Online versus Conventional Paper Based Formative Assessment: Do They Predict Summative Scores?
Background: Different mechanisms and methods to conduct formative assessments may influence the learning environment and the learning outcomes. Present study aims to compare the effect of online formative assessments with conventional paper-based formative assessments on summative scores of medical students. Methods: This prospective-observational study was conducted from Oct to Dec 2018 at Shifa College of Medicine, Islamabad. A total of 93 undergraduate students were included. Students were assigned two online formative assessments before the summative assessment of one module and two paper-based formative assessments before the summative assessment of another module. ClassMarkerþ software was used for online assessments. Data were analysed on SPSS-21. Comparison of quantitative data was done using paired t-test and student’s t-test. Association between performance in online and paper-based formative assessment to their respective summative scores was performed by Pearson’s correlation coefficient and regression analysis, and p˂0.05 were considered significant. Results: Mean summative score (75.17±9.18) of the module with online formative assessments was significantly higher in comparison to the mean summative score (63.66±10.12) of the module with paper-based formative assessments. Students who performed better in online formative assessments had significantly higher scores in the summative assessment in comparison to the other students. There was a significant (p<0.001) and positive (r=0.45) correlation between scores of online formative tests and summative tests. Conclusion: Online formative assessments have a positive effect on the summative scores of medical students in comparison to the conventional paper-based formative assessments.
Pak J Physiol 2021;17(1):46‒50
Tomasik MJ, Berger S, Moser U. On the development of a computer-based tool for formative student assessment: Epistemological, Methodological, and Practical Issues. Front Psychol 2018;9:2245.
Čandrlić S, Katić MA, Dlab MH. Online vs. paper-based testing: A comparison of test results. 37th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microe-lectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia, 2014. p. 657–662. doi: 10.1109/MIPRO.2014.6859649.
Black P, Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ Asse Eval Acc 2009;21:5–31.
Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ 2019;53(1):76–85.
Konopasek L, Norcini J, Krupat E. Focusing on the formative: Building an assessment system aimed at student growth and development. Acad Med 2016;91(11):1492–7.
Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D, Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Stud High Educ 2006;31(2):199–218.
Fitch ML, Drucker AJ, Norton JA Jr. Frequent testing as a motivating factor in large lecture classes. J Educ Psychol 1951;42:1–20.
Black P, Wiliam D. Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 1998;80:139–44.
Preston R, Gratani M, Owens K, Roche P, Zimanyi M, Malau-Aduli B. Exploring the impact of assessment on medical students’ learning. Assess Eval High Educ 2020;45(1):109–24.
Schutz PA, Davis HA. Emotions and self-regulation during test taking. Educ Psychol 2000;35(4):243–56.
Velan GM, Jones P, McNeil HP, Kumar RK. Integrated online formative assessments in the biomedical sciences for medical students: benefits for learning. BMC Med Educ 2008;8:52.
Nagandla K, Sulaiha S, Nalliah S. Online formative assessments: exploring their educational value. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2018;6(2):51–7.
Pitt SJ, Gunn A. The value of computer based formative assessment in undergraduate biological science teaching. Biosci Educ 2004;3(1):1–15.
Gipps CV. What is the role for ICT-based assessment in universities? Stud High Educ 2005;30:171–80.
Kibble J. Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in medical physiology course: Effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Adv Physiol Educ 2007;31(3):253–60.
Brothen T, Wambach C. Effective student use of computerized quizzes. Teach Psychol 2001;28(4):292–4.
Joyce P. The effectiveness of online and paper-based formative assessment in the learning of English as a second language. PASAA: J Lang Teach Learn Thail 2018;55:126–46.
Krasne S, Wimmers PF, Relan A, Drake TA. Differential effects of two types of formative assessment in predicting performance of first-year medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2006;11(2):155–71.
Copyright (c) 2021 Pakistan Journal of Physiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Pakistan Journal of Physiology, Pak J Physiol, PJP is FREE for research and academic purposes. It can be downloaded and stored, printed, cited and quoted with full reference of, and acknowledgement to the PJP.