156 | Chapter 8 good practice of these SRL constructs. The codebook was used to rate the presence of these criteria within ninety portfolios. This analysis revealed that reflective entries were scarce and mainly described events and experiences without explanations and context. Feedback was generally limited to comments on what went well and lacked specificity, context and directions for future learning. Learning goals and plans were short of specificity, but did contain challenging and consistent topics. Signs of monitoring were – limitedly - present in 75% of the portfolios. In sum, the criteria for good practices of the included SRL constructs were hardly present in the portfolios of trainees. We concluded that documentation of SRL constructs will not appear in portfolios without effort from all stakeholders involved, as documentation of SRL requires time and asks for a high level of introspection and writing skills. The discouraging quality of portfolio documentation regarding SRL did not necessarily mean that GP trainees didnot engage in SRL duringportfoliouse, as proper documentation is possibly not required for SRL to take place. In order to get a better perspective on this, a focus group study that explored the experiences with portfolio use of different stakeholders of the GP specialty training programme is described in Chapter 4. Nine focus groups were organised to gather experiences of the three important user groups of the portfolio: trainees, supervisors and faculty. Template analysis was used to analyse the data. Three themes were identified: SRL with(out) the portfolio, stakeholder dynamics and ambiguities. Respondents were doubtful about the learning benefits of portfolio use, as most trainees only used their portfolio to check off what was considered to be required. Stakeholder dynamics clarified checking off behaviour in two ways. First, trainees often considered documenting learning activities as a superfluous, administrative activity, since the close relationship with their supervisor already adequately supported their learning process. Second, faculty often (unintentionally) took portfolio ownership away from trainees, as they instructed trainees to deliver portfolio content that was valuable for assessment. Without ownership trainees experienced little motivation and leeway to use the portfolio during SRL. Besides, ambiguities related to why and how the portfolio should be used amplified checking off behaviour, as trainees haphazardly completed portfolio reports in the hope that they would thereby fulfil potential requirements. Consequently, we concluded that portfolio use did not support SRL in the setting of the GP specialty programme. Difficulties to serve multiple purposes with one portfolio were identified as the primary obstacle, since these difficulties resulted in competing interests and a lack of clarity concerning why and how the portfolio should be used. The difficulties to serve multiple purposes, e.g. assessment, accountability and/or self-regulated learning, with one portfolio were the main interest of Chapter 5. This chapter described that interdependencies between the purposes can cause tensions duringportfoliouse. Previous suggestions todeal with these tensions didnot acknowledge the complexity of the problem at hand. Therefore, we argued that complexity theory and systems thinking methodologies are vital to provide sustainable solutions. Accordingly,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw