Student Perceptions of Two Preclinical Medical School Exam Feedback Approaches

Elsie Gasaway, Valerie O’Loughlin
{"title":"Student Perceptions of Two Preclinical Medical School Exam Feedback Approaches","authors":"Elsie Gasaway, Valerie O’Loughlin","doi":"10.18060/27851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In medical school, where learning an abundance of information in a short period of time is required, it is necessary that learners receive valuable feedback after summative assessments (i.e., unit exams). First-year medical students at Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) begin their education with a course titled Human Structure (HS), followed by Molecules to Cells and Tissues (MCT). Both courses provided different formats for exam feedback, resulting in anecdotal comments about preference and utility of feedback. This study uses qualitative research methods to examine IUSM-Bloomington students’ perceptions of exam feedback formats with respect to their utility and applicability. \nMethods: Five, second-year IUSM-Bloomington medical students participated in a focus group to discuss their utilization and perceived usefulness of HS and MCT exam feedback. A thematic analysis was used to interpret data from the focus group. This study was deemed exempt by the IU-IRB (19409). \nResults: The thematic analysis revealed that students’ discussions fell into three categories: logistics, utilization, and mentality. These categories were further broken into themes and subthemes, revealing 13 unique codes. Students spent a substantial amount of time discussing logistics of exam feedback. Barriers to utilization of exam feedback included a lack of information provided at the feedback sessions and a lack of time in the schedule available for feedback sessions. Students preferred MCT approach to exam feedback, however they recognized HS course logistics may prevent similar adoption. Students had small suggestions on how to improve feedback in both courses. \nConclusions/Implications: The data suggest students would benefit from small changes in how first-year medical school courses at IUSM provide exam feedback. Improvements could include extending the time of exam review sessions, incorporating a discussion on commonly missed exam concepts, providing answer explanations for incorrect and correct answers, and transitioning statewide reviews to be campus led.","PeriodicalId":20522,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of IMPRS","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of IMPRS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/27851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In medical school, where learning an abundance of information in a short period of time is required, it is necessary that learners receive valuable feedback after summative assessments (i.e., unit exams). First-year medical students at Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) begin their education with a course titled Human Structure (HS), followed by Molecules to Cells and Tissues (MCT). Both courses provided different formats for exam feedback, resulting in anecdotal comments about preference and utility of feedback. This study uses qualitative research methods to examine IUSM-Bloomington students’ perceptions of exam feedback formats with respect to their utility and applicability. Methods: Five, second-year IUSM-Bloomington medical students participated in a focus group to discuss their utilization and perceived usefulness of HS and MCT exam feedback. A thematic analysis was used to interpret data from the focus group. This study was deemed exempt by the IU-IRB (19409). Results: The thematic analysis revealed that students’ discussions fell into three categories: logistics, utilization, and mentality. These categories were further broken into themes and subthemes, revealing 13 unique codes. Students spent a substantial amount of time discussing logistics of exam feedback. Barriers to utilization of exam feedback included a lack of information provided at the feedback sessions and a lack of time in the schedule available for feedback sessions. Students preferred MCT approach to exam feedback, however they recognized HS course logistics may prevent similar adoption. Students had small suggestions on how to improve feedback in both courses. Conclusions/Implications: The data suggest students would benefit from small changes in how first-year medical school courses at IUSM provide exam feedback. Improvements could include extending the time of exam review sessions, incorporating a discussion on commonly missed exam concepts, providing answer explanations for incorrect and correct answers, and transitioning statewide reviews to be campus led.
学生对两种医学院临床前考试反馈方法的看法
背景:医学院要求学生在短时间内学习大量信息,因此有必要在终结性评估(即单元考试)后向学生提供有价值的反馈。印第安纳大学医学院(IUSM)的医科一年级学生首先学习的课程是 "人体结构"(HS),然后是 "从分子到细胞和组织"(MCT)。这两门课程提供了不同形式的考试反馈,导致学生对反馈的偏好和效用产生了轶事评论。本研究采用定性研究方法,考察布卢明顿国际大学学生对考试反馈形式的实用性和适用性的看法。研究方法:五名美国加州大学伯明顿分校二年级医学生参加了一个焦点小组,讨论他们对 HS 和 MCT 考试反馈的使用情况和感知有用性。专题分析用于解释焦点小组的数据。这项研究被 IU-IRB (19409) 认为是豁免研究。研究结果主题分析显示,学生的讨论分为三类:后勤、利用和心态。这些类别被进一步细分为主题和次主题,揭示出 13 个独特的代码。学生们花了大量时间讨论考试反馈的后勤问题。利用考试反馈的障碍包括反馈会议上提供的信息不足,以及反馈会议的时间安排不足。学生们更喜欢 MCT 考试反馈方法,但他们认识到 HS 课程的后勤工作可能会阻碍类似方法的采用。学生对如何改进两门课程的反馈提出了一些小建议。结论/意义:这些数据表明,国际医学科学院医学院一年级课程提供考试反馈的方式稍作改变,学生就会从中受益。改进措施可以包括延长考试复习课的时间,纳入对常见考试遗漏概念的讨论,为错误和正确答案提供答案解释,以及将全州范围的复习过渡到由校园主导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信