Abstract
Purpose
Despite the different benefits of formative assessments in an integrated medical curriculum, the effective strategies to provide feedback to medical students to benefit from the different merits of formative assessment are not fully understood. This study aims to determine the effect of different strategies of formative feedback on students’ outcomes in a medical neuroscience course.
Method
We compared medical students’ performance in summative examinations in the academic year that formative feedback was provided using in-person discussion and compared such performances with the academic year when the feedback was provided by written rationales or a combination of written rationales and in-person discussion. We also surveyed medical students’ preferences for whether written or in-person formative feedback is a better strategy to provide feedback at the end of each course.
Results
ANOVA found a significant difference in summative performance scores for those scoring ≥ 70% when formative feedback was provided by providing a rationale, in-person, and a combination of both ([F (2,80) = 247.60, P < 0.001]. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant and highest performance when feedback was provided using the written rationale approach (***P < 0.05), followed by in-person (**P < 0.05). In contrast, the least performance was recorded when formative feedback was provided using a combination of providing a written rationale for the answers to the questions and in-person discussion of the questions (*P < 0.05). Students’ preferred approach for receiving formative feedback for their formative assessment was highest for written rationale (***P < 0.05), followed by in-person or a combination of in-person and written rationale (**P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Our results found that medical students preferred a written formative feedback approach, which was associated with better student performance on the summative examination. This study reveals the importance of develo** effective strategies to provide formative feedback to medical students for medical students to fully benefit from the merits of formative assessment in an integrated medical school curriculum.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
Datasets are available by request from the corresponding author of this manuscript respectively.
References
Education LCoM: “LCME standards, publications, & notification forms. 2019.
Bedoll D, van Zanten M, McKinley D. Global trends in medical education accreditation. Hum Resour Health. 2021;19(1):70.
Hark LA, Deen DD, Morrison G. Learner-directed nutrition content for medical schools to meet LCME standards. J Biomed Educ. 2015;2015.
Rosenberg I, Thomas L, Ceccolini G, Feinn R. Early identification of struggling pre-clerkship learners using formative clinical skills OSCEs: an assessment for learning program. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2028333.
Andreassen P, Malling B. How are formative assessment methods used in the clinical setting? A qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2019;10:208–15.
Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(2):460.
Wood DF. Formative assessment. In: Walsh K, editor. Oxford textbook of medical education. Oxford University Press; 2013.
Sharma S, Sharma V, Sharma M, Awasthi B, Chaudhary S. Formative assessment in postgraduate medical education - perceptions of students and teachers. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2015;5(Suppl 1):S66–70.
Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation - a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219854.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.
Abu-Zaid A. Formative assessments in medical education: a medical graduate’s perspective. Perspect Med Educ. 2013;2(5–6):358–9.
Rauf A, Shamim MS, Aly SM, Chundrigar T, Alam SN. Formative assessment in undergraduate medical education: concept, implementation and hurdles. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64(1):72–5.
Nathaniel TI, Goodwin RL, Fowler L, McPhail B, Black AC Jr. An adaptive blended learning model for the implementation of an integrated medical neuroscience course during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2021;14(6):699–710.
Mitra NK, Barua A. Effect of online formative assessment on summative performance in integrated musculoskeletal system module. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:29.
Palmer E, Devitt P. The assessment of a structured online formative assessment program: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:8.
Nathaniel TI, Gainey JC, Williams JA, Stewart BL, Hood MC, Brechtel LE, Faulkner RV, Pendergrass JS, Black LA, Griffin SK, et al. Impact and educational outcomes of a small group self-directed teaching strategy in a clinical neuroscience curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(5):478–87.
Tisdale CE, Black AC Jr, Jain S, Lowther E, Madeline L, Troup C, Nathaniel T, Fowler LA. The impact of meeting patients with neurological disorders on medical student empathy. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30(4):1561–8.
Evans DJ, Zeun P, Stanier RA. Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. J Anat. 2014;224(3):296–303.
McNulty JA, Espiritu BR, Hoyt AE, Ensminger DC, Chandrasekhar AJ. Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(1):37–44.
Shell K, Holt E, Kington A, Mohammed K, Black A, Troup C, Ingiaimo M, Scoles K, Nathaniel TI. Motivation to learn neuroanatomy by cadaveric dissection is correlated with academic performance. Clin Anat. 2020;33(1):128–35.
Lakhtakia R, Otaki F, Alsuwaidi L, Zary N. Assessment as learning in medical education: feasibility and perceived impact of student-generated formative assessments. JMIR Med Educ. 2022;8(3):e35820.
Terry R, Hing W, Orr R, Milne N. Do coursework summative assessments predict clinical performance? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):40.
Ismail SM, Rahul DR, Patra I, Rezvani E. Formative vs. summative assessment: impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. Lang Test Asia. 2022;12(1):40.
Gedye S. Formative assessment and feedback: a review. Planet. 2010;23(1):40–5.
Kington A, Cooley K, Sandip J, Fowler L, Black A, Mohammed K, Ingiaimo M, Scoles K, Troup C, Madeline L, et al. Patients encounter as a motivating factor for academic performance in a medical neuroscience course. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30(3):1177–85.
Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The, “educational alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(5):609–14.
Burgess AW, Roberts C, Black KI. Mellis C: Senior medical student perceived ability and experience in giving peer feedback in formative long case examinations. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):1–5.
Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38(6):698–712.
Hattie J. Timperley HJRoer: The power of feedback. 2007;77(1):81–112.
Nicol D. The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assess Eval High Educ. 2021;46(5):756–78.
Bienstock JL, Katz NT, Cox SM, Hueppchen N, Erickson S, Puscheck EEJ, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Undergraduate Medical Education Committee. To the point: medical education reviews–providing feedback. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(6):508–13.
Nathaniel TI, Black AC. An adaptive blended learning approach in the implementation of a medical neuroscience laboratory activities. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(2):733–43.
Acknowledgements
We thank Ms. Leanne Clay for hel** in the revision of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RIG and TIN designed, collected data, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. TIN formulated the hypothesis and revised the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
This study was approved by IRB at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine-Greenville in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
All authors have provided the corresponding author with permission to be named in the manuscript and approved the submission of this manuscript.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Goodwin, R.L., Nathaniel, T.I. Effective Feedback Strategy for Formative Assessment in an Integrated Medical Neuroscience Course. Med.Sci.Educ. 33, 747–753 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01801-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01801-3