Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment for Learning with Ungraded and Graded Assessments

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Assessment for learning has many benefits, but learners will still encounter high-stakes decisions about their performance throughout training. It is unknown if assessment for learning can be promoted with a combination model where scores from some assessments are factored into course grades and scores from other assessments are not used for course grading.

Methods

At the University of Utah School of Medicine, year 1–2 medical students (MS) completed multiple-choice question quiz assessments and final examinations in six systems-based science courses. Quiz and final examination performance counted toward course grades for MS2017–MS2018. Starting with the MS2020 cohort, quizzes no longer counted toward course grades. Quiz, final examination, and Step 1 scores were compared between ungraded quiz and graded quiz cohorts with independent samples t-tests. Student and faculty feedback was collected.

Results

Quiz performance was not different for the ungraded and graded cohorts (p = 0.173). Ungraded cohorts scored 4% higher on final examinations than graded cohorts (p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.88). Ungraded cohorts scored above the national average and 11 points higher on Step 1 compared to graded cohorts, who had scored below the national average (p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.64). During the study period, Step 1 scores increased by 2 points nationally. Student feedback was positive, and faculty felt it improved their relationship with students.

Discussion

The change to ungraded quizzes did not negatively affect final examination or Step 1 performance, suggesting a combination of ungraded and graded assessments can effectively promote assessment for learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pugh D, Regehr G. Taking the sting out of assessment: is there a role for progress testing? Med Educ. 2016;50(7):721–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Vleuten CPM. A programmatic approach to assessment. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0343-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Norcini J. What’s next? Developing systems of assessment for educational settings. Acad Med. 2019;94(11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions):S7-S8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002908.

  4. Kim S, George P. The relationship between preclinical grading and USMLE scores in US allopathic medical schools. Fam Med. 2018;50(2):128–31 https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.145163.

  5. Scott IM. Beyond ‘driving’: the relationship between assessment, performance and learning. Med Educ. 2020;54(1):54–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrison C, Wass V. The challenge of changing to an assessment for learning culture. Med Educ. 2016;50(7):704–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478–85. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. 2019;53(1):76–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kulasegaram K, Rangachari PK. Beyond “formative”: assessments to enrich student learning. Adv Physiol Educ. 2018;42(1):5–14. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00122.2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carrasco GA, Behling KC, Lopez OJ. Implementation of team-based learning: a tale of two new medical schools. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29(4):1201–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00815-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carrasco GA, Behling KC, Lopez OJ. A novel grading strategy for team-based learning exercises in a hands-on course in molecular biology for senior undergraduate underrepresented students in medicine resulted in stronger student performance. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2019;47(2):115–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Behling KC, Gentile M, Lopez OJ. The effect of graded assessment on medical student performance in TBL exercises. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27:451–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Koh YYJ, Rotgans JI, Rajalingam P, Gagnon P, Low-Beer N, Schmidt HG. Effects of graded versus ungraded individual readiness assurance scores in team-based learning: a quasi-experimental study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2019;24(3):477–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09878-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deardorff AS, Moore JA, McCormick C, Koles PG, Borges NJ. Incentive structure in team-based learning: graded versus ungraded Group Application exercises. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2014;11:6. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.6.

  15. Thompson BM, Haidet P, Borges NJ, et al. Team cohesiveness, team size and team performance in team-based learning teams. Med Educ. 2015;49(4):379–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carrasco GA, Behling KC, Lopez OJ. Evaluation of the role of incentive structure on student participation and performance in active learning strategies: a comparison of case-based and team-based learning. Med Teach. 2018;40(4):379–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1408899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Azzi AJ, Ramnanan CJ, Smith J, Dionne E, Jalali A. To quiz or not to quiz: formative tests help detect students at risk of failing the clinical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(5):413–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mogali SR, Rotgans JI, Rosby L, Ferenczi MA, Low BN. Summative and formative style anatomy practical examinations: do they have impact on students’ performance and drive for learning? Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(5):581–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rudland JR, Golding C, Wilkinson TJ. The stress paradox: how stress can be good for learning. Med Educ. 2020;54(1):40–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wiliam D. What is assessment for learning? Stud Educ Eval. 2011;37(1):3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Seligman L, Abdullahi A, Teherani A, Hauer KE. From grading to assessment for learning: a qualitative study of student perceptions surrounding elimination of core clerkship grades and enhanced formative feedback. Teach Learn Med. 2020:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1847654.

  22. Evans DJ, Zeun P, Stanier RA. Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. J Anat. 2014;224(3):296–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Mem Cognit. 2008;36(3):604–16. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.3.604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Swan Sein A, Rashid H, Meka J, Amiel J, Pluta W. Twelve tips for embedding assessment for and as learning practices in a programmatic assessment system. Med Teach. 2020:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1789081.

  26. van der Vleuten CP, Dannefer EF. Towards a systems approach to assessment. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):185–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.652240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Konopasek L, Norcini J, Krupat E. Focusing on the formative: building an assessment system aimed at student growth and development. Acad Med. 2016;91(11):1492–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):846–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030.

  31. Heeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP, Driessen EW. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49(5):487–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Harlen W. Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning - tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal. 2005;16:207–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Eva KW, Bordage G, Campbell C, et al. Towards a program of assessment for health professionals: from training into practice. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(4):897–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9653-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Boulet J. Teaching to test or testing to teach? Med Educ. 2008;42(10):952–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03165.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reed DA, Shanafelt TD, Satele DW, et al. Relationship of pass/fail grading and curriculum structure with well-being among preclinical medical students: a multi-institutional study. Acad Med. 2011;86(11):1367–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182305d81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. United States Medical Licensing Examination. Change to pass/fail score reporting for Step 1. Secondary Change to pass/fail score reporting for Step 1. 2020. https://www.usmle.org/incus/#decision. Accessed 1 Oct 2021.

  37. Colbert-Getz JM, Ryan M, Hennessey E, et al. Measuring assessment quality with an assessment utility rubric for medical education. MedEdPORTAL. 2017;13:10588. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10588.

  38. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.551559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Boud D, Falchikov N. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2006;31:339–413 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050.

  40. Harrison CJ, Konings KD, Schuwirth LWT, Wass V, van der Vleuten CPM. Changing the culture of assessment: the dominance of the summative assessment paradigm. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0912-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, 317 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA

    Karly A. Pippitt

  2. Community Faculty, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Karly A. Pippitt

  3. Department of Neurobiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Kathryn B. Moore & David A. Morton

  4. Department of Biochemistry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Janet E. Lindsley & Tim Formosa

  5. Curriculum University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Janet E. Lindsley

  6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Paloma F. Cariello, Jorie M. Colbert-Getz & Candace J. Chow

  7. Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Paloma F. Cariello

  8. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Andrew G. Smith

  9. Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Karen Moser

  10. Education Quality Improvement, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Jorie M. Colbert-Getz

  11. Education Research, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Candace J. Chow

Authors
  1. Karly A. Pippitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn B. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janet E. Lindsley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paloma F. Cariello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew G. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tim Formosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Karen Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David A. Morton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jorie M. Colbert-Getz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Candace J. Chow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karly A. Pippitt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

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 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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pippitt, K.A., Moore, K.B., Lindsley, J.E. et al. Assessment for Learning with Ungraded and Graded Assessments. Med.Sci.Educ. 32, 1045–1054 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01612-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01612-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation