Korean Medical Education Review (의학교육논단)

Yonsei university college of medicine (연세대학교 의과대학)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

How Do Medical Students Prepare for Examinations: Pre-assessment Cognitive and Meta-cognitive Activities

의과대학생은 시험을 준비하기 위해 어떻게 공부하는가: 평가 전 인지 및 메타인지 활동

  • Yune, So-Jung (Department of Medical Education, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Yeoup (Department of Medical Education, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Im, Sunju (Department of Medical Education, Pusan National University School of Medicine)
  • 윤소정 (부산대학교 의과대학 의학교육학교실) ;
  • 이상엽 (부산대학교 의과대학 의학교육학교실) ;
  • 임선주 (부산대학교 의과대학 의학교육학교실)
  • Received : 2018.12.28
  • Accepted : 2019.02.19
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Although 'assessment for learning' rather than 'assessment of learning' has been emphasized recently, student learning before examinations is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate pre-assessment learning activities (PALA) and to find mechanism factors (MF) that influence those activities. Moreover, we compared the PALA and MF of written exams with those of the clinical performance examination/objective structured clinical examination (CPX/OSCE) in third-year (N=121) and fourth-year (N=108) medical students. Through literature review and discussion, questionnaires with a 5-point Likert scale were developed to measure PALA and MF. PALA had the constructs of cognitive and meta-cognitive activities, and MF had sub-components of personal, interpersonal, and environmental factors. Cronbach's ${\alpha}$ coefficient was used to calculate survey reliability, while the Pearson correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis were used to investigate the influence of MF on PALA. A paired t-test was applied to compare the PALA and MF of written exams with those of CPX/OSCE in third and fourth year students. The Pearson correlation coefficients between PALA and MF were 0.479 for written exams and 0.508 for CPX/OSCE. MF explained 24.1% of the PALA in written exams and 25.9% of PALA in CPX/OSCE. Both PALA and MF showed significant differences between written exams and CPX/OSCE in third-year students, whereas those in fourth-year students showed no differences. Educators need to consider MFs that influence the PALA to encourage 'assessment for learning'.

Keywords

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_51_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. The pre-assessment learning activities and mechanism factors in this study. The constructs were modified from the model by Cilliers et al. [11-13].

Table 1. Reliability of two questionnaires

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_51_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. The correlation between pre-assessment learning activities and mechanism factors

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_51_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. The multiple regression analysis between pre-assessment learning activities and mechanism factors

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_51_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. The differences in the pre-assessment learning activities and mechanism factors for summative assessment between 3rd and 4th year students

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_51_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. The differences of the pre-assessment learning activities and mechanism factors between written exam and CPX/OSCE in 3rd and 4th year students

OHKOCT_2019_v21n1_51_t0005.png 이미지

References

  1. Dochy F, Segers M, Gijbels D, Struyven K. Assessment engineering. In: Boud D, Falchikov N, editors. Rethinking assessment in higher education: learning for the longer term. Oxford: Routledge; 2007. p. 87-100.
  2. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, 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
  3. Gibbs G, Simpson C. Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learn Teach High Educ. 2005;(1):3-31.
  4. Levant B, Zuckert W, Paolo A. Post-exam feedback with question rationales improves re-test performance of medical students on a multiple-choice exam. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018;23(5):995-1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9844-z
  5. Tekian A, Watling CJ, Roberts TE, Steinert Y, Norcini J. Qualitative and quantitative feedback in the context of competency-based education. Med Teach. 2017;39(12):1245-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1372564
  6. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39(6):609-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315082
  7. Roh H, Lee JT, Yoon YS, Rhee BD. Development of a portfolio for competency-based assessment in a clinical clerkship curriculum. Korean J Med Educ. 2015;27(4):321-7. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2015.27.4.321
  8. 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
  9. Timmerman AA, Dijkstra J. A practical approach to programmatic assessment design. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(5):1169-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9756-3
  10. 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
  11. Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LW, Adendorff HJ, Herman N, van der Vleuten CP. The mechanism of impact of summative assessment on medical students' learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(5):695-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9232-9
  12. Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Modelling the preassessment learning effects of assessment: evidence in the validity chain. Med Educ. 2012;46(11):1087-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04334.x
  13. Cilliers FJ, Schuwirth LW, Herman N, Adendorff HJ, van der Vleuten CP. A model of the pre-assessment learning effects of summative assessment in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17(1):39-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9292-5
  14. Park HK. The impact of introducing the Korean Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills assessment on medical education. J Korean Med Assoc. 2012;55(2):116-23. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.2.116
  15. Lafleur A, Laflamme J, Leppink J, Cote L. Task demands in OSCEs influence learning strategies. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(3):286-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1282863