↓ Skip to main content

A first report of East Asian students’ perception of progress testing: a focus group study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A first report of East Asian students’ perception of progress testing: a focus group study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0766-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasushi Matsuyama, Arno M. M. Muijtjens, Makoto Kikukawa, Renee Stalmeijer, Reiko Murakami, Shizukiyo Ishikawa, Hitoaki Okazaki

Abstract

Progress testing (PT) is used in Western countries to evaluate students' level of functional knowledge, and to enhance meaning-oriented and self-directed learning. However, the use of PT has not been investigated in East Asia, where reproduction-oriented and teacher-centered learning styles prevail. Here, we explored the applicability of PT by focusing on student perceptions. Twenty-four students from Years 2, 3, and 5 at Jichi Medical University in Japan attended a pilot PT session preceded by a brief introduction of its concept and procedures. Variations in obtained test scores were analyzed by year, and student perceptions of PT were explored using focus groups. Formula scores (mean ± standard deviation) in Years 2, 3, and 5 were 12.63 ± 3.53, 35.88 ± 14.53, and 71.00 ± 18.31, respectively. Qualitative descriptive analysis of focus group data showed that students disfavored testing of medical knowledge without tangible goals, but instead favored repetitive assessment of knowledge that had been learned and was tested on a unit basis in the past in order to achieve deep learning. Further, students of all school years considered that post-test explanatory lectures by teachers were necessary. East Asian students' perceptions indicated that, in addition to their intensive memorization within narrow test domains compartmentalized by end-of-unit tests, the concept of PT was suitable for repetitive memorization, as it helped them to integrate their knowledge and to increase their understanding. Post-test explanatory lectures might lessen their dislike of the intangible goals of PT, but at the expense of delaying the development of self-directed learning. Key issues for the optimization of PT in East Asia may include administration of PT after completed end-of-unit tests and a gradual change in feedback methodology over school years from test-oriented post-test lectures to the provision of literature references only, as a means of enhancing test self-review and self-directed learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 24 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 27%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,755
of 3,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,786
of 321,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#57
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.