Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effective Feedback Strategy for Formative Assessment in an Integrated Medical Neuroscience Course

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

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 developing 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.

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

Availability of Data and Material

Datasets are available by request from the corresponding author of this manuscript respectively.

References

  1. Education LCoM: “LCME standards, publications, & notification forms. 2019.

  2. Bedoll D, van Zanten M, McKinley D. Global trends in medical education accreditation. Hum Resour Health. 2021;19(1):70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hark LA, Deen DD, Morrison G. Learner-directed nutrition content for medical schools to meet LCME standards. J Biomed Educ. 2015;2015.

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(2):460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wood DF. Formative assessment. In: Walsh K, editor. Oxford textbook of medical education. Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation - a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abu-Zaid A. Formative assessments in medical education: a medical graduate’s perspective. Perspect Med Educ. 2013;2(5–6):358–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitra NK, Barua A. Effect of online formative assessment on summative performance in integrated musculoskeletal system module. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Palmer E, Devitt P. The assessment of a structured online formative assessment program: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Evans DJ, Zeun P, Stanier RA. Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. J Anat. 2014;224(3):296–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gedye S. Formative assessment and feedback: a review. Planet. 2010;23(1):40–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38(6):698–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hattie J. Timperley HJRoer: The power of feedback. 2007;77(1):81–112.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nicol D. The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assess Eval High Educ. 2021;46(5):756–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ms. Leanne Clay for helping in the revision of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, 29605, Greenville, SC, USA

    Richard L. Goodwin & Thomas I. Nathaniel

Authors
  1. Richard L. Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas I. Nathaniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Thomas I. Nathaniel.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01801-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation