Online Formative Assessment in a Medical PBL-Curriculum

Building a Didactic Metadata Layer
  • Stefan P. Minder
  • Felix M. Schmitz
  • Sissel Guttormsen Schär
Chapter

Abstract

The Medical Faculty of the University of Bern provides formative assessments in the form of self-tests, accompanied by their respective correct answers. This type of formative assessment is lacking both the central aspects of feedback to students regarding their performance referred to in the literature, and tutors’ awareness of this data. The latter feature would provide the possibility to adjust and optimize teaching accordingly. In order to tackle an adequate system change towards online formative assessments with feedback, we conducted a survey study by asking 477 medical students and 131 tutors questions regarding current and future online formative assessments. The survey-items targeted on the subsamples’ perceptions and expectations of current and future formative assessments, respectively. The data show a distinct discrepancy between students and tutors: Students rated current formative assessments significantly worse than tutors and expect higher enhancements regarding future, online formative assessments. However, both groups would welcome a system change bringing about feedback, with impact on teaching. The question remains of how formative assessments need to be revised to meet the requirements concerning didactic effects. The outlook on the near future shows that the implementation of online formative assessments offers the opportunity to track some aspects of learning progress and learning behavior on the level of the cohort, the level of the individual student, and the level of knowledge domains. This constructs a metadata layer which has the potential for a serendipity effect: the construct is a didactic ontology of the running curriculum providing insights hitherto unavailable. The power of this metadata layer can be enhanced by incorporating data from the online forum discussions, the exams, and the curriculum evaluation.

Keywords

Gamulin 

Notes

Acknowledgement

A big ‘thank you’ goes to Institute of Medical Education staff members Hans Holzherr for the translation into English, and to Dethardt Baumann for his support in processing the questionnaires. We also thank the students and the tutors for their participation in the survey and for the time we were given during the lectures, resulting in a high response rate.

References

  1. Bell B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buck G. A., Trauth-Nare A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernable to pre-service teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 402–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen I., Shih D., & Hu S. (2010). Augmenting a web-Based learning environment through blending formative assessment services. Journal of Web Engineering, 9(1), 48–65.Google Scholar
  6. Costa D. S. J., Mullan B. A., Kothe E. J., & Butow P. (2010). A web-based formative assessment tool for Masters students: A pilot study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1248–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feigenbaum, L., Herman, I., Hongsermeier, T., Neumann, E., & Stephens, S. (2008). Mein Computer versteht mich – allmählich [My computer understands me – gradually]. Spektrum der Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  8. Gamulin J., Gugić J., & Gamulin, O. (2010). Improving classroom teaching in higher education environment using web-based formative assessment. MIPRO, 2010 Proceedings of the 33 rd International Convention, Opatija, Croatia 1001–1006.Google Scholar
  9. Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., & Rudolph, S. (2009). Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39.Google Scholar
  11. Leung, C., & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: Assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21(3), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mc Donald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of Self-assessment on achievement: The effects of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nicol, D., & 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. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pachler N., Daly C., Mor Y., & Mellar H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Patsula P. J., Detenber B. H., & Theng Y. (2010). Structure processing of web-based menus. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(7), 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2010). Challenging formative assessment: disciplinary spaces and identities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Su, C., & Wang, T. (2010). Construction and analysis of educational assessments using knowledge maps with weight appraisal of concepts. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1300–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang J., Solan D., & Ghods A. (2010). Distance learning success – a perspective from socio-technical systems theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(3), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weller, K. (2010). Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan P. Minder
    • 1
  • Felix M. Schmitz
    • 1
  • Sissel Guttormsen Schär
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Medical EducationMedical Faculty of the University of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations