An exploration of first-year medical students’ experiences of assessment in a renewed medical programme
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Formative assessment approaches in the form of multiple and varied assessment opportunities have been shown to positively influence and promote self-regulated learning.
Objective. This research aims to explore how first-year medical students experienced ongoing, multiple, varied, low-stakes (no- or low-grade) assessments during a newly developed introductory module implemented as part of a renewed curriculum process.
Method. A qualitative and exploratory research design drawing on an interpretivist paradigm was used. Twenty-seven purposively sampled first-year students participated in four focus group discussions where they discussed their experiences of assessment. The discussions were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were thematically analysed.
Results. Three themes were identified, reflecting a range of experiences pertaining to the assessment approach, namely: (i) students experienced several emotions; (ii) students underwent a series of adjustments and changes in response to the assessment requirements; and (iii) students’ experiences are viewed as journeys as they transitioned into higher education. Assessment literacy and assessment-specific factors were key contributors to shaping student experiences.
Conclusions. The study revealed that the development of self-regulatory skills and assessment literacy is necessary as students transition from secondary education into an integrated medical curriculum, and that the assessment design and tasks are important for student self-regulation. The findings support literature on the role of formative assessment and highlight how assessment literacy can enable self-regulated learning and smoother transitions into higher education.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The AJHPE is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. A history of assessment in medical education. Adv Health
2. Sci Educ 2020;25(5):1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10459-020-10003-0
3. Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to
4. programmes. Med Educ 2005;39(3):309–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x
5. Zimmerman B, Schunk D. Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance. Abingdon-on-Thames:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
6. Zimmerman BJ. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol 2000;25(1):82-91. https://doi.
org10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
7. Bandura A. Six theories of Child Development. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1989.
8. Clark I. Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev 2012;24(2):205-249.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.
9. Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Ten Cate TJ. Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomysupportive classroom teaching derived from self-determination theory. Med Teach 2011;33(12):978-982. https://
doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.599896
10. Coertjens L, Brahm T, Trautwein C, Lindblom-Ylänne S. Students’ transition into higher education from an
international perspective. High Educ (Dordr) 2017;73(3):357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0092-y
11. Gale T, Parker S. Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education. Stud Higher Educ
2014;39(5):734-753. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.721351
12. Taylor CA, Harris-Evans J. Reconceptualising transition to higher education with Deleuze and Guattari. Stud
Higher Educ 2018;43(7):1254-1267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1242567
13. Van der Zanden PJAC, Denessen E, Cillessen AHN, Meijer PC. Domains and predictors of first-year student
success: A systematic review. Educ Res Rev 2018;23:57-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.01.001
14. Kift S, Nelson K, Clarke J. Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE - A case study of policy
and practice for the higher education sector. Int J First Year Higher Educ 2010;1(1). https://doi.org/10.5204/
intjfyhe.v1i1.13
15. Vansteenkiste M, Aelterman N, de Muynck GJ, Haerens L, Patall E, Reeve J. Fostering personal meaning and
self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization. J Exp Educ 2018;86(1):30–49. https://
doi.ofg/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067
16. Noyens D, Donche V, Coertjens L, van Daal T, van Petegem P. The directional links between students’ academic
motivation and social integration during the first year of higher education. Eur J Psychol Educ 2019;34(1):67–86.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0365-6
17. Crozier G, Reay D. Capital accumulation: Working-class students learning how to learn in HE. Teach Higher
Educ 2011;16(2):145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.515021
18. Evans C, Rutherford S, Viera F, et al. A Self-Regulatory Approach to Assessment. Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2021.
19. Popham WJ. Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator’s confession. Teach Educ 2011;46(4):265–273.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.605048
20. Willis J, Adie L, Klenowski V. Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and
assessment reform. Aust Educ Researcher 2013;40(2):241-256. https://doi:10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9
21. Smith CD, Worsfold K, Davies L, Fisher R, McPhail R. Assessment literacy and student learning: The case for
explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’. Assess Eval High Educ 2013;38(1):44-60. https://doi.org/10
.1080/02602938.2011.598636
22. Evans C. Enhancing assessment feedback practice in higher education: The EAT framework. https://www.
southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/UsefulDownloads_Download/2A03E07F
622648579E0D919F2ED7714D/Enhancing%20assessment%20feedback%20practice%20in%20higher%20
education%20The%20EAT%20framework.pdf (accessed 2 March 2026).
23. Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Guidelines for the selection of MBChB
students 2025 for 2025-intake. Cape Town: 2025. https://www.sun.ac.za/english/maties/Documents/MB,ChB.
pdf (accessed 2 September 2025)
24. Sims D, Zingela Z, Mokhachane M, et al. Medical education, reflections and perspectives from South Africa:
A review. BMC Med Educ 2025;25(1):370. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06910-8 PubMed PMID:
40075353.
25. Guba EG, Lincoln YS, eds. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage, 1989.
26. Karnieli-Miller O, Strier R, Pessach L. Power relations in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2009;19(2):279-289.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306
27. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, eds. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage, 2018.
28. Bagnoli A. Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qual Res
2009;9(5):547-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343625
29. Eisner E. Art and knowledge. In: Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Methodologies,
Examples, and Issues. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2008: 3-13. https://doi.org/:10.4135/9781452226545.n1
30. Gauntlett D. Creative Explorations. London: Routledge, 2007. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961407
31. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.
org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
32. Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for
learning. Med Teach 2011;33(6):478-485. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828
33. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. How ‘testing’ has become ‘programmatic assessment for learning’.
J Health Professions Educ 2019;5(3):177-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HPE.2018.06.005
34. Zimmerman BJ. Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In: Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH,
eds. Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Springer Series in Cognitive Development. New York:
Springer, 1989: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4_1
35. Nicholson N. The Transition Cycle: Causes, Outcomes, Processes and Forms. In: Fisher S, Cooper C, eds. On the
Move: The Psychology of Change and Transition. Chichester: Wiley, 1990: 83–108.
36. Tett L, Hounsell J, Christie H, Cree VE, McCune V. Learning from feedback? Mature students’ experiences of
assessment in higher education. Res Post-compulsory Educ 2012;17(2):247–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359
6748.2011.627174
37. Richardson JTE. Mature students in higher education: II. An investigation of approaches to studying and
academic performance. Stud Higher Educ 1995;20(1):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079512331381760
38. Van der Merwe LJ, Botha A, Joubert G. Resilience and coping strategies of undergraduate medical students at
the University of the Free State. S Afr J Psychiatry 2020;26(1):1471-e8. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajpsychiatry.
v26i0.1471
39. Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W, Perry RP. Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement:
A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ Psychol 2002;1;37(2):91-105. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15326985EP3702_4
40. Quinn J. Rethinking ‘failed transitions’ to higher education. In: Ecclestone K, Biesta G, Hughes M, eds. Transitions
and Learning through the Lifecourse. London: Routledge; 2010: 118–129.
41. Panadero E, Lipnevich AA. A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of
feedback elements. Educ Res Rev 2022;35:100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416Vanthournout
G, Gijbels D, Coertjens L, Donche V, van Petegem P. Students’ persistence and academic success in a first-year
professional bachelor program: The influence of students’ learning strategies and academic motivation. Educ Res
Int 2012;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/152747Brown S. Assessment literacy: The foundation for improving
student learning. Assess Eval High Educ 2014;39(3):395-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.820564
42. Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. How to design a useful test: The principles of assessment. In: Swanwick
T, ed. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. Wiley Online Library, 2010. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781444320282.CH14
43. Attali Y. Effort in low-stakes assessments. Educ Psychol Measure 2016;76(6):1045-1058. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013164416634789
44. Fornells JM, Julià X, Arnau J, Martínez-Carretero JM. Feedback in medical education. Educacion Medica.
Elsevier Espana S.L.U; 2008: 7–12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544311/. (accessed 28 April 2021).
45. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007;77(1):81–112. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543029848