Formative assessments during COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study on performance and experiences of medical students.

MedEdPublish (2016) Pub Date : 2023-08-07 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.12688/mep.19428.2
Vanessa Lavallard, Bernard Cerutti, Marie-Claude Audétat-Voirol, Barbara Broers, Julia Sader, Annick Galetto-Lacour, Stéphane Hausmann, Georges L Savoldelli, Mathieu Nendaz, Monica Escher
{"title":"Formative assessments during COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study on performance and experiences of medical students.","authors":"Vanessa Lavallard, Bernard Cerutti, Marie-Claude Audétat-Voirol, Barbara Broers, Julia Sader, Annick Galetto-Lacour, Stéphane Hausmann, Georges L Savoldelli, Mathieu Nendaz, Monica Escher","doi":"10.12688/mep.19428.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Because of COVID-19, the 2020 written medical examinations were replaced by mandatory formative online assessments. This study aimed to determine students' performance, self-assessment of performance, and perception about the switch from a summative to a formative approach. <b>Methods</b>: Medical students from year 2 to 5 (n=648) were included. They could repeat each test once or twice. They rated their performance after each attempt and were then given their score. Detailed feedback was given at the end of the session. An online survey determined medical students' perception about the reorganization of education. Two items concerned the switch from summative to formative assessments <b>Results</b>: Formative assessments involved 2385 examinees totaling 3197 attempts. Among examinees, 30.8% made at least 2 attempts. Scores increased significantly at the second attempt (median 9.4, IQR 10.8), and duration decreased (median -31.0, IQR 48.0). More than half of examinees (54.6%) underestimated their score, female students more often than male. Low performers overestimated, while high performers underestimated their scores. Students approved of the switch to formative assessments. Stress was lessened but motivation for learning decreased. <b>Conclusions</b>: Medical students' better scores at a second attempt support a benefit of detailed feedback, learning time and re-test opportunity on performance. Decreased learning motivation and a minority of students repeating the formative assessments point to the positive influence of summative assessment on learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"13 ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10628360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19428.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Because of COVID-19, the 2020 written medical examinations were replaced by mandatory formative online assessments. This study aimed to determine students' performance, self-assessment of performance, and perception about the switch from a summative to a formative approach. Methods: Medical students from year 2 to 5 (n=648) were included. They could repeat each test once or twice. They rated their performance after each attempt and were then given their score. Detailed feedback was given at the end of the session. An online survey determined medical students' perception about the reorganization of education. Two items concerned the switch from summative to formative assessments Results: Formative assessments involved 2385 examinees totaling 3197 attempts. Among examinees, 30.8% made at least 2 attempts. Scores increased significantly at the second attempt (median 9.4, IQR 10.8), and duration decreased (median -31.0, IQR 48.0). More than half of examinees (54.6%) underestimated their score, female students more often than male. Low performers overestimated, while high performers underestimated their scores. Students approved of the switch to formative assessments. Stress was lessened but motivation for learning decreased. Conclusions: Medical students' better scores at a second attempt support a benefit of detailed feedback, learning time and re-test opportunity on performance. Decreased learning motivation and a minority of students repeating the formative assessments point to the positive influence of summative assessment on learning.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
新冠肺炎大流行期间的形成性评估:一项关于医学生表现和经历的观察性研究。
背景:由于新冠肺炎,2020年的书面体检被强制性的形成性在线评估所取代。本研究旨在确定学生的表现、对表现的自我评估,以及对从总结性方法转变为形成性方法的看法。方法:纳入2~5年级医学生(n=648)。他们可以将每个测试重复一到两次。他们在每次尝试后对自己的表现进行评分,然后给出分数。会议结束时提供了详细的反馈意见。一项在线调查确定了医学生对教育重组的看法。结果:形成性评估涉及2385名考生,共3197次尝试。在考生中,30.8%的考生至少进行了2次尝试。第二次尝试时成绩显著提高(中位数9.4,IQR 10.8),持续时间下降(中位数-31.0,IQR 48.0)。超过一半的考生(54.6%)低估了自己的成绩,女生比男生更容易低估自己的成绩。表现较差的人高估了自己的分数,而表现较好的人低估了自己的得分。学生们赞成改为形成性评估。压力减轻了,但学习动机降低了。结论:医学生在第二次尝试中的更好成绩有助于获得详细的反馈、学习时间和重新测试成绩的机会。学习动机的降低和少数学生重复形成性评估表明了终结性评估对学习的积极影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Double-Edged Sword of Third-Party Resources: Examining Use and Financial Burden of Extracurricular Tools in Medical Students. Medical students' knowledge on palliative care - a survey of teaching in Finland. Developing a clinician-friendly rubric for assessing history-taking skills in medical undergraduates speaking English as a foreign language. A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students. Guidelines for Integrating actionable A-SMART Learning Outcomes into the Backward Design Process.
×
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