Summative Exam Research Articles

The Impact of Medical Students' Individual Teaching Format Choice on the Learning Outcome Related to Clinical Reasoning.

BackgroundRepeated formative assessments using key feature questions have been shown to enhance clinical reasoning. Key feature questions augmented by videos presenting clinical vignettes may be more effective than text-based questions, especially in a setting where medical students are free to choose the format they would like to work with. This study investigated learning outcomes related to clinical reasoning in students using video- or text-based key feature questions according to their individual preferences.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that repeated exposure to video-based key feature questions enhances clinical reasoning to a greater extent than repeated exposure to text-based key feature questions if students are allowed to choose between those different formats on their own.MethodsIn this monocentric, prospective, nonrandomized trial, fourth-year medical students attended 12 computer-based case seminars during which they worked on case histories containing key feature questions. Cases were available in a text- and a video-based format. Students chose their preferred presentation format at the beginning of each case seminar. Student performance in key feature questions was assessed in formative entry, exit, and retention exams and was analyzed with regard to preceding exposure to video- or text-based case histories.ResultsOf 102 eligible students, 75 provided written consent and complete data at all study exams (response rate=73.5%). A majority of students (n=52) predominantly chose the text-based format. Compared with these, students preferring the video-based format achieved a nonsignificantly higher score in the exit exam (mean 76.2% [SD 12.6] vs 70.0% [SD 19.0]; P=.15) and a significantly higher score in the retention exam (mean 75.3% [SD 16.6] vs 63.4% [SD 20.3]; P=.02). The effect was independent of the video- or text-based presentation format, which was set as default in the respective exams.ConclusionsDespite students’ overall preference for text-based case histories, the learning outcome with regard to clinical reasoning was higher in students with higher exposure to video-based items. Time-on-task is one conceivable explanation for these effects as working with video-based items was more time-consuming. The baseline performance levels of students do not account for the results as the preceding summative exam results were comparable across the 2 groups. Given that a substantial number of students chose a presentation format that was less effective, students might need to be briefed about the beneficial effects of using video-based case histories to be able to make informed choices about their study methods.

The outcome-based iCAN! / theyCAN! feedback paradigm differentiates strong and weak learning outcomes, learner diversity, and the learning outcomes of each learner: A shift to metacognitive assessment

Abstract Background Can learning outcomes be transformed in useful tools revealing strong and weak learning outcomes, learners, teachers; reporting student self-assessment overestimation; informing formative feedback and summative examinations? Methods Based on the ESMO / ASCO global curriculum, 66 level-two learning outcomes were identified and transformed in the iCAN!-Oncology and theyCAN!-Oncology questionnaires, anonymously completed online, before and after teaching, by trainees and trainers respectively, in a five-day fulltime undergraduate oncology course. Results In total, students assessed themselves (iCAN!) with 55% before and 70% after the course (27% improvement); teachers assessed students (theyCAN!) with 43% before and 69% after (60% improvement). Twenty level-two learning outcomes (30%) were scored below the pass / fail cut-point by students while 46 (70%) by teachers, before the course; none after the course. Students assessed themselves the highest in “TNM system” before (81%) and after (82%), while the teachers assessed students so in “Normal cell biology” before (72%) and “Moral / ethical issues in clinical research” after (83%). The lowest assessed outcome was the “Research protocol” by students (28%) and teachers (18%) before, and the “Anticancer agents” after (54% by both). Individual students self-assessed themselves from 31% to 88% before, and from 54% to 88% after; individual teachers assessed students from 29% to 66% before, and from 55% to 94% after. The iCAN! / theyCAN! provided detailed individual student or teacher profile, tightfisted or generous. Conclusions The iCAN! / theyCAN! differentiate strong and weak learning outcomes, learners, teachers; reveal no student self-assessment overestimation; inform formative feedback and summative exams at a metacognitive level; generalize to any course and assessor; support evidence-based teaching and learning SWOT policy.

Use of E-exams in High Stakes Law School Examinations: Student and Staff Reactions

Australian law schools have just begun to move towards e-exams. There are a number of drivers encouraging Australian universities to introduce e-exams, including economic pressures, a desire to reduce administrative burdens, and changes to workplaces. Logistically, e-exams may assist with paper distribution, script legibility and shorter marking times. Pedagogical arguments in favour of e-exams rely on the fact that students already use technology daily and complete the bulk of their university work on computers. In this context, handwriting an exam has been described as an ‘anachronism’. More specifically, traditional handwriting of examinations in contemporary contexts is seen as a ‘misalignment of assessment practice to the learning environment’. Such misalignment can result in diminished learning outcomes. However, there is little literature addressing the adoption of e-exams for formal high stakes summative exams. Much of the research to date has focused on small scale, informal low stakes tests in non-law disciplines. Within Australia, whether e-exams are appropriate or effective has been the subject of a number of reported trials, but none have specifically reported on law students. In 2016 UNSW Law sought to rectify this and undertook such a trial. This article provides empirical insight into the process and student perceptions for a high stakes summative e-exam. It analyses students’ attitudes and concerns prior to the introduction of the e-exam platform, as well as after they had completed the exam. We also provide insights into the important procedural aspects associated with high stakes exams and staff responses to the process, issues not previously reported on.

Comparison of long-menu and single-best-answer multiple choice questions in computer-based summative assessments: a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundLittle is known regarding the psychometric properties of computerized long-menu formats in comparison to classic formats. We compared single-best-answer (Type A) and long-menu formats using identical question stems during the computer-based, summative, intermediate clinical-clerkship exams for nine disciplines.MethodsIn this randomised sequential trial, we assigned the examinees for every summative exam to either the Type A or long-menu format (four different experimental questions, otherwise identical). The primary outcome was the power of discrimination. The study was carried out at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland, and included all the students enrolled for the exams that were part of the study. Examinees were surveyed about the long-menu format at the end of the trial.ResultsThe trial was stopped for futility (p = 0.7948) after 22 exams including 88 experimental items. The long-menu format had a similar discriminatory power but was more difficult than the Type A format (71.45% vs 77.80%; p = 0.0001). Over half of the options (54.4%) chosen by the examinees in long-menu formats were not proposed as distractors in the Type A formats. Most examinees agreed that their reasoning strategy was different.ConclusionsIn a non-selected population of examinees taking summative exams, long-menu questions have the same discriminatory power as classic Type A questions, but they are slightly more difficult. They are perceived to be closer to real practice, which could have a positive educational impact. We would recommend their use in the final years of the curriculum, within realistic key-feature problems, to assess clinical reasoning and patient management skills.

The Clinical Anatomy and Imaging Laboratory: Vertical Integration in the Preclerkship Curriculum.

As medical schools implement integrated curricula, anatomy education especially has experienced increased pressure to make foundational content clinically relevant. We designed a novel type of integrative anatomy laboratory experience where students could use foundational anatomy concepts in concert with modern imaging/diagnostic techniques to enhance important clinical concepts. We selected a process called Lesson Study to develop the multidisciplinary Clinical Anatomy and Imaging Laboratory (CAIL) in the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems. We utilized soft-embalmed cadavers extensively for their highly realistic tissue appearance and texture, which allowed instructors and students to perform a wide array of procedures in case-based scenarios similar to practicing clinicians. We conducted field observations of participating students, focus-group discussions, and knowledge-based exams to examine efficacy of the CAIL. Approximately 150 first- and second-year students participated in each of the CAIL activities on an annual basis. Most focus-group participants felt the CAIL was a great learning experience. They commented on how the lab provided relevance to anatomy knowledge and helped integrate prior classroom learning more deeply. Instructors noted that students asked more advanced, clinically relevant questions than in a typical anatomy lab. Knowledge improved significantly after the CAIL, although it is unclear if this translates to summative exams. The CAIL creates a unique learning experience where students use prior foundational anatomy knowledge in conjunction with modern imaging and diagnostic techniques to reinforce important clinical concepts. We have continued to integrate CAIL experiences into more clinical systems in our medical school curriculum.

Identifying central tenets needed in our education systems: Results from a pilot integrated clinical apprenticeship

Purpose: The ability of healthcare systems to deliver world-class compassionate care depends on the quality of training and education of staff. Matching student-centered learning with patient-centered care is the focus for much curricula reform. This study explores the effect a novel longitudinal curriculum had on medical students’ attitudes and experiences to better identify central tenets needed in our education system.Methods: Single-center, qualitative focus-group study conducted in 2017 of medical students in a longitudinally integrated clinical apprenticeship at a large UK medical school. Students were randomly assigned to focus groups to describe their educational journey and explore how longitudinal learning prepared them for a medical career, valuing their unique position as student participants in the healthcare system.Results: Four themes emerged from students’ experiences: navigating the patient journey, their professional development, their learning journey, and the healthcare system.Conclusions: Listening to student voices lends insights for educators refining educational models to produce doctors of tomorrow. This project identified the educational value of students having authentic roles in helping patients navigate the healthcare system and the benefits of consistent mentorship and greater autonomy. The gulf between gaining skills as a future doctor and gaining skills to pass summative exams calls into question assessment methods.

Impact of Dissection Versus Prosection on Student Anatomical Knowledge Retention

Few topics invoke as much passion in anatomy education as the role of dissection in laboratory instruction. In 2004, The Anatomical Record (Part B: New Anatomist) published their oft‐cited debate forum on the necessity of dissection. Subsequent studies comparing dissection to other methods have noted extensive variability between educational programs and student populations making comparisons problematic. In 2017, WMed underwent a rapid transition from dissection to prosection‐based musculoskeletal instruction. This change provided a unique opportunity to compare the impact of each instructional method on anatomical knowledge retention as measured by summative and practical examination.At WMed, students completed a reciprocal peer‐teaching (RPT) module during the musculoskeletal system course between 2015 and 2017. The RPT module assigned a regional content area (back, shoulder/arm, forearm/hand, hip/thigh, and leg/foot) to anatomy teams of 5–6 students. Students learned regional content and then assisted their peers in learning this content. The first two classes (n=112) learned content via traditional dissection, while the third class (n= 72) learned their regional content on prosected specimens. Students had five sessions (13 hours) prior to the start of the course to learn the content and for the dissection cohorts to prepare their specimen. All cohorts completed a pre‐course quiz to ensure readiness to peer‐teach. Anatomy content, instructional time, and class metrics remained relatively constant between cohorts, with the exception of a single optional procedure component offered in 2017. Due to annual differences in exams and performance of students, scores for region specific exam questions were normalized to scores on the overall exam. Data was analyzed using an independent T‐test.Students in the prosection and dissection cohorts passed their region‐specific quiz at equal rates (p = 0.11). Student knowledge on practical or summative exam content related to regions they taught was not significantly different between prosection and dissection cohorts (p = 0.62 and p = 0.38, respectively). To further examine if there were differences between dissection and prosection cohorts, we examined student knowledge acquisition in each of the five regions individually. There were no statistically significant differences in knowledge on either the practical or summative exam questions relating to a specific region when compared to performance on the overall exam. This data suggests that student acquisition of knowledge was comparable regardless of learning method, prosection or dissection.An advantage of this study is the stability of variables between cohorts. Student groups taught the same objectives, course sequencing and content remained consistent between years, and students were tested in the same manner (written exam with multiple choice questions and laboratory practical). This analysis supports previous studies that conclude there are no disparities in the effectiveness of dissection or prosection. The greatest advantage of this study is the direct comparison of the effectiveness of prosection or dissection in anatomical knowledge retention while minimizing the confounding variables that complicate other studies.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Effects of classroom “flipping” on content mastery and student confidence in an introductory physical geology course

Incorporating active learning strategies into introductory STEM courses has been shown to improve student outcomes, however, these activities take class time to execute. The question of how to implement these effective strategies without sacrificing a significant volume of content coverage has led to the development of a “flipped” model of instruction. This flipped model requires students to take responsibility for learning some basic concepts prior to attending class so the instructor can use newly freed class time to incorporate active learning activities. This study investigated the impact of implementing a partially flipped class format on student exam performance and confidence across four semesters of a large-enrollment physical geology course. Basic geology content was presented as pre-class homework assignments using short instructional videos (Geoscience Videos) that were created following empirically-derived methods of effective multimedia design. The videos facilitated an increase in the proportion of content that could be communicated outside of class and allowed for an augmentation of in-class activities on more complex geology concepts. We compared student performance and confidence across semesters and found; (a) students were able to learn the basic content as effectively as they had when it was presented in class; (b) students improved their performance on some content during summative exams; and, (c) student confidence significantly varied on some topics as a result of the course alterations. As a result, we posit that the flipped model can provide valuable opportunities to increase student learning as long as students are supported via out-of-class homework and feedback on their level of understanding regarding topics they are learning prior to attending course meetings.

Exploring the Role of Videos in Medical Education Curriculum: A Two Year Study in Cardiothoracic Anatomy

Anatomy education in medical schools has evolved since the Flexnor report of 1910 with traditional resources of cadaveric dissections, prosected specimens, lectures, anatomy textbooks, atlases and now, included in this range of assets are radiologic images and an increasing number of anatomical videos. Multiple studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of integrated anatomy videos as the preparatory pre‐requisite resource prior to laboratory. Studies have shown that anatomy videos, specifically short two to three minute clips, are the most accepted introductory and/or summary method preferred by students. Anatomical videos have seen a major increase on websites (e.g., YouTube and internet resources), but further research is required on how best to utilize these videos to their full potential in the gross anatomy curriculum. We report on our two year SUNY Downstate findings (2017–2018) on the creation of four detailed student‐driven videos that covered the anatomy of the thorax that included the anterior chest wall (Part I), lungs (Part II), heart (Part III), and posterior mediastinum (Part IV). The videos, designed to match Downstate anatomy curriculum with a narrative dialogue that totaled twenty‐six minutes in length, were offered as a supplemental learning resource to the Class of 2020 and 2021 via Panopto software that provides video content management through Blackboard. The survey given to the 2021 class after the summative exam showed 99% of the 2021 class responders recommended these videos to future classes and 98% of students reported that these videos were necessary to best prepare for the practical exams. Quantitative results recorded by Panopto showed an average of 151 out of 204 unique users utilized this resource totaling 961 views resulting in 5952 total minutes viewed within one week of access to the videos. Our findings suggest that students found the anatomy videos indispensible to their learning with a majority viewing the videos multiple times, strengthening the value and utility of the resource. In an era of increasing number of medical education resources, we are striving towards remodeling our Integrative Pathways Curriculum by implementing concise anatomy videos to best benefit our medical students.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Modified team‐based learning as a weekly formative review

Team‐Based Learning is an evidence‐based collaborative learning strategy designed around units of instruction, known as “modules,” that are taught in a three‐step cycle: preparation, in‐class readiness assurance testing, and application‐focused exercise. The Anatomy, Histology and Embryology course at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine modified TBL for use as both summative and formative weekly assessment, ending each week with a TBL module. The individual readiness assessment test (IRAT) served as a weekly “summative” quiz, while the group readiness assessment test (GRAT) served a formative role, allowing students to debrief and learn from each other following the IRAT. The application exercises were clinical cases focused on application of the anatomy, histology and embryology. Instead of additional multiple choice questions, questions were posed in short and long answer formats, giving the students an opportunity to generate their own answers for deeper learning. An addition specific to anatomy, were weekly mini‐practical exams to prepare students for summative lab practical exams. This modified TBL method was well‐received by students and prepared them for summative exams. One drawback was that scores from the GRAT, application exercise, and mini‐practical contributed to passing of some students that did not have a strong enough grasp on the concepts. This method was abandoned when the course was integrated as a thread into the existing organ blocks of the preclinical curriculum. Recently, this form of TBL was modified again to serve a purely formative role in weekly review and consolidation of concepts in the Musculoskeletal, Skin, and Connective Tissue Block of the integrated curriculum. Student feedback and scores strongly support use of this method as a formative review of the weekly material to prepare students for weekly graded quizzes and a summative NBME exam.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

The examination mix at the Medical University Vienna

The present work describes acurriculum design with the instrument of an examination mix for the study of medicine at the medical University of Vienna. The fields of application of special examination formats as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the individual examination forms are presented. Types of summative written examinations, assessment of practical skills and abilities (OSCE), oral-practical examinations, as well as formative examinations are illustrated. Studies show that repeated testing leads to higher learning gains. Therefore, the challenge is to develop suitable methods for the continuous assessment of the learning progress in the study and to apply accordingly. Thus, in addition to the written summative exams, more and more oral and practical forms of examinations in courses with continuous assessment character should be used.

Post-exam feedback with question rationales improves re-test performance of medical students on a multiple-choice exam.

This study compared the effects of two types of delayed feedback (correct response or correct response + rationale) provided to students by a computer-based testing system following an exam. The preclinical medical curriculum at the University of Kansas Medical Center uses a two-exam system for summative assessments in which students test, revisit material, and then re-test (same content, different questions), with the higher score used to determine the students' grades. Usinga quasi-experimental design anddata collected during the normal course of instruction, test and re-test scores from midterm multiple choice examinations were compared between academic year (AY) 2015-2016, which provided delayed feedback with the correct answer only, and AY 2016-2017, where delayed feedback consisted of the correct answer plus a rationale. The average increase in score on the re-test was 2.29 ± 6.83% (n = 192) with correct answer only and 3.92 ± 7.12% (n = 197) with rationales (p < 0.05). The effect of the rationales was not different in students of differing academic abilities based on entering composite MCAT scores or Year 1 GPA. Thus, delayed feedback with exam question rationales resulted in a greater increase in exam score between the test and re-test than feedback with correct response only. This finding suggests that delayed elaborative feedback on a summative exam produced a small, but significant, improvement in learning, in medical students.

Evaluation of pattern and duration of university question papers in anatomy

Abstract: Background and objectives: Assessment drives learning. Theory summative assessment must be aligned to curricular goals. There is wide disparity in the total marks for which the examination is conducted and total duration of time of examination. The main objective of this study is to report differences in summative assessments in anatomy subject conducted by universities with respect to maximum time, maximum marks, syllabus distribution of papers, assessment of diagram drawing abilities and emphasis on clinical anatomy. Methodology: During August 2018, an extensive search for the syllabus/curriculum document will was in the internet. In the respective university websites, the document with names 'MBBS syllabus' or possible documents with syllabus details of medical undergraduate anatomy subject were searched. Results: Information from 25 different universities conducting undergraduate MBBS degree programs were evaluated. Out of these universities, sixteen universities conduct summative exam for 3 hours. Eight universities conduct exams for 2.5 hours. State universities of Punjab, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu conduct anatomy exams for 50 marks with 3 hour duration. Whereas, state universities of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Assam and Odisha conduct exams for 50 marks in 2 lA hours. JIPMER, Pondicherry has two-hour exam for fifty marks. Only Karnataka universities [including Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and three other deemed to be universities] and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh conduct exams for 100 marks in 3 hours. Twenty-one universities have above diaphragm syllabus in paper 1 and below diaphragm in paper 2. Conclusion: It is the need of the hour to have a uniform, structured, objective and rationale summative assessments in anatomy.

Benefits of Anatomy‐Centered Interdisciplinary Review Sessions

IntroductionCurricular reform in undergraduate medical education is emphasizing integration. While integration of anatomy‐based disciplines (gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, embryology, and histology) in a human morphology block is more commonplace, integration of anatomy with disciplines such as microbiology and pharmacology proves to be more challenging. This presentation describes the process of creating integrated (anatomy, histology, pathology, pharmacology, and microbiology) review sessions in systems‐based curricula.Instructional MethodIntegrated review sessions were piloted in the following undergraduate medical school courses: gastrointestinal, endocrine, and reproductive systems. Anatomy faculty spearheaded the creation and facilitation of these sessions, which were organized around complex patient cases that easily incorporated multiple disciplines. Exemplar cases included: peptic ulcer, viral hepatitis, gastrointestinal parasites causing bile duct obstruction, hypothyroidism, and infertility. Students were arranged into groups of three to six students and presented with a clinical vignette. Following each patient presentation they were asked a series of multiple‐choice questions (MCQs). MCQs were reflective of USMLE Step 1 exam questions. To arrive at the correct diagnosis, students had to answer a series of multi‐step questions and apply broad inter‐topic knowledge. Answers were revealed simultaneously with follow‐up discussion.ResultsSessions were offered prior to the course summative exam and attendance was optional. Participation was approximately 60% of the class, which was greater than previous anatomy‐only review sessions. Student feedback for the content and faculty was positive. Comments included: “A really good review and helped synthesize a lot of things”; “I thought it was a great event. The material was presented clearly, and I thought it was a great use of my time during the review week”; “Everyone was great”.DiscussionIt is our experience that students often compartmentalize anatomy in the systems courses and approach studying content through rote memorization. We believe that coordinating the integrated review and hosting it within the anatomy thread reinforced the importance of anatomy alongside other basic science disciplines in assessing patient disease and treatment. It is our opinion that inclusion and participation of pharmacology, microbiology, and pathology faculty encouraged a more cohesive study of anatomy within the systems courses. Lastly, we believe that integration of the anatomy content with other disciplines during the sessions improved student attendance.ConclusionThe integrated review sessions model current trends in medical education for increased integration across disciplines. Recruiting faculty from multiple disciplines to contribute and facilitate questions covering a variety of factors related to the patient cases models the integrative nature of the STEP 1 exam. Students appreciated this opportunity to answer these types of questions collaboratively in conjunction with immediate faculty feedback on their answer choices and thought processes. Ultimately, the sessions encouraged synthesis of anatomy content beyond the morphology‐based disciplines.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Will Use Of Cerego™ Spaced‐Learning And Self‐Test Sets Improve Medical Students' Performance On Summative Examination Pharmacology Questions?

PURPOSESpaced learning means studying at intervals, and in contrast to cramming, seems to enhance knowledge retention. Electronic software applications are available for medical students to utilize that approach. Our aim was to determine if spaced learning modules administered via the free‐to‐use Cerego™ learning platform might improve performance on pharmacology questions in the Scientific Principles of Medicine course unit summative exam.METHODSMedical students were recruited from the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine first‐year Class of 2020. The integumentary‐musculoskeletal‐peripheral nervous system (IMN) unit immediately preceded the cardiovascular‐respiratory (CVR) unit. No Cerego™ self‐test modules were created for IMN unit pharmacology sessions. Teaching materials for each of 7 CVR unit pharmacology sessions were used to generate 7 Cerego™ self‐test modules, each containing 10–45 questions approved by a faculty member, then made available to students on the Cerego™ learning platform. Cerego™ logs student attempts, time to complete a module, and an index of perceived difficulty. Subjects had unlimited access to Cerego™ while preparing for the CVR exam.RESULTSOne‐way ANOVA showed students performed better on the ten pharmacology multiple‐choice questions on the CVR summative examination than they did on the eight multiple‐choice questions on the IMN summative examination. Linear regression analysis showed no significant dependence of students' performance on CVR summative exam pharmacology questions on scores averaged for all seven Cerego™ sets (R2: 0.0057).CONCLUSIONThe results of this study question the potential for use of Cerego™ sets to enhance retention of pharmacology content. Similar projects showed Cerego™ sets improved anatomy and micro summative scores. The disparate results of these studies provide impetus to see whether using Cerego™ helps students improve knowledge retention and exam performance in behavioral science, biochemistry, genetics, histology, immunology, neuroscience, pathology and physiology.Support or Funding InformationAll research was done on campus without financial assistance from outside sources. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Online formative assessments: exploring their educational value.

Online formative assessments (OFA's) have been increasingly recognised in medical education as resources that promote self-directed learning. Formative assessments are used to support the self-directed learning of students. Online formative assessments have been identified to be less time consuming with automated feedback. This pilot study aimed to determine whether participation and performance in online formative assessments (OFA's) had measurable effects on learning and evaluate the students' experience of using the OFA's in the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. This is a cross-sectional study conducted among fourth year medical students (n=92) during their seven week postings in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Five sets of online formative assessments in the format of one best answers (OBA), Objective structured practical examination (OSPE) and Short answer question (SAQ) with feedback were delivered over five weeks through the online portal. The mean scores of the end of posting summative exam (EOP) of those who participated in the assessments (OFA users) and of those who did not (non-OFA users) were compared, using Students t test. The frequency of tool usage was analysed and satisfaction surveys were utilized at the end of the course by survey questionnaire using the five point Likert scale. The mean scores of the students in end of posting summative examination marks for students who had participated in the online formative assessment (OFA users) and for those who had not (non OFA users) showed no significant difference in all the three components OBA, SAQ and OSPE (p=0.902, 0.633, 0.248). Majority of the students perceived that OFAs fulfilled the stated aims and objectives and so they would persuade their peers to participate in the OFAs. Online formative assessments are perceived as tools that promote self-directed learning, improved knowledge and tailor learning for individual learning needs and style.

Students "Tackle" Quantitative Literacy in their Science Communication with Real-World Football Activity.

Undergraduate introductory biology students struggle when communicating quantitative data. This activity provides students with a real-world research experience to improve their quantitative literacy in science communication. Students were provided with a national sports media report that described a professional football athlete requiring 9,000 calories daily. Students were then asked to determine whether, based on their own research and calculations, the reporter had correctly calculated the total calories coming from the reported foods. Students discovered that their different sources of caloric information provided very different (albeit accurate) calculated totals, ranging from 6,000 to 11,000 calories. Importantly, the students generated professional letters outlining their calculated differences and sent them to the sports reporter. The professional letters to the reporter were assessed via rubric for accuracy of calculations, appropriate research evidence, professionalism, and readability for a nonexpert. A majority of the students provided accurate calculations; however, students scored lower on their professional writing skills, ability to cite appropriate research evidence, and readability for a nonexpert. Additionally, summative quantitative problems were individually completed and assessed, and activity cohorts achieved significantly higher on these problems compared with the non-activity cohort. Finally, surveyed students indicated that the activity helped prepare them for quantitative problems on the summative exam and helped them identify major course learning objectives. In conclusion, given an authentic research activity, students can take ownership of their learning and practice their communication to the general public about quantitative scientific information.

Using self-efficacy beliefs to understand how students in a general chemistry course approach the exam process

Retention of students who major in STEM continues to be a major concern for universities. Many students cite poor teaching and disappointing grades as reasons for dropping out of STEM courses. Current college chemistry courses often assess what a student has learned through summative exams. To understand students' experiences of the exam process, including how students prepare for an exam, take an exam, and respond to feedback from an exam, data was collected through interviews with students in an introductory college chemistry course. The interview data was analyzed using emergent coding to describe students' experiences of the exam process using phenomenography. Data indicated that students' experiences with the exam process could be categorized based on their reported exam performance. Overall, differences could be seen between these students' self-efficacy beliefs and metacognitive skills based on the grade each student reported receiving on the exam. The students who performed highest on the exam had self-efficacy beliefs primarily from their mastery experience, and middle performing students' self-efficacy beliefs came from vicarious experience. The lowest performing student had low self-efficacy beliefs. Students who received the highest grades on the exam viewed learning as making meaningful connections between topics, and students who received lower grades viewed learning as memorization. By further understanding students study habits, their views on the exam process, and the development of their self-efficacy beliefs, instructors may be better able to assist low and middle performing students in our general chemistry courses. The findings from this study suggest several ways instructors could facilitate more effective studying and promote higher self-efficacy beliefs, including promoting group work, talking with students about study skills, and encouraging attendance at office hours to review exam responses.

Evaluation of pattern and duration of university question papers in anatomy

Background and objectives: Assessment drives learning. Theory summative assessment must be aligned to curricular goals. There is wide disparity in the total marks for which the examination is conducted and total duration of time of examination. The main objective of this study is to report differences in summative assessments in anatomy subject conducted by universities with respect to maximum time, maximum marks, syllabus distribution of papers, assessment of diagram drawing abilities and emphasis on clinical anatomy. Methodology: During August 2018, an extensive search for the syllabus/curriculum document will was in the internet. In the respective university websites, the document with names ‘MBBS syllabus’ or possible documents with syllabus details of medical undergraduate anatomy subject were searched. Results: Information from 25 different universities conducting undergraduate MBBS degree programs were evaluated. Out of these universities, sixteen universities conduct summative exam for 3 hours. Eight universities conduct exams for 2.5 hours. State universities of Punjab, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu conduct anatomy exams for 50 marks with 3 hour duration. Whereas, state universities of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Assam and Odisha conduct exams for 50 marks in 2 hours. JIPMER, Pondicherry has two-hour exam for fifty marks. Only Karnataka universities [including Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and three other deemed to be universities] and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh conduct exams for 100 marks in 3 hours. Twenty-one universities have above diaphragm syllabus in paper 1 and below diaphragm in paper 2. Conclusion: It is the need of the hour to have a uniform, structured, objective and rationale summative assessments in anatomy

An innovative addition to team-based-learning pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning: Students' perceptions of team exams

Background and purposeThe study investigates students' perceptions of the value of implementing a team exam to enhance learning prior to a summative assessment. Team exams are similar to midterm exams, except that answering questions is a team effort. Educational activity and settingData was collected from second year pharmacy students at California Northstate University College of Pharmacy (CNUCOP) through a self-administered online survey. The survey questions included closed-ended questions to evaluate students' perception on preparedness for a summative assessment and to rank advantages and disadvantages of the team exams. FindingsOf the 40 students who completed the survey (38% response rate), 100% of participants agreed that having a team exam prior to a major exam made them feel more prepared for a major summative exam. Ninety-seven percent of students believed that the team exam helped them to identify gaps in their knowledge and 85% agreed that taking a team exam reinforced their knowledge by teaching other students. The survey results did not identify any major disadvantages to holding a team exam. SummaryStudents perceived that taking a team exam prior to a midterm exam is an effective approach to review the course contents and identify areas of improvement.