Cumulative assessment: strategic choices to influence students’ study effort

BMC Medical Education

Janke Cohen-Schotanus²  B Florentine Mulder³  René A Tio¹  Wouter Kerdijk² 

[1] Department of Cardiology, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;Center for Research and Innovation in Medical Education, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Ant. Deusinglaan 1, FC40, 9713, AV Groningen, The Netherlands;Institute for Medical Education, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Repeated testing;    Cumulative assessment;    Test enhanced learning;    Knowledge retention;    Knowledge development;    Higher education;    Medical education;    Learning effects of assessment;    Summative assessment;   

Others  :  1135727
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-172

 received in 2013-05-27, accepted in 2013-12-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

It has been asserted that assessment can and should be used to drive students’ learning. In the current study, we present a cumulative assessment program in which test planning, repeated testing and compensation are combined in order to influence study effort. The program is aimed at helping initially low-scoring students improve their performance during a module, without impairing initially high-scoring students’ performance. We used performance as a proxy for study effort and investigated whether the program worked as intended.

Methods

We analysed students’ test scores in two second-year (n = 494 and n = 436) and two third-year modules (n = 383 and n = 345) in which cumulative assessment was applied. We used t-tests to compare the change in test scores of initially low-scoring students with that of initially high-scoring students between the first and second subtest and again between the combined first and second subtest and the third subtest. During the interpretation of the outcomes we took regression to the mean and test difficulty into account.

Results

Between the first and the second subtest in all four modules, the scores of initially low-scoring students increased more than the scores of initially high-scoring students decreased. Between subtests two and three, we found a similar effect in one module, no significant effect in two modules and the opposite effect in another module.

Conclusion

The results between the first two subtests suggest that cumulative assessment may positively influence students’ study effort. The inconsistent outcomes between subtests two and three may be caused by differences in perceived imminence, impact and workload between the third subtest and the first two. Cumulative assessment may serve as an example of how several evidence-based assessment principles can be integrated into a program for the benefit of student learning.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kerdijk et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Newble DI, Jaeger K: The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 1983, 17:165-171.
• [2]Boulet J: Teaching to test or testing to teach? Med Educ 2008, 42:952-953.
• [3]McLachlan JC: The relationship between assessment and learning. Med Educ 2006, 40:716-717.
• [4]Wood T: Assessment not only drives learning, it may also help learning. Med Educ 2009, 43:5-6.
• [5]Cohen-Schotanus J: Student assessment and examination rules. Med Teach 1999, 21:318-321.
• [6]Somers CB: Correlates of engineering freshman academic performance. Eur J Eng Educ 1996, 21:317-326.
• [7]Janssen T, Carton JS: The effects of locus of control and task difficulty on procrastination. J Genet Psychol 1999, 160:436-442.
• [8]Pychyl TA, Morin RW, Salmon BR: Procrastination and the planning fallacy: an examination of the study habits of university students. J Soc Behav Pers 2000, 15:135-150.
• [9]Kachgal MM, Hansen SL, Nutter KJ: Academic procrastination/intervention: strategies and recommendations. J Dev Educ 2001, 25:14-24.
• [10]Onwuegbuzie AJ: Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assess Eval High Educ 2004, 29:3-19.
• [11]Roediger HL, Karpicke JD: The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci 2006, 1:181-210.
• [12]Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III: Repeated testing improves long‒term retention relative to repeated study: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ 2009, 43:1174-1181.
• [13]Ebbinghaus H: Memory: a Contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Dover Publications, Inc; 1967:1-33. [Translated by Ruger HA, Bussenius CE] Original work published 1885
• [14]Karpicke JD, Roediger HL: The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 2008, 319:966-968.
• [15]Norcini JJ, Guille RA: Combining tests and setting standards. In International Handbook of Research in Medical Education. Edited by Norman G, van der Vleuten C, Newble D. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:811-834.
• [16]Kulhavy RW: Feedback in written instruction. Rev Educ Res 1977, 47:211-232.
• [17]Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik CC, Kulik JA, Morgan M: The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res 1991, 61:213-238.
• [18]Butler AC, Roediger HL III: Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Mem Cognit 2008, 36:604-616.
• [19]Butler AC, Karpicke JD, Roediger HL III: The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice exams. J Exp Psychol-Appl 2007, 13:273-281.
• [20]Barnett AG, Van der Pols JC, Dobson AJ: Regression to the mean; what it is and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol 2005, 34:215-220.
• [21]Kember D, Jamieson QW, Pomfret M, Wong ETT: Learning approaches study time and academic performance. High Educ 1995, 29:329-343.
• [22]Lynch TG, Woelfl NN, Steele DJ, Hanssen CS: Learning style influences student examination performance. Am J Surg 1998, 176:62-66.
• [23]West C, Sadoski M: Do study strategies predict academic performance in medical school? Med Educ 2011, 45:696-703.
• [24]Stegers-Jager KM, Cohen-Schotanus J, Themmen APN: Motivation, learning strategies, participation and medical school performance. Med Educ 2012, 46:678-688.
• [25]Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LWT, Adendorff HJ, Herman N, Van der Vleuten CPM: The mechanism of impact of summative assessment on medical students’ learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010, 15:695-715.
• [26]Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM: Modelling the pre-assessment learning effects of assessment: evidence in the validity chain. Med Educ 2012, 46(11):1087-1098.
• [27]Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III: Test‒enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ 2008, 42:959-966.
• [28]Kibble J: Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Adv Physiol Educ 2007, 31:253-260.
• [29]Olde Bekkink M, Donders R, van Muijen GNP, Ruiter DJ: Challenging medical students with an interim assessment: a positive effect on formal examination score in a randomized controlled study. Adv Health Sci Educ 2012, 17:27-37.
• [30]Poljičanin A, Čarić A, Vilović K, Košta V, Guić MM, Aljinović J, Grković I: Daily mini quizzes as means for improving student performance in anatomy course. Croat Med J 2009, 50:55-60.