Student perceptions of the progress test in two settings and the implications for test deployment

Abstract

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.

Embedding of the progress test in an assessment program designed according to the principles of programmatic assessment

“…It has been suggested that the PT will stimulate a deeper approach to learning (Van der Vleuten et al 1996;Wade et al 2012), although a recent study by Chen et al (2015) did not show significant changes in approaches to learning in time after introduction of the PT. In the current study, the approach to learning was not determined by a standardized questionnaire, rather the students' perceptions on the learning value were sought via interviews.…”

“…Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were made and analyzed using Template Analysis, which consists a succession of coding templates and hierarchically structured themes, that were applied to the data (King 2004). For the specific research question of the current study, the set of predefined codes was based on literature (Van der Vleuten et al 1996;Muijtjens et al 2010;Norman et al 2010;Wade et al 2012;Dijksterhuis et al 2013) and shown in Table 2. Analysis of interview 1-8 (by SH and SS) using the pre-defined codes resulted in the initial template that was discussed and then applied to interview 9-17.…”

“…A yearly, formative PT with limited feedback was acceptable for postgraduate residents, however the self-reported educational impact was low (Dijksterhuis et al 2013). In addition, Wade et al (2012) showed that the design and embedding of the PT in the curriculum significantly affected study patterns and students' perception of the value for learning and preparation time. In a setting of more frequent summative PTs, no end of block tests and feedback on PT performance, students more appreciated the PT as a support for learning and encouraging a deeper learning approach, although more time was used for the preparation (Wade et al 2012).…”

“…In addition, Wade et al (2012) showed that the design and embedding of the PT in the curriculum significantly affected study patterns and students' perception of the value for learning and preparation time. In a setting of more frequent summative PTs, no end of block tests and feedback on PT performance, students more appreciated the PT as a support for learning and encouraging a deeper learning approach, although more time was used for the preparation (Wade et al 2012). These studies show that important factors in the design and implementation of the PT are the formative or summative nature of the PT, the PT frequency and whether or not feedback on performance is given.…”

Does Progress Testing Violate the Principles of Constructive Alignment?

“…There is some evidence to suggest that progress tests, in comparison to traditional examinations, engender a more meaning-oriented study strategy rather than strategies based on a rote learning approach, although the evidence that it cultivates or motivates learning via more intrinsic or deeplearning mechanisms remains unclear [8,10,18]. There is also a belief that progress tests are more suited to students who work consistently and who are in medical schools that promote timely clinical contact [19]. …”