Self-marking in written examination: a way of feedback and learning

Using collaborative two-stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course

Large enrollment foundational courses are perceived as "high stakes" because of their potential to act as barriers for progression to the next course or admittance to a program. The nature of gateway courses makes them ideal settings to explore the relationship between anxiety, pedagogical interventions, and student performance. Here, two-stage collaborative examinations were implemented to improve test-taking skills and address widespread test anxiety in an introductory human anatomy course. Test anxiety data were collected (using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire) before the first examination and last examination. Most students experienced decreased test anxiety over the course of the semester; however, some students may have experienced performance limiting conditions due to test anxiety at the end of the semester based on academic ability in the course (in "C" students when compared to "A" students: P < 0.00006 and "B" students: P < 0.05), overall academic ability (in academically weaker students: P < 0.025), and demographic factors (in women: P < 0.025). The strongest performances on examinations were primarily observed in already academically strong students (mean individual performance: P < 0.000, mean group performance: P < 0.000). Furthermore, changes in test anxiety were not significantly associated with the group portion of the examinations. Patterns of changes in test anxiety over the course of the semester underscore a complex interaction between test anxiety, student background, and student performance. Results suggest that pathways for test anxiety in "high stakes" courses may be separate from the mechanisms responsible for the benefits of collaborative testing. Anat Sci Educ 10: 409-422. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

Variation in medical student grading criteria: a survey of clerkships in obstetrics and gynecology

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess how obstetrics/gynecology clerkships incorporate methods of student assessment into grades.

STUDY DESIGN

A survey that included a broad range of assessment methods was distributed to obstetrics/gynecology clerkship directors registered with the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Respondents were asked to indicate the methods used for assessment and to indicate the weight assigned to these methods in determining a student grade.

RESULTS

Of the 146 surveys distributed, there were 53 respondents (36.4%). The most common methods of subjective assessment included evaluation of patient presentation skills and performance on ward rounds. The 2 most commonly used objective methods, general assessment of cognitive knowledge and the National Board of Medical Examiners Subject Examination in Obstetrics and Gynecology, generally accounted for 75% of the final grade, although these same 2 components also had the widest range of assigned weights reported.

CONCLUSION

Assessment methods and incorporation into a final grade vary widely across obstetrics/gynecology clerkships.

A survey of medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment

OBJECTIVE

To survey medical students' views about the purposes and fairness of assessment procedures.

METHOD

The survey used a 19-item questionnaire designed for self-completion. Respondents were invited to "strongly agree", "agree", "disagree" or "strongly disagree" with a series of statements about the purposes and fairness of assessment. There was space for free text comments relating to each statement.

RESULTS

A total of 312 students out of a sample of 381 completed questionnaires (82% response rate). Whilst the majority of students (> 95%) agreed that ensuring competence, providing feedback and guiding student learning were important purposes of assessment, only half (51%) felt that assessment should be used to predict performance as a doctor. A clear majority of students (81%) agreed that, on the whole, assessment at Newcastle Medical School was fair. Data interpretation papers (comprising a combination of multiple true/false, "one best answer" and short answers) were perceived to be the fairest assessment tool; the assessment of clinical rotations by supervisors was perceived as the least fair. Differences in perception about the fairness of several assessment methods emerged between junior and senior students. A large number of respondents expressed desire for the provision of more feedback on performance in order to guide future learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst students' views about the fairness of specific assessment tools may sometimes be at variance with published research on assessment, their perceptions will influence the acceptability of assessment. Students would welcome the introduction of methods that provide meaningful assessment feedback.