Display options
Share it on

BMC Med Educ. 2016 Sep 22;16(1):245. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0766-2.

A first report of East Asian students' perception of progress testing: a focus group study.

BMC medical education

Yasushi Matsuyama, Arno M M Muijtjens, Makoto Kikukawa, Renee Stalmeijer, Reiko Murakami, Shizukiyo Ishikawa, Hitoaki Okazaki

Affiliations

  1. Medical Education Center, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, 329-0498, Tochigi, Japan. [email protected].
  2. Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  3. Department of Medical Education, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan.
  4. Jichi Medical University of Nursing, Japan, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan.
  5. Medical Education Center, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, 329-0498, Tochigi, Japan.

PMID: 27658501 PMCID: PMC5034519 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0766-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Progress testing (PT) is used in Western countries to evaluate students' level of functional knowledge, and to enhance meaning-oriented and self-directed learning. However, the use of PT has not been investigated in East Asia, where reproduction-oriented and teacher-centered learning styles prevail. Here, we explored the applicability of PT by focusing on student perceptions.

METHODS: Twenty-four students from Years 2, 3, and 5 at Jichi Medical University in Japan attended a pilot PT session preceded by a brief introduction of its concept and procedures. Variations in obtained test scores were analyzed by year, and student perceptions of PT were explored using focus groups.

RESULTS: Formula scores (mean ± standard deviation) in Years 2, 3, and 5 were 12.63 ± 3.53, 35.88 ± 14.53, and 71.00 ± 18.31, respectively. Qualitative descriptive analysis of focus group data showed that students disfavored testing of medical knowledge without tangible goals, but instead favored repetitive assessment of knowledge that had been learned and was tested on a unit basis in the past in order to achieve deep learning. Further, students of all school years considered that post-test explanatory lectures by teachers were necessary.

CONCLUSIONS: East Asian students' perceptions indicated that, in addition to their intensive memorization within narrow test domains compartmentalized by end-of-unit tests, the concept of PT was suitable for repetitive memorization, as it helped them to integrate their knowledge and to increase their understanding. Post-test explanatory lectures might lessen their dislike of the intangible goals of PT, but at the expense of delaying the development of self-directed learning. Key issues for the optimization of PT in East Asia may include administration of PT after completed end-of-unit tests and a gradual change in feedback methodology over school years from test-oriented post-test lectures to the provision of literature references only, as a means of enhancing test self-review and self-directed learning.

Keywords: Applicability; Assessment; East Asia; Focus group; Japan; Progress testing; Undergraduate education

References

  1. Am Psychol. 2002 Feb;57(2):89-99 - PubMed
  2. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Oct;17(4):573-83 - PubMed
  3. Med Educ. 2012 Aug;46(8):738-47 - PubMed
  4. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996 Jan;1(1):41-67 - PubMed
  5. Med Teach. 2010;32(2):113-7 - PubMed
  6. Med Educ. 1996 Jul;30(4):239-45 - PubMed
  7. Med Educ. 2005 Feb;39(2):221-7 - PubMed
  8. Med Educ. 2007 Jul;41(7):638-44 - PubMed
  9. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206-14 - PubMed
  10. Med Teach. 2014 Nov;36(11):923-39 - PubMed
  11. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):683-97 - PubMed
  12. Med Teach. 2010;32(6):467-70 - PubMed
  13. Perspect Med Educ. 2012 Mar;1(1):24-30 - PubMed
  14. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9(3):241-9 - PubMed
  15. Med Educ. 2010 Feb;44(2):184-6 - PubMed
  16. Acad Med. 2009 Sep;84(9):1313-7 - PubMed
  17. Acad Med. 2006 Dec;81(12):1069-75 - PubMed
  18. Keio J Med. 2007 Sep;56(3):75-84 - PubMed
  19. Med Educ. 2014 Mar;48(3):280-91 - PubMed
  20. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):875-86 - PubMed
  21. Med Teach. 2010;32(6):461-3 - PubMed
  22. Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40 - PubMed

Publication Types