ENHANCING STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION: THE EFFECT OF A STRUCTURED ORAL EXAMINATION IN BASIC CLINICAL SKILLS TRAINING

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.45131

Ratih Yulistika Utami(1*), Oppi Mirzatillah(2), Desi Isnayanti(3), M. Jalaluddin Assuyuthi Chalil(4)

(1) Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, Medan - INDONESIA
(2) Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, Medan - INDONESIA
(3) Secretary of Undergraduate program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, Medan - INDONESIA
(4) Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, Medan - INDONESIA
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: Basic Clinical Skills (BCS) is one of the learning methods in medical education that acts as an intermediary bridge to apply procedural knowledge and clinical competency for medical students. Medical educators have successfully used many ways to assess students’ abilities, both oral and written. Oral examinations have vast advantages compared to other assessment methods. However, no standardization of questions to be tested becomes an essential issue in the assessment process. A structured oral examination may increase students’ motivation to prepare themselves better to study the material before following BCS training. This study aimed to determine the effect of a structured oral examination on students’ motivation and identify students’ motivation.

Methods: This quasi-experimental research used a pretest-posttest design to assess the effect of applying the structured oral examination on students’ motivation. The subject of this study was the third-year medical students that amounted to 109 students. Sample selection was made by total sampling. In this study, the authors used SMQ-II questionnaires to measure the students’ motivation.

Results: This research showed significant differences between student motivation on pretest and posttest (p-value of 0,000) after the students were given the structured oral examination at the beginning of basic clinical skills training. It means the structured oral examination affected students’ motivation.

Conclusion: The structured oral examination administered for students before entering BCS learning processes had a significant impact on the students’ motivation. The preparation and the regulation of the structured oral examination on the BCS learning processes should be reinforced to motivate the students and make them more skillful


Keywords


clinical skills, structured oral assessment, motivation, skill training, undergraduate program

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Curry RH, Makoul G. An Active-learning Approach to Basic Clinical Skills. Academic Medicine. 1996 Jan 1; 71(1): 41–44.
  2. Lehmann R, Bosse HM, Simon A, Nikendei C, Huwendiek S. An innovative blended learning approach using virtual patients as preparation for skills laboratory training: perceptions of students and tutors. BMC medical education. 2013 Feb 12; 13(1): 23.
  3. Rush S, Ooms A, Marks-Maran D, Firth T. Students’ perceptions of practice assessment in the skills laboratory: An evaluation study of OSCAs with immediate feedback. Nurse education in practice. 2014 Nov 30; 14(6): 627–34.
  4. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96.
  5. Joughin G. Dimensions of oral assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1998 Dec 1; 23(4): 367–78.
  6. Wass V, Wakeford R, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: an analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners membership examination’s oral component. Medical education. 2003 Feb 1; 37(2): 126–31.
  7. Pope WDB. Anesthesia Oral Examination (editorial). Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.2000; 40: 907–10.
  8. Shenwai MR, Patil KB. Introduction of structured oral examination as a novel assessment tool to first-year medical students in Physiology. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2013; 7(11): 2544–47.
  9. Pogacnik, Cigic. How to motivate students to study before they enter the Lab. Journal of Chemical Education. 2006; 20(20): 1–5.
  10. Dahlan S. Seri Statistik Statistika untuk Kedokteran dan Kesehatan Uji Hipotesis dengan Menggunakan. Jakarta: PT Arkans. 2004: 48–111
  11. Hamdi AS, Bahruddin E. Metode penelitian kuantitatif aplikasi dalam pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Deepublish; 2014.
  12. Sastroasmoro S, Ismael S. Dasar-Dasar Metodologi Penelitian Klinis. 5th ed. Jakarta: Sagung Seto; 2014.
  13. Notoatmodjo S. Metodologi penelitian kesehatan Jakarta: Rineka cipta; 2010.
  14. Rushton P, Eggett D. Comparison of written and oral examinations in a baccalaureate medical-surgical nursing course. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2003; 19(3): 142–8.
  15. Balran A, Farnsworth B. Oral exams: an alternative evaluation method. Nurse Educator. 2004; 22 (4): 6–7. 2004
  16. Ponnudhali D, Bhandary S, Jones E. Structured Oral Examination - A Valid And Reliable Assessment Tool For First Year MBBS Students. National Journal of Basic Medical Sciences. 2016; 7(2): 99–105.
  17. Vankudre AJ, Almale BD, Patil MS, Patil AM. Structured Oral Examination as an Assessment Tool for Third Year Indian MBBS Undergraduates.
  18. Wang F, Khalaf AT, Lei D, Gale M, Li J, et al. Structured oral examination as an effective assessment tool in lab-based physiology learning sessions. Adv Physiol Educ. 2020; 44: 453–458.
  19. Imran M, Doshi C, Kharadi C. Structured and unstructured viva voce assessment: A double-blind, randomized, comparative evaluation of medical students. Int J Health Sci. 2019; 13(2): 3–9.
  20. Dredge K, Sara G, Sheena G, Kathleen C, Bennallack, Taciana P, Dylan H, O’Brien, Jace H. Providing an Oral Examination as an Authentic Assessment in a Large Section, Undergraduate Diversity Class. IJ-SoTL. 2019; 13(2): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2019.130210
  21. Crist JF, Robinson K. Stewards of the word: Employing oral examinations in required theology courses. Journal of Catholic Higher Education. 2015; 34(2): 235–256.
  22. Williams and Hak. Study at a School of Pharmacy in North Carolina, Lindley, Mackowiak. 2004
  23. Sparfeldt, JR, Rost DH, Baumeister UM, Christ O. Test anxiety in written and oral examinations. Learning and Individual Differences. 2013; 24: 198–203.
  24. Huxham M, Campbell F, Westwood J. Oral versus written assessments: A test of student performance and attitudes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2012; 37(1): 125–136.
  25. Torke S, Abraham RR, ramnarayan K, Asha K. The impact of viva-voce examination on students’ performance in theory component of the final summative examination in physiology. J Physiol Pathophysiol. 2010; 1: 10–2.
  26. Verma A, Mahajan N, Patel J. Evaluation and comparison of results: Conventional viva vs structured viva. Glob Res Anal. 2013;2:188–90.
  27. Holloway PJ, Hardwick JL, Morris J, Start KB. The validity of assays and viva voce examining techniques. Br Dent J. 1967; 123: 227–32.
  28. Khilnani AK, Charan J, Thaddanee R, Pathak RR, Makwana S, Khilnani G. Structured oral examination in pharmacology for undergraduate medical students: Factors influencing its implementation. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online]. 2015 [cited 2018 Apr 18]; 47: 546–50. Available from: http://www.ijp-online.com/text. asp?2015/47/5/546/165182.
  29. Wass V, Wakeford R, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: an analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners membership examination’s oral component. Medical Education. 2003; 37: 126–131.
  30. Jefferies A, Simmons B, Ng E, Skidmore M. Assessment of multiple physician competencies in postgraduate training: utility of the structured oral examination. Adv in Health Sci Educ. 2011; 16: 569–577. DOI 10.1007/s10459-011-9275-6
  31. Susan M, Brookhart SM, Jarol G, DeVoge. Testing a theory about the role of classroom assessment in student motivation and achievement. Appl Meas Educ. 1999; 12: 409–425.
  32. Turan S, Valcke M, De Maeseneer J, Aper L, Koole S, De Wispelaere C, Deketelaere A, Derese A: A novel medical achievement self-efficacy scale (MASS): a valid and reliable tool. Med Teach. 2013; 35: 575–580.
  33. Karaguven MHU. The adaptation of academic motivation scale to Turkish. Educ sci: Theory & Practice. 2012; 12(4): 2611–18.
  34. Dario CF, Cohen-Schotanus J, René AT. Assessment programs to enhance learning, Physical Therapy Reviews. 2017: P.1–4. DOI:10 .1080/10833196.2017.1341143.
  35. Cohen-Schotanus J. Student assessment and examination rules. Med Teach. 1999; 21(3): 318–321.
  36. Wigfield A, Eccles JS. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25(1): 68–81. DOI:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Utami RY et al., JPKI, 2021; 10(1): 44-53

Vol. 10 | No. 1 | March 2021| Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia - The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education

performance and attitudes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2012; 37(1): 125–136.

25. Torke S, Abraham RR, ramnarayan K, Asha K. The impact of viva-voce examination on students’ performance in theory component of the final summative examination in physiology. J Physiol Pathophysiol. 2010; 1: 10–2.

26. Verma A, Mahajan N, Patel J. Evaluation and comparison of results: Conventional viva vs structured viva. Glob Res Anal. 2013;2:188–90.

27. Holloway PJ, Hardwick JL, Morris J, Start KB. The validity of assays and viva voce examining techniques. Br Dent J. 1967; 123: 227–32.

28. Khilnani AK, Charan J, Thaddanee R, Pathak RR, Makwana S, Khilnani G. Structured oral examination in pharmacology for undergraduate medical students: Factors influencing its implementation. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online]. 2015 [cited 2018 Apr 18]; 47: 546–50. Available from: http://www.ijp-online.com/text. asp?2015/47/5/546/165182.

29. Wass V, Wakeford R, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: an analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners membership examination’s oral component. Medical Education. 2003; 37: 126–131.

30. Jefferies A, Simmons B, Ng E, Skidmore M. Assessment of multiple physician competencies in postgraduate training: utility of the structured oral examination. Adv in Health Sci Educ. 2011; 16: 569–577. DOI 10.1007/s10459-011-9275-6

31. Susan M, Brookhart SM, Jarol G, DeVoge. Testing a theory about the role of classroom assessment in student motivation and achievement. Appl Meas Educ. 1999; 12: 409–425.

32. Turan S, Valcke M, De Maeseneer J, Aper L, Koole S, De Wispelaere C, Deketelaere A, Derese A: A novel medical achievement self-efficacy scale (MASS): a valid and reliable tool. Med Teach. 2013; 35: 575–580.

33. Karaguven MHU. The adaptation of academic motivation scale to Turkish. Educ sci: Theory & Practice. 2012; 12(4): 2611–18.

34. Dario CF, Cohen-Schotanus J, René AT. Assessment programs to enhance learning, Physical Therapy Reviews. 2017: P.1–4. DOI:10 .1080/10833196.2017.1341143.

35. Cohen-Schotanus J. Student assessment and examination rules. Med Teach. 1999; 21(3): 318–321.

36. Wigfield A, Eccles JS. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25(1): 68–81. DOI:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.45131

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1087 | views : 1848

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Ratih Yulistika Utami, Oppi Mirzatillah, Desi Isnayanti, M. Jalaluddin Assuyuthi Chalil

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:

  
JPKI Stats