This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]

On: 12 June 2014, At: 03:26

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Gerontology & Geriatrics
Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgge20
Course Evaluation and
Assessment: Examples of a
Learner-Centered Approach
Eva M. Schmitt PhD
a

b
, Anne C. Hu MPH
c
& Peter S.
Bachrach PhD
c
a
Division of Geriatrics , University of California ,
San Francisco, CA
b
Institute on Aging Research Center , San Francisco,
CA
c
Division of Geriatrics , David Geffen School of
Medicine at UCLA , Los Angeles, CA
Published online: 11 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Eva M. Schmitt PhD , Anne C. Hu MPH & Peter S. Bachrach PhD
(2008) Course Evaluation and Assessment: Examples of a Learner-Centered Approach,
Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 29:3, 290-300, DOI: 10.1080/02701960802359524
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701960802359524
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, Vol. 29(3) 2008
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com
2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
290 doi:10.1080/02701960802359524
WGGE 0270-1960 1545-3847 Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, Vol. 29, No. 3, August 2008: pp. 116 Gerontology & Geriatrics Education
Course Evaluation and Assessment:
Examples of a Learner-Centered Approach
Schmitt, Hu, and Bachrach Gerontology & Geriatrics Education
Eva M. Schmitt, PhD
Anne C. Hu, MPH
Peter S. Bachrach, PhD
ABSTRACT. Teaching in higher education increasingly requires greater
accountability, the utilization of contemporary learner-focused teaching
models, and transparent grading methods for nonstandardized learning
products. This article describes learner-centered evaluation and assessment
strategies and illustrates how these approaches emphasize learners respon-
sibility for their own learning, foster students commitment to learning and
provide useful information for continuous curriculum improvement. In
addition, the article discusses the components of learner-centered assess-
ment models including the course assessment and enhancement model, the
Personal Action Plan, and the Gedanken Experiment. Further, a rubric is
presented as a tool for systematic and transparent grading of learner-centered
assessment products. The need for further validation of these strategies is
being discussed.
KEYWORDS. learner centered, evaluation, assessment, rubric
Eva M. Schmitt, PhD, Program Evaluator, Division of Geriatrics, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; and Associate Director for Program
Evaluations, Institute on Aging Research Center, San Francisco, CA.
Anne C. Hu, MPH, Program Coordinator, Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen
School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Peter S. Bachrach, PhD, Program Evaluator, Division of Geriatrics, David
Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Address correspondence to: Eva M. Schmitt, PhD, Associate Director
Program Evaluations, Institute on Aging Research Center, 3330 Geary Blvd., San
Francisco, CA 94118334 (E-mail: eschmitt@ioaging.org).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Schmitt, Hu, and Bachrach 291
INTRODUCTION
Evaluation and learner-centered strategies are currently major themes
in the discourse around higher education. While the growing focus on
accountability and justification places evaluation activities in an increas-
ingly important role, the paradigm shift away from traditional content and
teacher-centered models emphasizes learner-centered teaching and
assessment approaches (Huba & Freed, 2000). However, learner-centered
evaluation activities, which provide learners the opportunity to formatively
shape the conduct of an ongoing educational program, have received little
attention (National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education,
2005). While evaluation concentrates on the appropriateness and quality of a
program or curriculum, assessments focus on individual learners achieve-
ments. In the educational setting, however, evaluation and assessment are
often used interchangeably (Suskie, 2004). The purpose of this article is to
present and discuss the different components of learner-centered assess-
ments and learner-centered evaluation strategies. To this end, we describe
principles, provide examples, and discuss components of learner-centered
education evaluation and assessment strategies.
PRINCIPLES OF LEARNER-CENTERED EVALUATION
AND ASSESSMENT AND PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
Program evaluation is a systematic process of utilizing data to judge a
given program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) and may include for-
mative and/or summative strategies. Summative evaluation activities are
conducted at the end of a course to judge a program retrospectively. In
contrast, formative evaluation assesses a program while it takes place,
providing data for timely intervention if needed (Suskie, 2004). One popu-
lar model for program evaluation identifies four levels of evaluation
activities: (1) reaction: satisfaction with and perception of a programs
quality; (2) learning: changes in attitudes, knowledge and skills due to
the program attendance; (3) behavior: changes in practice and the appli-
cation of learning to practice that is attributable to the program; and
(4) results: assessment of changes in a system or organization related to
program participation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). However, this
model focuses on summative evaluation and provides little guidance for
formative strategies (Bates, 2004). Summative evaluation is often conducted
with satisfaction surveys to determine improvement needs identified by
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

292 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
learners (Suskie, 2004). However, the value of student feedback at the
end of a course is unclear, with some claiming that ritualized evaluation
activities may be more effective in supporting teacher promotion than
informing course improvement. In addition, student feedback solicited
only at the end of a course deprives students of the opportunity to benefit
from course improvements based on their own feedback (Combs, Gibson,
Hays, Saly, & Wendt, 2007; Hendry, Cumming, Lyon, & Gordon, 2001).
The inclusion of formative student feedback given during the course of a
program to guide ongoing course modifications to current students needs
has received little attention in the literature. One exception is the course
assessment and enhancement model that utilizes student feedback to tai-
lor a course to current students needs and to improve future courses
(Combs et al., 2007). At the beginning of the course students are asked to
rate their perceived competence in, and importance of, course-specific
learning objectives. Guided by students answers, teachers communicate
the importance of objectives with low importance ratings and emphasize
objectives with low perceived competence. To analyze changes in students
perceptions due to the completion of course, students are asked at the end
of the course to rate the importance of course objectives and assess per-
ceived ability to complete these objectives. In concert with other strate-
gies, pre- and postassessment inform course evaluation and anyif
neededmodifications of the curriculum, course objectives, and delivery
methods. This course assessment and enhancement model utilizes stu-
dent feedback and self-assessed skills data to customize teaching for cur-
rent learners and to guide improvement strategies for future courses
(Combs et al., 2007). Expanding upon the course assessment and
enhancement model and the assessment model described by Suskie
(2004), learner-centered evaluation contributes to a continuous cycle,
including learner feedback and/or learner-centered assessment results
collected before, during, and after a program to inform ongoing and
subsequent course goals, objectives and methods (Figure 1). This con-
ceptualization of learner-centered evaluation adds learner-provided informa-
tion to other program evaluation strategies such as the results of traditional
tests or the review of contextual factors (e.g., cost).
Traditionally, learning is assessed with standardized testing of knowledge
absorption and fact recall to determine learners achievement of pre-
defined learning goals. With the recognition that standardized tests may
have value to compare student learning across sites, without providing
insight on how well students transfer what they have learned into practice,
learner-centered assessment strategies, focusing on students knowledge
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Schmitt, Hu, and Bachrach 293
transfer and practice integration, have become increasingly popular (Epstein
& Hundert, 2002). Although no standard definition exists, learner-centered
assessments are often described as providing guidance to address learning
needs and to evaluate a teaching program (Epstein & Hundert, 2002;
Huba & Freed, 2000; Suskie, 2004; Weimer, 2002). Analogous to learner-
centered psychological principles issued by the American Psychology
Association [APA] Board of Educational Affairs, (1997), learner-centered
assessments (1) give learners the opportunity to pursue personally relevant
learning goals and to integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge;
(2) make learners responsible for their own learning; (3) encourage learn-
ers to apply knowledge in novel situations, reflect on their learning, and
set reasonable learning goals; (4) provide possibilities for collaboration
and social interaction among learners; (5) respect individual learning
styles and preferences; and (6) are appropriate to learners skill level and cul-
tural background (APA Board of Educational Affairs, 1997). Examples of
learner-centered assessment strategies include reflections, portfolios, Per-
sonal Action Plans, and Gedanken Experiments. Reflections target meta-
cognitive skills by encouraging learners to think about their own learning
content and processes (what, how, and why). Portfolios assemble diverse,
FIGURE 1. Learner-centered evaluation of educational programs as a
continuous cycle.
A. Course
Evaluation
B. Course
Goals/Objecti
ves/Methods
C.
Learner
E.
Feedback
D. Assessment
F.
Traditional
Test
Other factors such as:
cost, attendance, and
faculty availability
H. Learner Centered
Evaluation G. Learner-
Centered
Assessment
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

294 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
learner-chosen evidence of learning and provide a holistic picture of
learners skills and progress (Suskie, 2004). Personal Action Plans and
Gedanken Experiments are tools to facilitate reviews of learners personal
agendas and to provide support on how to achieve these goals. We describe
examples of a Personal Action Plan and a Gedanken Experiment below.
While standardized tests are seen as an objective way to rate learning,
questions of consistency, reliability, and objectivity may arise if learner-
centered assessments are graded. Rubrics, a type of scoring guide, are
increasingly used as a systematic and more transparent approach to grade
learner-centered assessment products. Describing characteristics that
correspond to a judgment of performance, rubrics are, when carefully
constructed, reliable and valid measurements for somewhat subjective
assessments (National Academies, 2007). Rubrics not only ensure consis-
tency of grading student assignments, but also help learners better under-
stand teachers expectations of a given assignment. Using predetermined
standardized criteria for a defined program task (e.g., reflective piece,
portfolio), a rubric can be a useful tool before, during, and after a learning
opportunity or program implementation. For example, prior to learning,
rubrics identify expectations for a given assignment, though during and
after a program, they define criteria used as part of the student assessment
and provide formative and summative course evaluation data (Huba &
Freed, 2000; National Academies, 2007; Suskie, 2004). We describe the
evaluation of a geriatric medicine leadership training program that incor-
porates a rubric to assess participants actual behavior change below. Fur-
ther information on learner-centered assessment and grading strategies can
be found, for example, in Epstein and Hundert (2002), Huba and Freed
(2000), Suskie (2004), and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education (2000).
EXAMPLES OF TWO LEARNER-CENTERED
ASSESSMENT APPROACHES
Personal Action Plan
Personal Action Plans are widely used in chronic care management to
encourage patients to set their own health goals as well as to take an active
role in their care (Barlow, Wright, & Sheasby 2002). Similarly, in educa-
tional settings, a Personal Action Plan encourages learners active partici-
pation and guides the transfer of knowledge gains to a practical setting.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Schmitt, Hu, and Bachrach 295
The planning and curriculum committee for the Donald W. Reynolds
Faculty Development to Advance Geriatric Education (FD-AGE) Mini
Fellowship Program at UCLA utilized Personal Actions Plans to support
and assess learning in participants (Table 1). Designed to improve partici-
pants teaching skills, participants are required to develop a teaching
product using one of the teaching techniques taught during the course.
Personal Action Plans review each participants personal agenda for geri-
atrics teaching, define participants teaching goals, provide insight on
practical strategies for achieving teaching goals, and determine criteria for
meeting teaching goals. Participants are encouraged to formulate specific,
measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-specific (SMART) objectives
(Drucker, 1954).
At the beginning of the Mini-Fellowship, participants are reminded to
use Personal Action Plan components as they develop their teaching prod-
uct. On the last day, participants discuss their Personal Action Plans with
a coach and as part of a group and provide overall feedback on the course.
Participants also complete a Personal Action Plan form (the participants
and the planning/curriculum committee each receive a copy), which
serves as baseline towards meeting the stated goals 3 months after the end
of the program.
TABLE 1. Personal Action Plan guide
1. Think about how you can apply what you have learned over the past 2 days to the way
you teach geriatric content and develop a plan to make one change to improve geriatrics
training at your institution.
a. First, identify what the product of your change will be. You should be able to describe
this product in 35 words (e.g., a new geriatric lecture series, a structured geriatrics
clinical experience). Think of this product from the 30,000-foot level.
b. Next, describe in more detail what you would like this product to look like (e.g., 10 hours
of lectures on topics including falls, incontinence, and dementia; 4 half-days a nursing
home). This is looking at the product at the 50-foot level. This doesnt need to be
perfect and your coach will help you refine your thinking.
2. Once you have defined a plan, think about what steps will be needed to implement your
change.
a. Outline the specific objectives for your plan. Keep in mind these objectives should be
SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-limited)
b. Identify what resources you will need to accomplish your plan. Remember,
resources can include personnel, financial requirements, leadership, support from the
curriculum committee or residency director, etc.
c. Identify potential obstacles or barriers to implementing your plan.
3. What are some strategies for overcoming the obstacles outlined above?
4. In what ways will this change make your training program better?
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

296 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Participant feedback during Personal Action Plan discussions is used
for continuous program improvement. For example, the Personal Action
Plan was originally introduced on the third day of the program, but learners
indicated that they needed more time to develop a plan. Consequently,
Personal Action Plan components are now introduced on the first day of
the program. Additionally, participants were taught how to develop their
own standardized patient (SP) curriculum, but participants rejected SP
as too costly and time intensive. As a reaction to this feedback, SP was
replaced with a problem-based learning workshop, a cost-effective instruc-
tional method that challenges participants to learn from each other, while
working cooperatively in groups to seek solutions to real-world problems
(Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980).
Gedanken Experiment
By using a Gedanken Experiment (i.e., thought experiment) as part of its
evaluation, the UCLA Geriatric Medicine Leadership Training program
(GMLT) compelled participants to think about management and leader-
ship issues prior to the actual coursework, and to provide an online
assessment of knowledge gain and behavioral change beyond mere self-
report. Gedanken Experiments were used by Albert Einstein as well as psy-
chologists of the Wndtian School to reflect upon scientific processes and
methods of problem solving to propel further scientific inquiry (Gardner,
1997; Miller, 1999). Analogously, this technique was used at UCLA to
require GMLT trainees to reflect upon course content prior to attending
the course. Trainees received a precourse assignment to hypothesize
about a challenge they had faced at their workplace and to work through
the necessary steps required to remediate it, thus creating stronger mental
hooks upon which to hang the in-person coursework.
Prior to attending GMLT, trainees completed a brief narrative descrip-
tion of what they thought would occur given a particular challenge at their
worksite or clinic (Time 1). Specifically, they were asked to (1) identify a
problem that constituted a management or leadership problem that they
thought could benefit from the application of geriatric medicine leadership
and management tools, skills, and knowledge; (2) identify the goals and
steps needed to remediate the problem; (3) critically analyze and describe
what would occur if they actually implemented this plan: and (4) describe
what the lessons learned might be.
During the course, trainees revised their original narratives by incorpo-
rating new learning and skills obtained from GMLT (Time 2). Three
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Schmitt, Hu, and Bachrach 297
months after GMLT, trainees were asked to implement a remediation plan,
and to critically analyze and describe their outcomes in a brief narrative
report (Time 3). To profile behavioral changes across the three assess-
ment points, the UCLA research team devised a scoring rubric based on
detailed identification of the core elements provided by the training (i.e.,
the learning objectives of the course) and on a demonstration of sophisti-
cated critical thinking regarding management and leadership issues in a
geriatric medicine context (Table 2). Key components were assigned
point values for inclusion, degree of detail, and level of sophistication
expressed (i.e., did trainees superficially touch upon a core element or did
they demonstrate a deeper, advanced understanding?).
The rubric-based scoring procedure revealed that GMLT trainees
demonstrated improved knowledge regarding management and leadership
issues surrounding geriatric medicine as well as an increased level of
sophistication surrounding these issues by Time 3, suggesting that pro-
cessing the challenges of geriatric medicine management and leadership
issues prior to receiving intensive training in how to approach and reme-
diate such challenges may result in demonstrable gains in knowledge. In
addition, this assessment method (in concert with traditional evaluation
activities) afforded several modifications to the GMLT program. For
example, modifications included multiple reminders to busy participants,
TABLE 2. Sample rubric scoring template
Elements Mere Mention
(Score: 1 pt.)
Content Details
(Score: 1 pt per
relevant detail)
Critical Thinking
(Score: 03)
1. Identify geriatric
management/leadership
problem
Some mention of
element
Management
Leadership
Health law
Finances
Mentoring
Bioethics
Organizational
structure
0: No evidence of
sophisticated
thinking
2. Identify end point
(problem solution)
3. Develop action plan
(steps necessary to move
from problem to solution)
4. Implementation of action
plan
5. Description of failure to
implement plan (if
necessary)
6. Lessons learned
7. Mentor relationship
1: Some evidence
of sophisticated
thinking
2: Mostly complete,
but not fully
sophisticated
3: Complete;
shows high level
of sophisticated
thinking
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

298 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
a program-commencing group poster session wherein participants present
their revised Time 2 narrative as a brief poster to obtain group feedback,
and a program concluding booster session in which GMLT faculty use
a small group format to help trainees modify their Time 2 exercises and
set more realistic expectations for their Time 3 implementation.
COMPONENTS OF LEARNER-CENTERED ASSESSMENT
AND EVALUATION AS APPLIED IN THE EXAMPLES
Having behavior change as the ultimate goal, the Donald W. Reynolds
FD-AGE and the UCLA GMLT program assess learners based on self-
identified learning goals and encourage the construction of knowledge by
linking these learning goals to new, already existing, and future-oriented
knowledge. Both examples also include the application of what was
learned into practice and encourage reflections about the success and barri-
ers of the application. The FD-AGE Mini Fellowship Program compels
participants to apply new knowledge and change geriatrics teaching at
their institution by developing and implementing a new teaching product.
In addition, learners are encouraged to reflect on how the implementation
of their product will improve teaching and how to overcome anticipated
barriers. Conversely, GMLT expects learners to reflect on a self-chosen
work-related problem prior to the course and consider how GMLT could
support the solution to the problem. After the course, learners apply what
they have learned to solve the previously identified problem and reflect on
the success of the remediation. In both examples, collaborative learning is
encouraged via group discussions of the learning product and process.
Furthermore, in both examples, instructors function as mediators who uti-
lize assessment tools to coach and help learners improve yet allow learners
to take personal responsibility for their own learning and assessment.
Granted, both examples illustrate the integration of learner-centered
assessment components, the utilization of assessment results, and learner
feedback to improve subsequent courses. But they do not afford mid-
course corrections based on current learners feedback.
DISCUSSION
We described learner-centered evaluation and assessment strategies
that give learners responsibility for their own learning to increase
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

Schmitt, Hu, and Bachrach 299
students commitment to learning while providing useful information
for continuous curriculum improvement. Although learner-centered
assessment strategies have strong face validity, no standard definitions
of these concepts exist, and little rigorous research has been conducted
to document the advantage of these approaches over traditional strate-
gies (Ludmerer, 2004; Suskie, 2004). For example, the positive impact
of individualized written action plans on self-management skills in
patients with chronic conditions has been demonstrated, but little data is
available on the impact of Personal Actions Plans in the educational
setting (Gibson et al., 2002). Moreover, the lack of psychometric data,
and the time and resource requirements of these approaches further
point to the need for more research to assess whether learner-centered
evaluation and assessment strategies result in significantly better learn-
ing, practical application, and curriculum development than traditional
methods.
REFERENCES
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. (2000). Toolbox of assessment
methods. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from http://www.acgme.org/outcome
American Psychological Association [APA] Board of Educational Affairs. (1997).
Learner-centered psychological principals: A framework for school reform and redesign.
Retrieved January 12, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ed/cpse/LCPP.pdf
Barlow, J., Wright, C., & Sheasby, J. (2002). Self-management approaches for people
with chronic conditions: A review. Patient Education and Counseling, 48, 177187.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical
education. New York: Springer.
Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: The Kirkpatrick model and the
principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341347.
Combs, K. L., Gibson, S. K., Hays, J. M., Saly, J., & Wendt, J. T. (2007). Enhancing
curriculum and delivery: Linking assessment to learning objectives. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 87102.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional competence.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 226235.
Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of exceptional individuals and an
examination of our extraordinariness. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Gibson, P. G., Powell, H., Coughlan, J., Wilson, A. J., Abramson, M., Haywood, P., et al.
(2002). Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with
asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, (2) Art. No.: CD001117.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

300 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Hendry, G. D., Cumming, R. G., Lyon, P. M., & Gordon, J. (2001). Student-centred course
evaluation in a four-year problem based medical programme: Issues in collection and
management of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 327339.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000) Learner-centered assessment on college campuses:
Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Ludmerer, K. M. (2004) Learner-centered medical education. New England Journal of
Medicine, 351, 11631164.
Miller, A. I. (1999). Einsteins first steps toward general relativity: Gedanken experiments
and axiomatics. Physics in Perspectives, 1(1), 85104.
National Academies. (2007). Assessments in science education. Retrieved December 1,
2007, from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/5.html
National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. (2005). Accountability for
better results. A national imperative for higher education. Retrieved December 1,
2007, from http://www.sheeo.org/account/accountability.pdf
Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

U

L
i
b
r
a
r
y

o
f

B
u
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
]

a
t

0
3
:
2
6

1
2

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4