Student Use and Perceptions of Embedded Formative Assessments in a Basic Science Veterinary Program
Publication: Journal of Veterinary Medical Education
Volume 51, Number 4
Abstract
This work describes the implementation of online, timed, closed-book formative assessments across several modules of a first-year undergraduate veterinary program. This process does not require significant time investment since it can be implemented into existing programs of study. Students were surveyed on how they used these formative assessments for learning and, overall, were overwhelmingly positive about the opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their performance. Quantitative statistics on preferences as well as qualitative thematic analysis of open, free-text questions revealed clear preferences in how they choose to engage with the assessments for learning, as well as how they prefer assessments to be administered. Students were positive about the online nature of the exams and prefer formative assessments to be distributed across the teaching semesters without any time restrictions, allowing them to be completed as and when they choose. Immediate feedback in the form of model answers is the students’ preference, although some value signposting to relevant resources for further research. Furthermore, students reported that they want more questions and tests to complement their learning, and overwhelmingly rely on guided and structured activities for learning and revision, which will need to be balanced with opportunities to develop critical thinking and independent learning skills when studying in a professional course, given students are not likely to default into such behavior. This work models a process many curriculum designers have undergone and continue to undergo in higher education as online, hybrid, and blended approaches to teaching have received renewed interest.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Klemm PR, Ruelens-Trinkaus D, Allshouse LM, Barnard PJ. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Higher Education: Common Interdisciplinary Issues and Lessons Learned. Open Journal of Nursing. 2020;10:1195–208.
2.
Kingsbury I. Online learning: How do brick and mortar schools stack up to virtual schools? Education and Information Technologies. 2021;26:6567–88.
3.
Pokhrel S, Chhetri R. A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future. 2021;8(1):133–41.
4.
Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond MA. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Oct 3]; Available from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
5.
Baker LA, Spencely C. Is hybrid teaching delivering equivalent learning for students in higher education? Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2023;0(0):1–13. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2183357
6.
Ilgaz H, Afacan Adanır G. Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them? Education and Information Technologies. 2020;25(2):1255–69.
7.
Williams SM, Arnold PK, Mills JN. Coping with stress: a survey of Murdoch University veterinary students. J Vet Med Educ. 2005;32(2):201–12.
8.
Henderson M, Chung J, Awdry R, Mundy M, Bryant M, Ashford C, et al. Factors associated with online examination cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2022;1–15.
9.
Reedy A, Pfitzner D, Rook L, Ellis L. Responding to the COVID-19 emergency: student and academic staff perceptions of academic integrity in the transition to online exams at three Australian universities. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2021;17(1):1–32.
10.
Newton P, Essex K. How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A Systematic Review. 2022. Available from: https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr574568.
11.
Kirschner PA, Bruyckere PD. The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2017;67:135–142.
12.
Ilin V. The role of user preferences in engagement with online learning. E-Learning and Digital Media. 2022;19(2):189–208. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20427530211035514.
13.
Benjamin AS, Tullis J. What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology. 2010;61(3):228–247.
14.
Baker LA. The utility of distributed practice in curriculum design and effective learning strategies. Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching. 2022;1(14):17–20. Available from: https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/the-utility-of-distributed-practice-in-curriculum-design-and-effective-learning-strategies/
15.
Evans DJ, Zeun P, Stanier RA. Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. Journal of anatomy. 2014;224(3):296–303.
16.
Kerfoot BP, DeWolf WC, Masser BA, Church PA, Federman DD. Spaced education improves the retention of clinical knowledge by medical students: a randomised controlled trial. Medical education. 2007;41(1):23–31.
17.
Kerfoot BP, Brotschi E. Online spaced education to teach urology to medical students: a multi-institutional randomized trial. The American Journal of Surgery. 2009;197(1):89–95.
18.
Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge; 2008. (Educational Psychology). Available from: https://apprendre.auf.org/wp-content/opera/13-BF-References-et-biblio-RPT-2014/Visible%20Learning_A%20synthesis%20or%20over%20800%20Meta-analyses%20Relating%20to%20Achievement_Hattie%20J%202009%20...pdf
19.
Carrillo-De-La-Peña MT, Bailles E, Caseras X, Martınez À, Ortet G, Pérez J. Formative assessment and academic achievement in pre-graduate students of health sciences. Advances in health sciences education. 2009;14(1):61–7.
20.
Yorke M. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher education. 2003;45:477–501.
21.
Cleland J, Mackenzie R, Ross S, Sinclair H, Lee A. A remedial intervention linked to a formative assessment is effective in terms of improving student performance in subsequent degree examinations. Medical teacher. 2010;32(4):e185–90.
22.
Turnwald G, Stone E, Bristol D, Fuentealba C, Hardie L, Hellyer P, et al. Assessing clinical competency: reports from discussion groups. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 2008;35(3):343–53.
23.
Mossop LH, Senior A. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours! Portfolio design in two UK Veterinary Schools. Journal of veterinary medical education. 2008;35(4):599–606.
24.
Warman SM, Laws EJ, Crowther E, Baillie S. Initiatives to improve feedback culture in the final year of a veterinary program. Journal of veterinary medical education. 2014;41(2):162–71.
25.
Yorke M. Formative assessment and its relevance to retention. Higher Education Research & Development. 2001;20(2):115–26.
26.
Marsh SJ, Cobb KA, Mossop LH. Perceptions of Assessment Literacy among Current and Prospective Veterinary Students. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 2021;48(2):163–9.
27.
Inuwa IM, Al Rawahy M, Taranikanti V, Habbal O. Anatomy “steeplechase” online: Necessity sometimes is the catalyst for innovation. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2011;4(2):115–8.
28.
Allen IE, Seaman CA. Likert scales and data analyses. Quality progress. 2007;40(7):64–5. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453ed%20snp55rrgjct55))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=1850191
29.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.
30.
Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.
31.
Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke's approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & quantity. 2022;56(3):1391–412.
32.
Clarke V, Braun V. Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research. 2018;18(2):107–10.
33.
Roediger HL, Putnam AL, Smith MA. Chapter One - Ten Benefits of Testing and Their Applications to Educational Practice. In: Mestre JP, Ross BH, editors. Academic Press; 2011. p. 1–36. (Psychology of Learning and Motivation; vol. 55). Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123876911000016
34.
Ferguson P. Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education. 2011;36(1):51–62.
35.
Bevan R, Badge J, Cann A, Willmott C, Scott J. Seeing eye-to-eye? Staff and student views on feedback. Bioscience Education. 2008;12(1):1–15.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education
Volume 51 • Number 4 • August 2024
Pages: 431 - 437
PubMed: 37229550
Copyright
© American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC), 2024. For their own personal use, users may read, download, print, search, or link to the full text. Manuscripts published in the Journal of Veterinary Medical Education are copyrighted to the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges. Requests for permission to reproduce this article should be made to the University of Toronto Press using the Permission Request Form: https://www.utpjournals.press/about/permissions or by email: [email protected].
History
Received: 27 January 2023
Accepted: 12 April 2023
Published ahead of print: 25 May 2023
Published online: 20 August 2024
Published in print: August 2024
Key Words:
Authors
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding
No funding was received for this work.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Related Content
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Download article citation data for:
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2024 51:4, 431-437
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2024 51:4, 431-437