BACKGROUND: The Progress Test (PT) was developed to assess student learning within integrated curricula. Whilst it is effective in promoting and rewarding deep approaches to learning in some settings, we hypothesised that implementation of the curriculum (design and assessment) may impact on students' preparation for the PT and their learning. Aim To compare students' perceptions of and preparations for the PT at two medical schools. METHOD: Focus groups were used to generate items for a questionnaire. This was piloted, refined, and then delivered at both schools. Exploratory factor analysis identified the main factors underpinning response patterns. ANOVA was used to compare differences in response by school, year group and gender. RESULTS: Response rates were 640 (57%) and 414 (47%) at Schools A and B, respectively. Three major factors were identified: the PT's ability to (1) assess academic learning (2) support clinical learning; (3) the PT's impact on exam preparation. Significant differences were found between settings. In the school with early clinical contact, more frequent PTs and no end of unit tests, students were more likely to appreciate the PT as a support for learning, perceive it as fair and valid, and use a deeper approach to learning-but they also spent longer preparing for the test. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to the delivery of the PT can impact significantly on student study patterns. The learning environment has an important impact on student perceptions of assessment and approach to learning. Careful decisions about PT deployment must be taken to ensure its optimal impact.
BACKGROUND: The Progress Test (PT) was developed to assess student learning within integrated curricula. Whilst it is effective in promoting and rewarding deep approaches to learning in some settings, we hypothesised that implementation of the curriculum (design and assessment) may impact on students' preparation for the PT and their learning. Aim To compare students' perceptions of and preparations for the PT at two medical schools. METHOD: Focus groups were used to generate items for a questionnaire. This was piloted, refined, and then delivered at both schools. Exploratory factor analysis identified the main factors underpinning response patterns. ANOVA was used to compare differences in response by school, year group and gender. RESULTS: Response rates were 640 (57%) and 414 (47%) at Schools A and B, respectively. Three major factors were identified: the PT's ability to (1) assess academic learning (2) support clinical learning; (3) the PT's impact on exam preparation. Significant differences were found between settings. In the school with early clinical contact, more frequent PTs and no end of unit tests, students were more likely to appreciate the PT as a support for learning, perceive it as fair and valid, and use a deeper approach to learning-but they also spent longer preparing for the test. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to the delivery of the PT can impact significantly on student study patterns. The learning environment has an important impact on student perceptions of assessment and approach to learning. Careful decisions about PT deployment must be taken to ensure its optimal impact.
Authors: D R Rutgers; J P J van Schaik; C L J J Kruitwagen; C Haaring; W van Lankeren; A F van Raamt; O Ten Cate Journal: Med Sci Educ Date: 2020-05-13
Authors: Kamran Ali; Josephine Cockerill; Daniel Zahra; Christopher Tredwin; Colin Ferguson Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Jill Yielder; Andy Wearn; Yan Chen; Marcus A Henning; Jennifer Weller; Steven Lillis; Vernon Mogol; Warwick Bagg Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 2.463