Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bijol, Vanesa; Byrne-Dugan, Cathryn J.; Hoenig, Melanie P. (2015)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Medical Education Online
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: quiz, Special aspects of education, formative assessment, pathology, medical education, R5-920, Medicine (General), curriculum, curriculum; quiz; formative assessment; medical education; pathology, LC8-6691, Trend Article
Background: Web-based formative assessment tools have become widely recognized in medical education as valuable resources for self-directed learning.Objectives: To explore the educational value of formative assessment using online quizzes for kidney pathology learning in our renal pathophysiology course.Methods: Students were given unrestricted and optional access to quizzes. Performance on quizzed and non-quizzed materials of those who used (‘quizzers’) and did not use the tool (‘non-quizzers’) was compared. Frequency of tool usage was analyzed and satisfaction surveys were utilized at the end of the course.Results: In total, 82.6% of the students used quizzes. The greatest usage was observed on the day before the final exam. Students repeated interactive and more challenging quizzes more often. Average means between final exam scores for quizzed and unrelated materials were almost equal for ‘quizzers’ and ‘non-quizzers’, but ‘quizzers’ performed statistically better than ‘non-quizzers’ on both, quizzed (p=0.001) and non-quizzed (p=0.024) topics. In total, 89% of surveyed students thought quizzes improved their learning experience in this course.Conclusions: Our new computer-assisted learning tool is popular, and although its use can predict the final exam outcome, it does not provide strong evidence for direct improvement in academic performance. Students who chose to use quizzes did well on all aspects of the final exam and most commonly used quizzes to practice for final exam. Our efforts to revitalize the course material and promote learning by adding interactive online formative assessments improved students’ learning experience overall.Keywords: curriculum; quiz; formative assessment; medical education; pathology (Published: 31 March 2015)Citation: Med Educ Online 2015, 20: 26765 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/meo.v20.26765 
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med 2013; 88: 1407 10.
    • 2. Sharma N, Lau CS, Doherty I, Harbutt D. How we flipped the medical classroom. Med Teach 2014; 37: 1 4.
    • 3. Buchanan T. The efficacy of a World-Wide Web mediated formative assessment. J Comput Assist Lear 2000; 16: 193 200.
    • 4. Kibble JD, Johnson TR, Khalil MK, Nelson LD, Riggs GH, Borrero JL, et al. Insights gained from the analysis of performance and participation in online formative assessment. Teach Learn Med 2011; 23: 125 9.
    • 5. Wang T-H. Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: development and evaluation. Comput Educ 2008; 51: 1247 63.
    • 6. Velan GM, Jones P, McNeil HP, Kumar RK. Integrated online formative assessments in the biomedical sciences for medical students: benefits for learning. BMC Med Educ 2008; 8: 52.
    • 7. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: learning, teaching and assessment. Med Teach 2008; 30: 455 73.
    • 8. Pierce R, Fox J. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a ''flipped classroom'' model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 2012; 76: 196.
    • 9. Rosner M, Parker M, Kohan D. Nephrology as a career choice: a survey of medical students. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20: 767A.
    • 10. Hoenig MP, Shapiro E, Hladik GA. Lessons learned from the ASN renal educator listserv and survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 8: 105460.
    • 11. Parker MG, Pivert KA, Ibrahim T, Molitoris BA. Recruiting the next generation of nephrologists. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2013; 20: 326 35.
    • 12. Parker MG, Ibrahim T, Shaffer R, Rosner MH, Molitoris BA. The future nephrology workforce: will there be one? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 6: 1501 6.
    • 13. Velan GM, Killen MT, Dziegielewski M, Kumar RK. Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted learning module on glomerulonephritis for medical students. Med Teach 2002; 24: 412 16.
    • 14. Velan GM, Kumar RK, Dziegielewski M, Wakefield D. Webbased self-assessments in pathology with Questionmark Perception. Pathology 2002; 34: 282 4.
    • 15. Vogel JJ, Greenwood-Ericksen A, Cannon-Bowers J, Bowers CA. Using virtual reality with and without gaming attributes for academic achievement. J Res Technol Educ 2006; 39: 105 18.
    • 16. McDermott KB, Agarwal PK, D'Antonio L, Roediger HL, 3rd, McDaniel MA. Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. J Exp Psychol Appl 2014; 20: 3 21.
    • 17. Heffler B. Individual learning style and the learning style inventory. Educ Stud 2001; 27: 307 16.
    • 18. Zimmerman BJ. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educ Psychol 1990; 25: 3 17.
    • 19. Krasne S, Wimmers PF, Relan A, Drake TA. Differential effects of two types of formative assessment in predicting performance of first-year medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ Theor Pract 2006; 11: 155 71.
    • 20. McNulty JA, Espiritu BR, Hoyt AE, Ensminger DC, Chandrasekhar AJ. Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 8: 37 44.
    • 21. Metcalf MP, Tanner TB, Buchanan A. Effectiveness of an online curriculum for medical students on genetics, genetic testing and counseling. Med Educ Online 2010; 15: 4856, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/meo.v15i0.4856
    • 22. Cardall S, Krupat E, Ulrich M. Live lecture versus videorecorded lecture: are students voting with their feet? Acad Med 2008; 83: 11748.
    • 23. Horton DM, Wiederman SD, Saint DA. Assessment outcome is weakly correlated with lecture attendance: influence of learning style and use of alternative materials. Adv Physiol Educ 2012; 36: 108 15.
    • 24. Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL. Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med 2002; 77: S86 93.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.