Abstract Title
An evaluation of the effectiveness of assessment using eLearning in the medical curriculum

Authors

Dr.Sunil Pazhayanur Venkateswaran
Dr.Vasudeva Murthy
Dr.Kavitha Nagandla

Theme

4AA eLearning courses

INSTITUTION

International Medical University -Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Background

Medicine comprises a vast collection of knowledge, skills and attitudes. The trainee practitioner must achieve a large number of learning objectives within each of these so‐called domains of learning to be considered competent to practice. The acquisition of learning objectives in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education can be achieved by a mixture of modalities including apprenticeship, didactic teaching (lecturing), self-study and small group learning. The recent rapid development of information technology has allowed electronic learning or “e-learning” to obtain a place in the “teaching toolbox” (Choules, 2007).

Over the years medical education has undergone significant evolution in this digital world. Blending all teaching and learning activities and assessment with eLearning would enhance the student learning experience and can be effectively utilised for teaching and assessing undergraduate as well as postgraduate medical students. In International Medical University (IMU) many forms of eLearning tools are used for online assessment which provides support and enhances the student learning experience.

Summary of Work

In the various modules in our curriculum across Phase I (Semesters 1 to 5) and Phase II (Semesters 6-10) many types of online assessment using e-learning are done. These include Formative assessments(OBA,OSPE and OSCE), Summative assessments(OBA,EMQ and OSPE), Assigned independent reading topics, Elective reports, General Practice posting reports, Reflective reports,Community Oriented project,Clinical competencies,Online interactive quizzes,Portfolio, and Case summaries. The various eLearning components of the modules were extracted by using a quantitative questionnaire with the Likert scoring scale ranging from 1 to 4. Different templates for the questionnaires were used for the modules in Phase I and II of the medical curriculum.These questionnaires are generally administered to the students at the end of the module.The students are able to access the questionnaire through our elearning portal.Students are encouraged to answer all the components of the questionnaire and maximum student response is encouraged by the module coordinators.

Summary of Results

The effectiveness of various components of the eLearning such as usefulness in gathering information provided, regarding eLearning promoting interactive/peer learning, feedback on assessment and appropriateness and fairness of assessment were evaluated from the period of January 2014 to December 2014. Many different cohorts of students were evalauted to assess the various components of the elearning.The mean scores across the cohorts and both phases varied from 2.49 to 3.43.

The results were tabulated for Phase I and Phase II as follows:

Phase I
Semester Module Response rate Item Mean Standard deivation
One Foundation 91.3% Q1 2.93 0.708
Q2 2.62 0.796
Two Cardiovascular 65.74% Q1 2.98 0.647
Q2 2.54 0.701
Two Haematology 39.8% Q1 3.03 0.519
Q2 2.59 0.658
Two Respiratory 32.1% Q1 2.86 0.571
Q2 2.49 0.704
Three Reproductive 48% Q1 2.89 0.705
Q2 2.51 0.765
Three Gastrointestinal 28% Q1 2.97 0.520
Q2 2.68 0.651
Four Renal 55.7% Q1 2.94 0.615
Q2 2.71 0.648
Four Musculoskeletal 73.21% Q1 2.97 0.543
Q2 2.65 0.610
Five Forensic Group A 46.15% Q1 3.00 0.587
Q2 2.87 0.681
Five Forensic Group B 40.3% Q1 3.00 0.555
Q2 2.63 0.688
Five Forensic Group C 47.69% Q1 2.97 0.547
Q2 2.81 0.543
Five Forensic Group A 26.32% Q1 3.10 0.553
Q2 2.90 0.788
Five

Forensic Group B

6.58% Q1 3.00 0.707
Q2 3.00 0.707
Five Forensic Group C 34.21% Q1 3.08 0.560
Q2 2.96 0.528

The mean scores ranged from 2.49 to 3.10.The lowest response rate was 6.58%.

Legend

Q1- Elearning was useful in gathering more information

Q2- Elearning promoted interactive/peer learning

Phase II
Semester Posting/Module Response rate Item Mean Standard Deviation
Six Family Medicine 55.93% Q1 3.08 0.563
Q2 3.17 0.646
Six Internal Medicine 55.93% Q1 3.17 0.414
Q2 3.11 0.468
Six Surgery 55.08% Q1 3.28 0.545
Q2 3.43 0.553
Six Family Medicine 70% Q1 3.07 0.504
Q2 3.18 0.512
Six Internal Medicine 70% Q1 3.22 0.459
Q2 3.24 0.543
Six Surgery 70% Q1 3.20 0.487
Q2 3.31 0.466
Seven Medical block 69.57% Q1 3.11 0.441
Q2 3.12 0.488
Seven Psychiatry 69.57% Q1 3.27 0.512
Q2 3.11 0.594
Seven Surgery 69.57% Q1 3.02 0.577
Q2 3.11 0.475
Seven Orthopaedic 69.57% Q1 2.92 0.625
Q2 2.92 0.680
Seven Medical block 39% Q1 3.04 0.464
Q2 3.02 0.571
Seven Psychiatry 39% Q1 3.15 0.589
Q2 3.15 0.589
Seven Surgery 39% Q1 3.04 0.509
Q2 3.02 0.571
Seven Orthopaedic 39% Q1 2.94 0.604
Q2 2.81 0.711
Eight Paediatrics 46% Q1 3.05 0.394
Q2 3.03 0.362
Eight Obstetrics&Gynaecology 45% Q1 3.34 0.481
Q2 3.32 0.525
Eight Paediatrics 49.45% Q1 3.13 0.505
Q2 3.29 0.506
Eight Obstetrics&Gynaecology 49.45% Q1 3.40 0.495
Q2 3.40 0.580
Nine Family&Community health 72.73% Q1 3.14 0.484
Q2 3.15 0.522
Nine Medical block 72.73% Q1 3.17 0.411
Q2 3.10 0.535
Nine Surgical block-Anaesthetic 72.73% Q1 3.32 0.499
Q2 3.29 0.535
Nine Surgical block-Surgery 72.73% Q1 3.22 0.451
Q2 3.19 0.493
Nine Family&Community health 79.80% Q1 2.96 0.542
Q2 3.14 0.445
Nine Medical block 79.80% Q1 3.00 0.453
Q2 3.13 0.516
Nine Surgical block-Anaesthetic 79.80% Q1 3.41 0.673
Q2 3.47 0.618
Nine Surgical block-Surgery 79.80% Q1 3.10 0.524
Q2 3.13 0.589

The mean scores ranged from 2.92 to 3.47.The highest response rate was 79.8%.

Legend

Q1- Assessment was appropriate and fair

Q2- Feedback on assessment

Summative assessment-Online OSPE

Formative assessment Semester One

Conclusion

Increasing numbers of medical schools are using the internet. Students value online lecture notes to supplement their reading. The clinical encounter lies at the heart of medical training. A blended approach to e-learning could be an achievable method. New methods of instruction are being developed to augment traditional teaching. (Thakore and McMahon, 2006)

Elearning for teaching and assessment has been widely accepted among members of the faculty at International Medical University.eLearning for assessment is an important part of learning and teaching and the portal can be used as a platform in addition to being used for putting up material for teaching and learning. This also promotes learning from the feedback provided for the various online assessments. There is also the proposal by Ministry of Education in Malaysia on increasing the eLearning component to 10-30% which would only enhance the student learning experience.

References
  1. Choules A.P. 2007. The use of elearning in medical education: a review of the current situation. Postgraduate Medical Journal 83(978): 212-216.

  2. Kathleen Scalise & Bernard Gifford.Computer-Based Assessment in E-Learning:A Framework for Constructing“Intermediate Constraint” Questions and Tasks for Technology Platforms.The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment.Volume 4, Number 6 · June 2006.

  3. Thakore H., McMahon T. 2006. Virtually there: e-learning in medical education. The Clinical Teacher 3: 225–228.

Take-home Messages

There are many advantages in the use of Elearning for assessment.These are as follows:

1.Formative assessment - helps to drive learning by assessment.

2.Summative assessment by elearning is better than paper-based assessment since it has an advantage by it's ability to generate statistics,provides feedback to students and faculty and is paper-free.

All universities worldwide are moving towards assessment using elearning.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the Elearning department at the International Medical University for providing the necessary input and information in the preparation of this eposter.

Background

Technology today offers many new opportunities for innovation in educational assessment through rich new assessment tasks and potentially powerful scoring, reporting and real-time feedback mechanisms. One potential limitation for realizing the benefits of computer-based assessment in both instructional assessment and large scale testing comes in designing questions and tasks with which computers can effectively interface (i.e., for scoring and score reporting purposes) while still gathering meaningful measurement evidence.1

Summary of Work
Summary of Results

Conclusion
References
Take-home Messages
Acknowledgement
Send ePoster Link