Medical students’ perception of changes in assessments implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
COVID-19 posed many challenges to medical education in the United Kingdom (UK). This includes implementing assessments during 4 months of national lockdowns within a 2-year period, where in-person education was prohibited. This study aimed to identify medical school assessment formats emerging during COVID-19 restrictions, investigate medical students’ perspectives on these and identify influencing factors.
Methods
The study consisted of two phases: a questionnaire asking medical students about assessment changes they experienced, satisfaction with these changes and preference regarding different assessments that emerged. The second phase involved semi-structured interviews with medical students across the UK to provide a deeper contextualized understanding of the complex factors influencing their perspectives.
Results
In the questionnaire responses, open-book assessments had the highest satisfaction, and were the preferred option indicated. Furthermore, in the case of assessment cancellation, an increase in weighting of future assessments was preferred over increase in weighting of past assessments. Students were also satisfied with formative or pass-fail assessments.
Interview analyses indicate that although cancellation or replacement of summative assessments with formative assessments reduced heightened anxiety from additional COVID-19 stressors, students worried about possible future knowledge gaps resulting from reduced motivation for assessment-related study. Students’ satisfaction level was also affected by timeliness of communication from universities regarding changes, and student involvement in the decision-making processes. Perceived fairness and standardisation of test-taking conditions were ranked as the most important factors influencing student satisfaction, followed closely by familiarity with the format. In contrast, technical issues, lack of transparency about changes, perceived unfairness around invigilation, and uncertainty around changes in assessment format and weighting contributed to dissatisfaction.
Conclusions
Online open-book assessments were seen as the most ideal amongst all participants, and students who experienced these were the most satisfied with their assessment change. They were perceived as most fair and authentic compared to real-life medical training. We seek to inform educators about student perceptions of successful assessment strategies under COVID-19 restrictions and provide evidence to allow debate on ongoing assessment reform and innovation. While this work looks specifically at assessment changes during COVID-19, understanding factors affecting student perception of assessment is applicable to examinations beyond COVID-19.
COVID-19 posed many challenges to medical education in the United Kingdom (UK). This includes implementing assessments during 4 months of national lockdowns within a 2-year period, where in-person education was prohibited. This study aimed to identify medical school assessment formats emerging during COVID-19 restrictions, investigate medical students’ perspectives on these and identify influencing factors.
Methods
The study consisted of two phases: a questionnaire asking medical students about assessment changes they experienced, satisfaction with these changes and preference regarding different assessments that emerged. The second phase involved semi-structured interviews with medical students across the UK to provide a deeper contextualized understanding of the complex factors influencing their perspectives.
Results
In the questionnaire responses, open-book assessments had the highest satisfaction, and were the preferred option indicated. Furthermore, in the case of assessment cancellation, an increase in weighting of future assessments was preferred over increase in weighting of past assessments. Students were also satisfied with formative or pass-fail assessments.
Interview analyses indicate that although cancellation or replacement of summative assessments with formative assessments reduced heightened anxiety from additional COVID-19 stressors, students worried about possible future knowledge gaps resulting from reduced motivation for assessment-related study. Students’ satisfaction level was also affected by timeliness of communication from universities regarding changes, and student involvement in the decision-making processes. Perceived fairness and standardisation of test-taking conditions were ranked as the most important factors influencing student satisfaction, followed closely by familiarity with the format. In contrast, technical issues, lack of transparency about changes, perceived unfairness around invigilation, and uncertainty around changes in assessment format and weighting contributed to dissatisfaction.
Conclusions
Online open-book assessments were seen as the most ideal amongst all participants, and students who experienced these were the most satisfied with their assessment change. They were perceived as most fair and authentic compared to real-life medical training. We seek to inform educators about student perceptions of successful assessment strategies under COVID-19 restrictions and provide evidence to allow debate on ongoing assessment reform and innovation. While this work looks specifically at assessment changes during COVID-19, understanding factors affecting student perception of assessment is applicable to examinations beyond COVID-19.
Date Issued
2022-12-07
Date Acceptance
2022-09-29
Citation
BMC Medical Education, 2022, 22 (844), pp.1-15
ISSN
1472-6920
Publisher
BioMed Central
Start Page
1
End Page
15
Journal / Book Title
BMC Medical Education
Volume
22
Issue
844
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativeco
mmons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativeco
mmons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
License URL
Identifier
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-022-03787-9
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2022-12-07