Students’ Perceptions of Formative Assessment and the Role of Feedback in Learning Tashreehul Badan (Anatomy): A Cross-sectional Study

Author

Faisal M, Mohammad Zubair, Rabia Nizam


Abstract

 Background: Formative assessment is intended to support learning by identifying learning gaps and providing information that can guide subsequent study. In the NCISM curriculum, periodic assessments are a structured component of undergraduate Tashreehul Badan (Human Anatomy) education. However, the educational value of formative assessment depends substantially on what happens after assessment, particularly the provision of timely and useful feedback.

Objective: To assess undergraduate students’ perceptions of formative assessment and examine the role and consistency of post-assessment feedback in supporting learning in Tashreehul Badan.

Methods: A descriptive analytical cross-sectional survey was conducted among 103 undergraduate students using a structured self-administered Google Forms questionnaire. Data on assessment exposure, perceived learning benefits, study behavior, feedback availability and quality, academic perceptions, and challenges were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, Likert-scale means, and standard deviations. An exploratory Fisher’s exact test assessed the association between feedback availability and perceived feedback quality.

Results: All respondents (100%) were aware of the NCISM periodic assessment pattern and 83.5% had appeared in 7–9 formative assessments. The strongest perceived benefits were early identification of weak areas (82.5%) and promotion of consistent study habits (81.6%). The six-item composite Likert score was 3.86 ± 0.61 on a 5-point scale (77.3% of the maximum possible score). The principal implementation gap concerned feedback: only 30.1% reported that feedback was always provided, whereas 68.0% received it sometimes and 1.9% never received it. Although 71.8% rated received feedback as good or excellent, good/excellent ratings were reported by 96.8% of students who received feedback always compared with 61.1% among those who did not receive feedback consistently (Fisher’s exact p<0.001).

Conclusion: Students perceived formative assessment favorably, but inconsistent post-assessment feedback represents an important gap in its implementation. Strengthening timely, structured, specific, and actionable feedback may improve the educational value of the existing periodic assessment framework.


Keywords

Formative assessment; feedback; anatomy education; Tashreehul Badan; undergraduate medical education; NCISM; assessment for learning.



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  1. Alias A, Abas R, Choy KW, Wong KH, Hadie SNH. The utility of anatomy assessment in preclinical undergraduate medical curriculum: a scoping review protocol. Education in Medicine Journal. 2024;16(1):223–231.
  2. Pandey P, Zimitat C. Medical students' learning of anatomy: memorization, understanding and visualization. Medical Education. 2007;41(1):7–14.
  3. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Annals of Anatomy. 2016; 208:151–157.
  4. Papa V, Vaccarezza M. Teaching anatomy in the XXI century: new aspects and pitfalls. The Scientific World Journal. 2013; 2013:1–5.
  5. Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 1998;5(1):7–74.
  6. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;356(4):387–396.
  7. Carrillo-de-la-Peña MT, Baillès E, Caseras X, Martínez Á, Ortet G, Pérez J. Formative assessment and academic achievement in pre-graduate students of health sciences. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2009;14(1):61–67.
  8. Rolfe I, McPherson J. Formative assessment: how am I doing? The Lancet. 1995;345(8953):837–839.
  9. Rushton A. Formative assessment: a key to deep learning? Medical Teacher. 2005;27(6):509–513.
  10. Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher. 2011;33(6):478–485.
  11. National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM). First BUMS curriculum: Tashreehul Badan (Human Anatomy). Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. 2021.
  12. Kibble J. Use of ungraded online quizzes for formative assessment to improve student preparation for summative assessment. Advances in Physiology Education. 2007;31(3):253–260.
  13. Atwa HS, Potu BK, Fadel RA, et al. Implementing formative assessment in human anatomy practical sessions: medical students’ perception and effect on final exam performance. Research Square. 2023.
  14. Krasne S, Wimmers PF, Relan A, Drake RL. Differential effects of two types of formative assessment in predicting performance of first-year medical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2006;11(2):155–171.
  15. Babu KN, Vidyasagar CR. Student perceptions of formative assessment in anatomy. National Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2019;8(2):58–62.
  16. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Medical Teacher. 2011;33(3):206–214.
  17. Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al-Rawahy M, Habbal O. Anatomy practical examinations: how does student performance on computerized objective structured clinical examinations compare with the traditional spotters? Anatomical Sciences Education. 2012;5(5):276–282.
  18. Lombardi SA, Hicks RE, Thompson KV, Marbach-Ad G. Are all hands-on activities equally effective? Effect of using plastic models, organ dissections, and virtual dissections on student learning and perceptions. Advances in Physiology Education. 2014;38(1):80–86.
  19. Moxham BJ, McHanwell S, Plaisant O, Pais D. A core syllabus for the teaching of neuroanatomy to medical students. Clinical Anatomy. 2015;28(6):706–716.
  20. Evans DJ, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2009;2(5):227–233.
  21. Sharma A, Sharma M. Impact of periodic assessment on Ayurvedic medical students: a study on the new NCISM curriculum guidelines. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. 2022;13(4):100612.
  22. Singh R, et al. Formative assessment in Anatomy: a study of student perceptions and academic outcomes. National Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2019;8(3):112–117.
  23. Srinivas A. Assessment, internals, student feedback: evaluation of periodic unit tests in improving academic performance of first year MBBS students in anatomy. International Journal of Anatomy and Research. 2021;10(3):8085-8090.
  24. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011; 2:53–55.
  25. Bergman EM, Prince KJ, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. How much anatomy is enough? Anatomical Sciences Education. 2008;1(4):184–188.

 

 

 

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons