Anatomy and Cell Biology

Korean Association of Anatomists (대한해부학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A mixed method study to validate a two-way feedback between student and faculty to improve learning of anatomy

  • Eladl, Mohamed Ahmed (Department of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Abdalla, Mohamed Elhassan (Medical Education Unit, College of Medicine, University of Sharjah) ;
  • Ranade, Anu (Department of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Sharjah)
  • Received : 2018.01.10
  • Accepted : 2018.03.15
  • Published : 2018.06.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Although the students are subjected to some formative exams throughout the problem based learning units, feedback is not given appropriately and timely. Students want to know and use the reasoning behind judgments and always complain that assessment criteria need to be explained. The aim of this project is to implement a two-way feedback delivery (TWFD), in which both faculty and students have an opportunity to discuss their reflections on learning and examination processes. An Anatomy formative assessment is introduced to 100 students followed by implementation of TWFD. Faculty members provided the students with a structured and timely feedback on their performance. Also, the students reflected on the whole learning process, including real examination experience. The reaction was measured using quantitative and qualitative instruments through a questionnaire, focus group discussion, and semi-structured interviews. Ninety students (90%) participated in the questionnaire with high satisfaction toward implementation of TWFD. Ninety-four percent (n=85) admitted that the time of the session was appropriate. Ninety percent (n=81) of the students demonstrated that the TWFD helped them to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Eighty-five percent (n=77) of the students admitted that TWFD promotes active reflection on the effectiveness of teaching. Most of the students and teachers' comments in the focus group discussions and the interviews supported these results. TWFD seems to be a good approach to implement an effective and timely feedback process between the faculty and the students. Students and the faculty recommended the implementation of this session in different courses and units.

Keywords

References

  1. Cooper C. Student performance outcomes as related to cognitive levels of formative assessment questioning via clickers and its associated feedback. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; 2015.
  2. Popham WJ. Timed tests for tykes? Educ Leadersh 2008;65:867.
  3. Morris J. Formative assessment in practice learning: is it "always about testing" or a more collaborative approach between learner and educator? Physiotherapy 2015;101(Suppl 1):e1039.
  4. Muralidharan K, Sundararaman V. The impact of diagnostic feedback to teachers on student learning: experimental evidence from India. Econ J 2010;120:F187-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02373.x
  5. Boudett KP, City EA, Murnane RJ. Data wise: a step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press; 2013.
  6. Furey P. Not just talk: real feedback. London: Karnac Books; 2014.
  7. Morais A, Barragues JI, Guisasola J. Using a classroom response system for promoting interaction to teaching mathematics to large groups of undergraduate students. J Comput Math Sci Teach 2015;34:249-71.
  8. Akers CE, Flann K. Effects of in-class discussion with pre and post lecture quizzing on retention. FASEB J 2016;30(1 Suppl):776.13.
  9. Etkina E. Weekly reports: a two-way feedback tool. Sci Educ 2000;84:594-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<594::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-U
  10. Lawrence HV, Wiswell AK. Feedback is a two-way street. Train Dev 1995;49:49-53.
  11. Al Wahbi AM, Tamimi MA. Huge infra renal abdominal aortic aneurysm presented with concomitant divirticular abscess: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2015;7C:39-41.
  12. Al-Mously N, Nabil NM, Al-Babtain SA, Fouad Abbas MA. Undergraduate medical students' perceptions on the quality of feedback received during clinical rotations. Med Teach 2014;36 Suppl 1:S17-23. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.886009
  13. Brookhart SM, Nitko AJ. Providing formative feedback. Educational assessment of students. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education; 2015. p. 153-65.
  14. Llorens AC, Vidal-Abarca E, Cerdan R. Formative feedback to transfer self-regulation of task-oriented reading strategies. J Comput Assist Learn 2016;32:314-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12134
  15. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach 2012;34:787-91. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.684916
  16. Ward AE. Satisfying students needs for timely, informative feedback with the constraints and issues of time, quality and consistency. In: Proceedings of 24th CEEMAN Annual Conference; 2016 Sep 28-30; Tanlinn, Estonia. Ceeman. p.59-61.
  17. Slipper L, Border S, Cecot T. How important is personalised and timely feedback in formative assessment? J Anat 2014;224:750-1.
  18. Zehra T, Tariq M, Ali SK, Motiwala A, Boulet J. Challenges of providing timely feedback to residents: Faculty perspectives. J Pak Med Assoc 2015;65:1069-74.
  19. O'Farrell C. A enhancing student learning through assessment: a toolkit approach. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology; 2016.
  20. Bain LZ. How students use technology to cheat and what faculty can do about it. Inf Syst Educ J 2015;13:92-9.
  21. Arnold IJ. Cheating at online formative tests: does it pay off? Internet High Educ 2016;29:98-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.001
  22. Arghode V, Brieger T, McLean GN. Adult learning theories: implications for online instruction. Eur J Train Dev 2017;41:593-609. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2017-0014
  23. Dudek NL, Dojeiji S, Day K, Varpio L. Feedback to supervisors: is anonymity really so important? Acad Med 2016;91:1305-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001170
  24. Browne G, Bjelogrlic P, Issberner J, Jackson C. Undergraduate student assessors in a formative OSCE station. Med Teach 2013; 35:170-1.
  25. Al Wahbi A. The need for faculty training programs in effective feedback provision. Adv Med Educ Pract 2014;5:263-8.
  26. Sabzghabaei A, Shojaee M, Alimohammadi H, Derakhshanfar H, Kashani P, Nassiriabrishamchi S. The effect of emergency department overcrowding on efficiency of emergency medicine residents' education. Emerg (Tehran) 2015;3:146-9.
  27. Cleary LM, Peacock TD. Collected wisdom: American Indian education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1998.
  28. Diaz DP, Cartnal RB. Students' learning styles in two classes: online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. Coll Teach 1999;47:130-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559909595802
  29. Andersson C, Palm T. The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: a study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learn Instr 2017;49:92-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006
  30. Faber JM, Luyten H, Visscher AJ. The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: results of a randomized experiment. Comput Educ 2017;106:83-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.001
  31. Kirkpatrick DL. Great ideas revisited. Train Dev 1996;50:54-9.

Cited by

  1. Summative and Formative Style Anatomy Practical Examinations: Do They Have Impact on Students’ Performance and Drive for Learning? vol.13, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1931
  2. VR/AR Technology in Human Anatomy Teaching and Operation Training vol.2021, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9998427