Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 161–171 | Cite as

Investigation of Formative Assessment of Learning (INFORMAL): The Performance Indicator Tool (PIT)

  • Philip J. Dutton
  • Helen E. Bickerstaff
  • Janice M. Rymer
  • Mary E. Webb
  • Deborah Ballinger-Mills
  • Anne Greenough
  • Patricia A. Reynolds
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

This pilot study evaluated the student user experience of a performance indicator tool (PIT) for formative assessment of a cohort of fourth year medical undergraduates undertaking a 12 week rotation. Scoping and elaboration for the standalone web-based tool was based on the existing paper-based formative assessment system for which training and secure access was made available through the Virtual Campus at King’s College London. Thirty-eight participants were randomly assigned to four groups. A baseline survey on formative assessment was carried out in Term 1 by all groups. In Term 2, two groups received the PIT and two the paper-based system. The PIT and paper-based groups were further split into those who gained formative assessment at the end, and those at the middle and end of rotation. Evaluation was by online student satisfaction questionnaires and focus groups. Term 1 baseline survey (n = 13) revealed a lack of one-to-one formal feedback. In evaluation by satisfaction questionnaire (n = 8) and focus groups (n = 30), students valued personalised feedback, and mid-rotation feedback allowed students to reflect prior to the end of rotation. However, some students felt that their tutor did not know them as well as others, thus adversely affecting their feedback. A functional web-based PIT was developed including tutor–student discussion spaces. Students found feedback very valuable. Those involved found the PIT easy to access and use, preferring formative assessment two thirds into the rotation. The PIT has wider applicability within the College for all healthcare faculties and may help improve student satisfaction.

Keywords

Feedback Formative assessment Performance indicator tool Online assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project team wish to thank Professor Mark Russell, Director of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), King’s College London for his support of this pilot study by facilitating the further development of the PIT in Phase 2. A special acknowledgement must go to Deborah Ballinger-Mills, formerly of the School of Medical Education, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London for managing the ethics application and for advice and support throughout the project. Thanks must also go to all the staff, tutors and students in the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health (RSH), particularly Annelie Mojzis, without whose efficient administration, the pilot trial could not have been completed. A special mention must be made of Dr Deborah Bruce, RSH, who was instrumental in starting up the project at its instigation. We also acknowledge Tier2 Consulting who built, hosted, maintained and trained users of the PIT. Finally, we would like to acknowledge our funders, the TEL Fund and Centre of Technology Enhanced Learning (CTEL), King’s College London. Funding was provided by King’s College London, Technology Enhanced Learning Fund (Grant No. TELF12/06).

References

  1. Archer, J. C. (2010). State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Medical Education, 44(1), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning; 10 principles. Nuffield Foundation. http://assessmentreformgroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/10principles_english.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.
  3. Bijol, V., Byrne-Dugan, C. J., & Hoenig, M. P. (2015). Medical student web-based formative assessment tool for renal pathology. Medical Education, 20, 26765.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, T. (2000). The efficacy of a world-wide-web mediated formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferris, H., & O’Flynn, D. (2015). Assessment in medical education; What are we trying to achieve? International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 139–144.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, B. D. M. (2000). The role of assessment in expanding professional horizons. Medical Teacher, 22(5), 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. General Medical Council. (2009). Tomorrow’s Doctors Online. http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/undergraduate/tomorrows_doctors_2009.asp. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.
  9. General Medical Council. (2016). Promoting excellence: Standards for medical education and training. Theme 3: Supporting learners. http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/27392.asp. Accessed 17 Feb 2017.
  10. Leung, W. C. (2002). Competence based medical training: Review. BMJ, 325, 693–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu, N., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitra, N. K., & Barua, A. (2015). Effect of online formative assessment on summative performance in integrated musculoskeletal system module. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Shaughnessy, S. M., & Joyce, P. (2015). Summative and formative assessment in medicine: The experience of an anaesthesia trainee. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 198.Google Scholar
  15. Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2014). The assessment of a structured online formative assessment program: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wormald, B. W., Schoeman, S., Somasunderam, A., & Penn, M. (2009). Assessment drives learning: An unavoidable truth? Anatomical Sciences Education, 2(5), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip J. Dutton
    • 1
  • Helen E. Bickerstaff
    • 1
  • Janice M. Rymer
    • 2
  • Mary E. Webb
    • 3
  • Deborah Ballinger-Mills
    • 4
  • Anne Greenough
    • 5
  • Patricia A. Reynolds
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Reproductive and Sexual Health, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation TrustSt Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Academic Centre, School of Medical EducationKing’s College London, 1st Floor, Henriette Raphael Building, Guy’s HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Education and Professional Studies, Faculty of Social Science and Public PolicyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Division of Medical EducationKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung BiologyKing’s College London, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, 4th Floor, Jubilee Wing, King’s College HospitalLondonUK
  6. 6.Dental InstituteKing’s College London, Floor 18, Tower, Guy’s HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options