239.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moderation of a foodservice assessment artefact in nutrition and dietetics programs

AU - Porter, Judi

AU - Beck, Eleanor

AU - Gallegos, Danielle

AU - Palermo, Claire

AU - Walton, Karen

AU - Yaxley, Alison

AU - Volders, Evelyn

AU - Wray, Amanda

AU - Hannan-Jones, Mary

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - Aim: Foodservice is a key component of dietetics education and practice internationally yet benchmarks for competency are limited. This study sought to review and moderate an assessment artefact of foodservice work integrated learning (WIL) to develop a shared understanding of one tool which may be used in a suite of evidence to demonstrate competence. Methods: The foodservice curricula and assessment artefacts were described for the foodservice program at each of four participating universities. An assessment artefact from WIL, the report, was identified as an indicator of foodservice competence common to each program. Each university provided four purposively sampled WIL reports, assessed in duplicate by two academics from other participating universities using the corresponding university assessment rubric. Collated assessment results, along with the original assessment, were presented back to assessors. A semi-structured group discussion explored variations in assessment results, factors influencing decisions, and potential changes needed for assessment documentation. Results: There was variation in assessment outcomes between independent assessors. In some instances assessors did not consistently deliver the same assessment outcome, nor rank students in sequential order of performance. This variation was less where an absolute ranking of satisfactory/unsatisfactory was applied. The assessor discussion revealed three key concepts: importance of understanding the project scope; challenges which influence assessment decision making; importance of understanding the broader program of assessment. Conclusions: Assessment inconsistencies emphasise the importance of multiple assessors and assessment artefacts across a programmatic assessment model, and the need for a clear understanding of competence in nutrition and dietetics.

AB - Aim: Foodservice is a key component of dietetics education and practice internationally yet benchmarks for competency are limited. This study sought to review and moderate an assessment artefact of foodservice work integrated learning (WIL) to develop a shared understanding of one tool which may be used in a suite of evidence to demonstrate competence. Methods: The foodservice curricula and assessment artefacts were described for the foodservice program at each of four participating universities. An assessment artefact from WIL, the report, was identified as an indicator of foodservice competence common to each program. Each university provided four purposively sampled WIL reports, assessed in duplicate by two academics from other participating universities using the corresponding university assessment rubric. Collated assessment results, along with the original assessment, were presented back to assessors. A semi-structured group discussion explored variations in assessment results, factors influencing decisions, and potential changes needed for assessment documentation. Results: There was variation in assessment outcomes between independent assessors. In some instances assessors did not consistently deliver the same assessment outcome, nor rank students in sequential order of performance. This variation was less where an absolute ranking of satisfactory/unsatisfactory was applied. The assessor discussion revealed three key concepts: importance of understanding the project scope; challenges which influence assessment decision making; importance of understanding the broader program of assessment. Conclusions: Assessment inconsistencies emphasise the importance of multiple assessors and assessment artefacts across a programmatic assessment model, and the need for a clear understanding of competence in nutrition and dietetics.

KW - assessment

KW - dietitian

KW - education

KW - foodservice

KW - work integrated learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055348108&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1747-0080.12484

DO - 10.1111/1747-0080.12484

M3 - Article

VL - 76

SP - 233

EP - 239

JO - Nutrition and Dietetics

JF - Nutrition and Dietetics

SN - 1446-6368

IS - 2

ER -