Student Use and Perceptions of Embedded Formative Assessments in a Basic Science Veterinary Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work describes the implementation of online, timed, closed-book formative assessments across several modules of a first-year undergraduate veterinary program. This process does not require significant time investment since it can be implemented into existing programs of study. Students were surveyed on how they used these formative assessments for learning and, overall, were overwhelmingly positive about the opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their performance. Quantitative statistics on preferences as well as qualitative thematic analysis of open, free-text questions revealed clear preferences in how they choose to engage with the assessments for learning, as well as how they prefer assessments to be administered. Students were positive about the online nature of the exams and prefer formative assessments to be distributed across the teaching semesters without any time restrictions, allowing them to be completed as and when they choose. Immediate feedback in the form of model answers is the students' preference, although some value signposting to relevant resources for further research. Furthermore, students reported that they want more questions and tests to complement their learning, and overwhelmingly rely on guided and structured activities for learning and revision, which will need to be balanced with opportunities to develop critical thinking and independent learning skills when studying in a professional course, given students are not likely to default into such behavior. This work models a process many curriculum designers have undergone and continue to undergo in higher education as online, hybrid, and blended approaches to teaching have received renewed interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".