Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments?
The present study aimed to examine whether medical students benefit from an open-book online formative assessment as a preparation for a practical course. A between-subjects experimental design was used: participants - a whole cohort of second-year medical students (N=232) - were randomly assigned t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of medical education 2018-11, Vol.9, p.293-301 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 301 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 293 |
| container_title | International journal of medical education |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Minder, Stefan P Weibel, David Wissmath, Bartholomäus Schmitz, Felix M |
| description | The present study aimed to examine whether medical students benefit from an open-book online formative assessment as a preparation for a practical course.
A between-subjects experimental design was used: participants - a whole cohort of second-year medical students (N=232) - were randomly assigned to either a formative assessment that covered the topic of a subsequent practical course (treatment condition) or a formative assessment that did not cover the topic of the subsequent course (control condition). Course-script-knowledge, as well as additional in-depth-knowledge, was assessed.
Students in the treatment condition had better course-script knowledge, both at the beginning, t
= 4.96, p < .01, d = 0.72., and in the end of the practical course , t
= 4.80, p < .01, d = 0.68. Analyses of covariance show that this effect is stronger for those students who understood the feedback that was presented within the formative assessment, F
=10.17, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.5116/ijme.5bc6.fead |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6387773</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2136550374</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-47c51abab5b799e5c59860ef91d22c977abb7df7efb8a6e58e8d390dcc40866b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkctLxDAQh4MoKrpXj1Lw4qVr2jRJc1HENyx40XPIY7qbtW3WpBX8703xgZpLBvLNbzJ8CB0VeE6Lgp25dQdzqg2bN6DsFtovcVXmjPBy-1e9h2YxrnE6RJQcs120R3BFueDVPnq-9lkcRgv9EDNlVg7eIBtWkFmILoDNWlChd_0yW3rVxmyMU-030Ofa-5es8aFTg0tNKkaIsZuCLg7RTpNomH3dB-j59ubp6j5fPN49XF0uclMV9ZBX3NBCaaWp5kIANVTUDEMjCluWRnCutOa24dDoWjGgNdSWCGyNqXDNmCYH6PwzdzPqDqxJw4Nq5Sa4ToV36ZWTf196t5JL_yYZqTnnJAWcfgUE_zpCHGTnooG2VT34McqyIIxSTHiV0JN_6NqPoU_rJaoWFAsqaKLmn5QJPsYAzc9nCiwnaXKSJidpcpKWGo5_r_CDfysiH30Nly0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2189509595</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Minder, Stefan P ; Weibel, David ; Wissmath, Bartholomäus ; Schmitz, Felix M</creator><creatorcontrib>Minder, Stefan P ; Weibel, David ; Wissmath, Bartholomäus ; Schmitz, Felix M</creatorcontrib><description>The present study aimed to examine whether medical students benefit from an open-book online formative assessment as a preparation for a practical course.
A between-subjects experimental design was used: participants - a whole cohort of second-year medical students (N=232) - were randomly assigned to either a formative assessment that covered the topic of a subsequent practical course (treatment condition) or a formative assessment that did not cover the topic of the subsequent course (control condition). Course-script-knowledge, as well as additional in-depth-knowledge, was assessed.
Students in the treatment condition had better course-script knowledge, both at the beginning, t
= 4.96, p < .01, d = 0.72., and in the end of the practical course , t
= 4.80, p < .01, d = 0.68. Analyses of covariance show that this effect is stronger for those students who understood the feedback that was presented within the formative assessment, F
=10.17, p<.01. Additionally, the gain of in-depth-knowledge was significantly higher for students in the treatment condition compared to students in the control condition, t
= 3.68., p < .05, d = 0.72 (0.51).
Students benefit from a formative assessment that is related to and takes place before a subsequent practical course. They have a better understanding of the topic and gain more in-depth-knowledge that goes beyond the content of the script. Moreover, the study points out the importance of feedback pages in formative assessments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2042-6372</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2042-6372</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5116/ijme.5bc6.fead</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30457974</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: International Journal of Medical Education (IJME)</publisher><subject>Academic Achievement ; Between-subjects design ; Blended Learning ; Cheating ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive Ability ; Computer-Assisted Instruction ; Course Content ; Curricula ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; Educational Measurement ; Feedback ; Female ; Formative Evaluation ; Higher education ; Humans ; Independent study ; Internet ; Knowledge ; Learning ; Learning Activities ; Male ; Medical students ; Metacognition ; Original Research ; Physiology ; Problem based learning ; Research Design ; Student Participation ; Students ; Students, Medical ; Studies ; Summative Evaluation ; Teaching ; Teaching Methods ; Time management ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>International journal of medical education, 2018-11, Vol.9, p.293-301</ispartof><rights>2018. This work is published under NOCC (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright: © 2018 Stefan P. Minder et al. 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-47c51abab5b799e5c59860ef91d22c977abb7df7efb8a6e58e8d390dcc40866b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387773/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387773/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30457974$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Minder, Stefan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weibel, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wissmath, Bartholomäus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Felix M</creatorcontrib><title>Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments?</title><title>International journal of medical education</title><addtitle>Int J Med Educ</addtitle><description>The present study aimed to examine whether medical students benefit from an open-book online formative assessment as a preparation for a practical course.
A between-subjects experimental design was used: participants - a whole cohort of second-year medical students (N=232) - were randomly assigned to either a formative assessment that covered the topic of a subsequent practical course (treatment condition) or a formative assessment that did not cover the topic of the subsequent course (control condition). Course-script-knowledge, as well as additional in-depth-knowledge, was assessed.
Students in the treatment condition had better course-script knowledge, both at the beginning, t
= 4.96, p < .01, d = 0.72., and in the end of the practical course , t
= 4.80, p < .01, d = 0.68. Analyses of covariance show that this effect is stronger for those students who understood the feedback that was presented within the formative assessment, F
=10.17, p<.01. Additionally, the gain of in-depth-knowledge was significantly higher for students in the treatment condition compared to students in the control condition, t
= 3.68., p < .05, d = 0.72 (0.51).
Students benefit from a formative assessment that is related to and takes place before a subsequent practical course. They have a better understanding of the topic and gain more in-depth-knowledge that goes beyond the content of the script. Moreover, the study points out the importance of feedback pages in formative assessments.</description><subject>Academic Achievement</subject><subject>Between-subjects design</subject><subject>Blended Learning</subject><subject>Cheating</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive Ability</subject><subject>Computer-Assisted Instruction</subject><subject>Course Content</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>Educational Measurement</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Formative Evaluation</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Independent study</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning Activities</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical students</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Problem based learning</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Student Participation</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students, Medical</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Summative Evaluation</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Time management</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>2042-6372</issn><issn>2042-6372</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkctLxDAQh4MoKrpXj1Lw4qVr2jRJc1HENyx40XPIY7qbtW3WpBX8703xgZpLBvLNbzJ8CB0VeE6Lgp25dQdzqg2bN6DsFtovcVXmjPBy-1e9h2YxrnE6RJQcs120R3BFueDVPnq-9lkcRgv9EDNlVg7eIBtWkFmILoDNWlChd_0yW3rVxmyMU-030Ofa-5es8aFTg0tNKkaIsZuCLg7RTpNomH3dB-j59ubp6j5fPN49XF0uclMV9ZBX3NBCaaWp5kIANVTUDEMjCluWRnCutOa24dDoWjGgNdSWCGyNqXDNmCYH6PwzdzPqDqxJw4Nq5Sa4ToV36ZWTf196t5JL_yYZqTnnJAWcfgUE_zpCHGTnooG2VT34McqyIIxSTHiV0JN_6NqPoU_rJaoWFAsqaKLmn5QJPsYAzc9nCiwnaXKSJidpcpKWGo5_r_CDfysiH30Nly0</recordid><startdate>20181119</startdate><enddate>20181119</enddate><creator>Minder, Stefan P</creator><creator>Weibel, David</creator><creator>Wissmath, Bartholomäus</creator><creator>Schmitz, Felix M</creator><general>International Journal of Medical Education (IJME)</general><general>IJME</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>EHMNL</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181119</creationdate><title>Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments?</title><author>Minder, Stefan P ; Weibel, David ; Wissmath, Bartholomäus ; Schmitz, Felix M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-47c51abab5b799e5c59860ef91d22c977abb7df7efb8a6e58e8d390dcc40866b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Academic Achievement</topic><topic>Between-subjects design</topic><topic>Blended Learning</topic><topic>Cheating</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive Ability</topic><topic>Computer-Assisted Instruction</topic><topic>Course Content</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>Educational Measurement</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Formative Evaluation</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Independent study</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning Activities</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical students</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Problem based learning</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Student Participation</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students, Medical</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Summative Evaluation</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Time management</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Minder, Stefan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weibel, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wissmath, Bartholomäus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Felix M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>UK & Ireland Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Minder, Stefan P</au><au>Weibel, David</au><au>Wissmath, Bartholomäus</au><au>Schmitz, Felix M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments?</atitle><jtitle>International journal of medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Med Educ</addtitle><date>2018-11-19</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>9</volume><spage>293</spage><epage>301</epage><pages>293-301</pages><issn>2042-6372</issn><eissn>2042-6372</eissn><abstract>The present study aimed to examine whether medical students benefit from an open-book online formative assessment as a preparation for a practical course.
A between-subjects experimental design was used: participants - a whole cohort of second-year medical students (N=232) - were randomly assigned to either a formative assessment that covered the topic of a subsequent practical course (treatment condition) or a formative assessment that did not cover the topic of the subsequent course (control condition). Course-script-knowledge, as well as additional in-depth-knowledge, was assessed.
Students in the treatment condition had better course-script knowledge, both at the beginning, t
= 4.96, p < .01, d = 0.72., and in the end of the practical course , t
= 4.80, p < .01, d = 0.68. Analyses of covariance show that this effect is stronger for those students who understood the feedback that was presented within the formative assessment, F
=10.17, p<.01. Additionally, the gain of in-depth-knowledge was significantly higher for students in the treatment condition compared to students in the control condition, t
= 3.68., p < .05, d = 0.72 (0.51).
Students benefit from a formative assessment that is related to and takes place before a subsequent practical course. They have a better understanding of the topic and gain more in-depth-knowledge that goes beyond the content of the script. Moreover, the study points out the importance of feedback pages in formative assessments.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>International Journal of Medical Education (IJME)</pub><pmid>30457974</pmid><doi>10.5116/ijme.5bc6.fead</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2042-6372 |
| ispartof | International journal of medical education, 2018-11, Vol.9, p.293-301 |
| issn | 2042-6372 2042-6372 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6387773 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access |
| subjects | Academic Achievement Between-subjects design Blended Learning Cheating Cognition & reasoning Cognitive Ability Computer-Assisted Instruction Course Content Curricula Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods Educational Measurement Feedback Female Formative Evaluation Higher education Humans Independent study Internet Knowledge Learning Learning Activities Male Medical students Metacognition Original Research Physiology Problem based learning Research Design Student Participation Students Students, Medical Studies Summative Evaluation Teaching Teaching Methods Time management Young Adult |
| title | Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T15%3A33%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20students%20achieve%20the%20desired%20learning%20goals%20using%20open-book%20formative%20assessments?&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20medical%20education&rft.au=Minder,%20Stefan%20P&rft.date=2018-11-19&rft.volume=9&rft.spage=293&rft.epage=301&rft.pages=293-301&rft.issn=2042-6372&rft.eissn=2042-6372&rft_id=info:doi/10.5116/ijme.5bc6.fead&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2136550374%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2189509595&rft_id=info:pmid/30457974&rfr_iscdi=true |