ASSESSMENT FORMATS THAT PROMOTE DEEPER LEARNING

Educational research has established that some of the key principles to establishing deeper learning are: a) active participation (such as peer and/or team teaching), b) receiving feedback, and c) providing opportunities and time to learn. Sound educational practices indicate that student assessment should reflect the mode of instruction and be tied to the learning objectives. The traditional “rite of passage” assessment in the anatomy laboratory has been the dreaded “bell-ringer” exam. This type of assessment typically does not address the cognitive domains of learning beyond foundation knowledge and comprehension levels. Bell-ringer questions usually focus only on identification despite course learning objectives that address application and analysis. Furthermore, feedback is often given as a grade well after the exam has been completed and students are under strict time constraints to answer the questions creating high levels or anxiety.

The purpose of this presentation is to describe an interactive oral anatomy laboratory examination designed to promote and assess deeper learning, provide instant feedback and encourage a comfortable learning environment through team building.

The 2013-14 undergraduate Kinesiology BSc students (n= 70) were given five oral anatomy laboratory exams (i. skeletal/back, ii. upper limb, iii. lower limb, iv. head/neck/thorax, and v. abdomen/pelvis) instead of the bell-ringer exam administered to the same cohort in the 2012-13 (n=65) and 2011-12 (n=66) classes. The oral exam took about 30 minutes per group, given during the lab time. Each group of 5-6 students at a cadaver was tested by an experienced clinical anatomy teaching assistant or anatomy faculty member. A series of questions was asked of each individual in the group such that there were 6 sets of questions so that each student received a unique set of questions. The questions ranged in difficulty from simple identification, to find a structure, to explain an application or clinical scenario, and the weight of each question was proportional to its difficulty. Every test instructor followed the same assessment script. After a student completed answering his/her set of questions the group was asked to participate by adding a comment, correction or point of discussion. Each student would then receive their individual score and a group score. Once the scoring was done the instructor provided feedback to the individual and engaged the group in a discussion about the questions. Lab and written exam scores were compared with the previous cohort (2013vs 2012). The written exam was the same for all cohorts.

The lab grades for the oral exams were consistently higher than the bell-ringer scores (average 85% vs 74% respectively) for each lab exam. The overall written exam scores were also higher for those students who were tested by the oral exam method (85% vs 80%).

The oral anatomy lab exam format was instituted as a way to integrate the lab and lecture material, promote more group learning and encourage deeper learning by requiring students to think about what they were doing instead of memorizing names. The comparisons and format of the assessment are preliminary but the initial results suggest continued use and modifications of this type of assessment may increase deeper learning. More application and analytical questions are being incorporated into the written exam to further integrate teaching and assessment.