Summative versus formative assessments in teaching physiology to biomedical engineering students: a comparison of outcomes

William H Guilford; Brian P. Helmke

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Publication Date: June 24, 2017
Start Date: June 24, 2017
End Date: June 28, 2017
Conference Session: Assessment of Student Learning and Motivation in BME
Tagged Division: Biomedical
Page Count: 10
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28882
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/28882
Download Count: 763

Paper Authors

biography

William H Guilford University of Virginia orcid.org/0000-0002-6543-5713

visit author page

Will Guilford is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He is also the Undergraduate Program Director for Biomedical Engineering, and the Director of Educational Innovation in the School of Engineering. He received his B.S. in Biology and Chemistry from St. Francis College in Ft. Wayne, Indiana and his Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Arizona. Will did his postdoctoral training in Molecular Biophysics at the University of Vermont under David Warshaw. His research interests include novel assessments of educational efficacy, the molecular basis of cell movement, and the mitigation of infectious diseases.

visit author page

biography

Brian P. Helmke University of Virginia

visit author page

Brian Helmke is currently Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He received the B.S.E. in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania, the B.S.Econ. from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Ph.D. in bioengineering from the University of California, San Diego. Brian’s research interests include cardiovascular physiology, cellular mechanobiology, and nanotechnology-based biomaterials. He is also interested in technology-enhanced teaching and in experiential learning for undergraduates in science and engineering.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Testing plays three roles in education. First, it serves a motivational role by holding students accountable for their work.

Second, testing serves an assessment function, not only for the purpose of assigning grades (“summative assessment”) but also for providing feedback to students to guide their learning (“formative assessment”). There is, in fact, no formally recognized definition of formative assessment. Perhaps because of its broad and uncertain definition, it remains uncertain how efficacious formative assessment is in improving student learning. Despite this, formative assessment is common in modern educational practice, particularly in hybrid learning paradigms.

Third and finally, summative testing intrinsically improves learning. The latter is called the “testing effect.” The testing effect is known to affect not only the retention and recall of knowledge, but also that of manual skills.

With the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of formative assessment, it remains an open question as to whether it (frequent low- or no-stakes testing) or the testing effect (frequent high-stakes testing) is more effective in promoting learning.

We compared formative assessment to summative assessment via their effects on learning in two sections of a course in human physiology for biomedical engineering students. One section of the course (control) used weekly quizzes between each of four exams, with students receiving the higher of two scores – either the exam score, or the average score of the quizzes. The other section of the course (experimental) used frequent, low-stakes, primarily formative assessments to help students gauge their own learning between each of four exams. Learning outcomes were assessed through a physiology concept inventory administered on the first and last days of the course, and through a subset of questions on each of the four exams that were common between the two course sections. The data showed a trend toward higher overall exam scores and post-course retention and recall in the section taught using only summative assessments compared to the section that used formative assessment. The differences, however, were not significant except when retention-recall was considered in isolation from comprehension. These data suggest that well-structured formative assessments can perform nearly as well in inducing the testing effect as frequent, higher-stakes formative assessments.

Citation
Format

Guilford, W. H., & Helmke, B. P. (2017, June), Summative versus formative assessments in teaching physiology to biomedical engineering students: a comparison of outcomes Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. 10.18260/1-2--28882

TY - CPAPER
AB - Testing plays three roles in education. First, it serves a motivational role by holding students accountable for their work.

Second, testing serves an assessment function, not only for the purpose of assigning grades (“summative assessment”) but also for providing feedback to students to guide their learning (“formative assessment”). There is, in fact, no formally recognized definition of formative assessment. Perhaps because of its broad and uncertain definition, it remains uncertain how efficacious formative assessment is in improving student learning. Despite this, formative assessment is common in modern educational practice, particularly in hybrid learning paradigms.

Third and finally, summative testing intrinsically improves learning. The latter is called the “testing effect.” The testing effect is known to affect not only the retention and recall of knowledge, but also that of manual skills.

With the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of formative assessment, it remains an open question as to whether it (frequent low- or no-stakes testing) or the testing effect (frequent high-stakes testing) is more effective in promoting learning.

We compared formative assessment to summative assessment via their effects on learning in two sections of a course in human physiology for biomedical engineering students. One section of the course (control) used weekly quizzes between each of four exams, with students receiving the higher of two scores – either the exam score, or the average score of the quizzes. The other section of the course (experimental) used frequent, low-stakes, primarily formative assessments to help students gauge their own learning between each of four exams. Learning outcomes were assessed through a physiology concept inventory administered on the first and last days of the course, and through a subset of questions on each of the four exams that were common between the two course sections. The data showed a trend toward higher overall exam scores and post-course retention and recall in the section taught using only summative assessments compared to the section that used formative assessment. The differences, however, were not significant except when retention-recall was considered in isolation from comprehension. These data suggest that well-structured formative assessments can perform nearly as well in inducing the testing effect as frequent, higher-stakes formative assessments.
AU - William H Guilford
AU - Brian P. Helmke
CY - Columbus, Ohio
DA - 2017/06/24
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Summative versus formative assessments in teaching physiology to biomedical engineering students: a comparison of outcomes
UR - https://peer.asee.org/28882
DO - 10.18260/1-2--28882
ER -