Does ‘summative’ count? The influence of the awarding of study credits on feedback use and test-taking motivation in medical progress testing

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1007/s10459-024-10324-4
Elise V. van Wijk, Floris M. van Blankenstein, Jeroen Donkers, Roemer J. Janse, Jacqueline Bustraan, Liesbeth G. M. Adelmeijer, Eline A. Dubois, Friedo W. Dekker, Alexandra M. J. Langers
{"title":"Does ‘summative’ count? The influence of the awarding of study credits on feedback use and test-taking motivation in medical progress testing","authors":"Elise V. van Wijk,&nbsp;Floris M. van Blankenstein,&nbsp;Jeroen Donkers,&nbsp;Roemer J. Janse,&nbsp;Jacqueline Bustraan,&nbsp;Liesbeth G. M. Adelmeijer,&nbsp;Eline A. Dubois,&nbsp;Friedo W. Dekker,&nbsp;Alexandra M. J. Langers","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10324-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite the increasing implementation of formative assessment in medical education, its’ effect on learning behaviour remains questionable. This effect may depend on how students value formative, and summative assessments differently. Informed by Expectancy Value Theory, we compared test preparation, feedback use, and test-taking motivation of medical students who either took a purely formative progress test (<i>formative</i> PT-group) or a progress test that yielded study credits (<i>summative</i> PT-group). In a mixed-methods study design, we triangulated quantitative questionnaire data (<i>n</i> = 264), logging data of an online PT feedback system (<i>n</i> = 618), and qualitative interview data (<i>n</i> = 21) to compare feedback use, and test-taking motivation between the <i>formative</i> PT-group (<i>n</i> = 316), and the <i>summative</i> PT-group (<i>n</i> = 302). Self-reported, and actual feedback consultation was higher in the <i>summative</i> PT-group. Test preparation, and active feedback use were relatively low and similar in both groups. Both quantitative, and qualitative results showed that the motivation to prepare and consult feedback relates to how students value the assessment. In the interview data, a link could be made with goal orientation theory, as performance-oriented students perceived the <i>formative</i> PT as not important due to the lack of study credits. This led to low test-taking effort, and feedback consultation after the <i>formative</i> PT. In contrast, learning-oriented students valued the <i>formative</i> PT, and used it for self-study or self-assessment to gain feedback. Our results indicate that most students are less motivated to put effort in the test, and use feedback when there are no direct consequences. A supportive assessment environment that emphasizes recognition of the value of formative testing is required to motivate students to use feedback for learning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 5","pages":"1665 - 1688"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-024-10324-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10324-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the increasing implementation of formative assessment in medical education, its’ effect on learning behaviour remains questionable. This effect may depend on how students value formative, and summative assessments differently. Informed by Expectancy Value Theory, we compared test preparation, feedback use, and test-taking motivation of medical students who either took a purely formative progress test (formative PT-group) or a progress test that yielded study credits (summative PT-group). In a mixed-methods study design, we triangulated quantitative questionnaire data (n = 264), logging data of an online PT feedback system (n = 618), and qualitative interview data (n = 21) to compare feedback use, and test-taking motivation between the formative PT-group (n = 316), and the summative PT-group (n = 302). Self-reported, and actual feedback consultation was higher in the summative PT-group. Test preparation, and active feedback use were relatively low and similar in both groups. Both quantitative, and qualitative results showed that the motivation to prepare and consult feedback relates to how students value the assessment. In the interview data, a link could be made with goal orientation theory, as performance-oriented students perceived the formative PT as not important due to the lack of study credits. This led to low test-taking effort, and feedback consultation after the formative PT. In contrast, learning-oriented students valued the formative PT, and used it for self-study or self-assessment to gain feedback. Our results indicate that most students are less motivated to put effort in the test, and use feedback when there are no direct consequences. A supportive assessment environment that emphasizes recognition of the value of formative testing is required to motivate students to use feedback for learning.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
终结性 "算不算?在医学进步测试中,授予学习学分对反馈使用和考试动机的影响。
尽管形成性评估在医学教育中的实施越来越多,但其对学习行为的影响仍然值得怀疑。这种效果可能取决于学生对形成性评估和终结性评估的不同评价。在期望值理论的指导下,我们比较了参加纯形成性进展测试(形成性评估组)或可获得学分的进展测试(终结性评估组)的医学生的考试准备、反馈使用和考试动机。在一项混合方法研究设计中,我们将定量问卷数据(n = 264)、在线PT反馈系统记录数据(n = 618)和定性访谈数据(n = 21)进行了三角测量,以比较形成性PT组(n = 316)和总结性PT组(n = 302)的反馈使用情况和考试动机。总结性测验组的自我报告和实际反馈咨询率更高。两组中,备考和主动使用反馈的比例相对较低,且相似。定量和定性结果都表明,准备和咨询反馈的动机与学生对评价的重视程度有关。在访谈数据中,可以发现目标导向理论,即以成绩为导向的学生认为由于缺乏学习学分,形成性 PT 并不重要。这导致了学生在形成性测验后的考试努力和反馈咨询不足。与此相反,学习导向型学生重视形成性测验,并利用形成性测验进行自学或自我评估,以获得反馈。我们的研究结果表明,大多数学生在考试中付出努力的积极性较低,并且在没有直接后果的情况下使用反馈。要激励学生利用反馈进行学习,就需要一个支持性的评估环境,强调对形成性测试价值的认可。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
Social support and academic procrastination in health professions students: the serial mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation and academic self-efficacy. To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'. Team science in interdisciplinary health professions education research: a multi-institutional case study. Belonging in dual roles: exploring professional identity formation among disabled healthcare students and clinicians. Understanding simulation-based learning for health professions students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1