Students Insight of Formative Assessment via the Learning Management System (LMS) in Forensic Medicine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/JBUMDC2024494Keywords:
Assessment, Formative, Forensic Medicine, learning, PerceptionAbstract
Objective: This study aims to assess students' perceptions of an online formative assessment conducted via the LMS Moodle platform in the subject of Forensic Medicine.
Study Design and Setting: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at FRPMC in Karachi, involving 183 MBBS students from the 3rd and 4th years.
Methodology: A 13-item structured questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect students' opinions on online formative assessments, following their consent and ethical approval from the institutional review board. Only fully completed responses were analyzed. Data was processed using SPSS (version 26), and descriptive statistics, along with Cronbach’s alpha, were used to assess reliability.
Results: The findings revealed that most respondents had a positive view of the online formative assessments. Approximately 68.8% found the assessments to be well-organized and relevant, while 60% felt that the learning objectives were aligned. Around 65% believed the exam helped in recalling forensic medicine knowledge, and 70% found the questions challenging. However, 41% reported technical issues, and 69-70% felt the exam’s duration and difficulty were insufficient. The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.893 indicated strong internal consistency, although the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test suggested insufficient sampling for certain items.
Conclusion: FRPMC students responded positively to online formative assessments using LMS-Moodle quiz. Rectification of technical issues and appropriate assessment conditions are crucial for future improvements.
References
1. Aulino G, Beccia F, Siodambro C, Rega M, Capece G, Boccia
S, Lanzone A, Oliva A. An evaluation of Italian medical
students attitudes and knowledge regarding forensic medicine.
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2023 Feb
1;94:102484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2023.102484
2. Gupta S, Parekh UN, Ganjiwale JD. Student's perception
about innovative teaching learning practices in Forensic
Medicine. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2017 Nov
1;52:137-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2017.09.007
3. 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.
Language Testing in Asia. 2022 Sep 13;12(1):40.
4. Boston C. The concept of formative assessment. Practical
assessment, research, and evaluation. 2019;8(1):9.
5. Dolin J, Black P, Harlen W, Tiberghien A. Exploring relations
between formative and summative assessment. Transforming
assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research
and policy. 2018:53-80.
6. Vaganova OI, Smirnova ZV, Vezetiu EV, Kutepov MM,
Chelnokova EA. Assessment tools in e-learning Moodle.
International Journal. 2020 May;9(3):2488-92.
7. Kitchen H, Bethell G, Fordham E, Henderson K, Li RR.
OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education:
student assessment in Turkey. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2019.
p. 25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100323
8. Otaki F, Gholami M, Fawad I, Akbar A, Banerjee Y. Students’
perception of Formative Assessment as an Instructional Tool
in competency-based medical education: Proposal for a proofof-concept study. JMIR Research Protocols. 2023 Mar
20;12(1):e41626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/41626.
9. Granberg C, Palm T, Palmberg B. A case study of a formative
assessment practice and the effects on students’ self-regulated
learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2021 Mar
1;68:100955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. stueduc.2020.
100955
10. Buyukkarci K, Sahinkarakas S. The impact of formative
assessment on students’ assessment preferences. The Reading
Matrix: An International Online Journal. 2021 Apr 1;21(1):142-
61.
11. Morris R, Perry T, Wardle L. Formative assessment and
feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review.
Review of Education. 2021 Oct;9(3):e3292. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1002/rev3.3292
12. McCallum S, Milner MM. The effectiveness of formative
assessment: student views and staff reflections. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education. 2021 Jan 2;46(1):1-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1754761
13. Van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Driessen EW, Dijkstra
J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LK, Van Tartwijk J. A model for
programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Medical teacher.
2012 Mar 1;34(3):205-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/
0142159X.2012.652239
14. Shumway JM, Harden RM. AMEE Guide No. 25: The
assessment of learning outcomes for the competent and
reflective physician. Medical teacher. 2003 Nov 1;25(6):569-
84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100323
15. Cardozo LT, Azevedo MA, Carvalho MS, Costa R, de Lima
PO, Marcondes FK. Effect of an active learning methodology
combined with formative assessments on performance, test
anxiety, and stress of university students. Advances in
Physiology Education. 2020 Dec 1;44(4):744-51. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00075.2020
16. Molin F, De Bruin A, Haelermans C. A conceptual framework
to understand learning through formative assessments with
student response systems: The role of prompts and diagnostic
cues. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2022 Jan
1;6(1):100323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ssaho.2022.
100323
17. Couto LB, Durand MT, Wolff AC, Restini CB, Faria Jr M,
Romão GS, et al. Formative assessment scores in tutorial
sessions correlate with OSCE and progress testing scores in
a PBL medical curriculum. Medical Education Online. 2019
Jan 1;24(1):1560862. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.
2018.1560862
18. Van Diggele C, Roberts C, Burgess A, Mellis C.
Interprofessional education: tips for design and implementation.
BMC Medical Education. 2020 Dec 3;20(Suppl 2):455.
19. Anderson L, Fernandez-Branson C. Promoting physiology
integration through alignment of learning objectives and
formative assessments. FASEB J. 2021 May;35. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2021.35.S1.02624
20. Alvarez A, Villamañe M. Facilitating complex assessment
using Moodle. Interactive Learning Environments. 2024 Feb
7;32(2):585-99.
21. Gupta S, Reddy JN, Parekh U. Competency-based or
competency-driven medical education in forensic medicine:
crossroads and way forward. Journal of Forensic Medicine
and Toxicology. 2022;39(1):1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/
0974-4568.2022.00001.1.
22. Senadheera P, Kulasekara GU. A formative assessment design
suitable for online learning environments and its impact on
students' learning. Open Praxis. 2021 Dec 1;13(4):385-96.
23. Berisha, Fatlume & Vula, Eda & Gisewhite, Rachel &
McDuffie, Hannah. (2023). The effectiveness and challenges
implementing a formative assessment professional
development program. Teacher Development. 28. 1-25. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2023.2210533.
24. Aithal A, Aithal PS. Development and validation of survey
questionnaire and experimental data: a systematic reviewbased statistical approach. Int J Manag Technol Soc Sci. 2020
Nov 3;5(2):233-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3724105
25. Shrestha N. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. Am
J Appl Math Stat. 2021 Jan 20;9(1):4-11. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2.
26. Thangaraj P, Sethuraman D, Ramalingam R. Knowledge and
attitude toward formative assessment among teaching faculties
of medical institutions. MRIMS J Health Sci. 2023 Dec 22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-4568.2022.00001.1.
27. Holmes W. Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and
implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum
Redesign. 2019.
28. Tempelaar D, Rienties B, Nguyen Q. Subjective data, objective
data and the role of bias in predictive modelling: Lessons
from a dispositional learning analytics application. PloS one.
2020 Jun 12;15(6):e0233977.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
