Kertamaya Sundawan

LOW-STAKES ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IS WORTHLESS: A DESCRIPTIVE-ANALYTICAL STUDY OF PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT IN UNDERGRADUATE DENTAL EDUCATION

Introduction

Low-stakes assessment without effective feedback is worthless: a descriptive-analytical study of programmatic assessment in undergraduate dental education. Programmatic assessment in dental education: This study shows low-stakes assessment needs effective feedback to enhance learning & high-stakes exam prep. Otherwise, its value is limited.

Abstract

Assessment plays a vital role in the education process. Assessment plays a significant role in the learning process in medical education, serving not only to evaluate learning outcomes but also to declare someone competent. Formative assessment is typically low-stakes, designed to stimulate learning. This low-risk assessment is effective when it is integrated into the ongoing teaching and learning program to facilitate timely, specific, and actionable feedback for students. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability factors of programmatic assessment based on the results of data analysis. The research method used is a descriptive analytical study. This study employed a descriptive-analytical design using a survey of undergraduate student grade data in the Periodontology study program, Faculty of Dentistry, Jenderal Ahmad Yani University. Inclusion criteria were students with longitudinal low-stakes grades, while those not participating in the low-stakes learning process were excluded. Data were analyzed using statistical methods to calculate mean and standard deviation, with institutional approval ensuring confidentiality. The results show that the average low-risk score is 83.94, while the high-risk score has an average of 68.47, with a passing percentage of 100% on low-risk scores, resulting in a very good predicate, and only 7% on high-risk assessments. It suggests that there is no holistic approach to programmatic assessment, which is influenced by several factors, including students not receiving timely feedback, poorly designed final exam questions, and internal factors such as nervousness during the final exam. The conclusion is that programmatic assessment should combine low-stakes and high-stakes assessments. Effective low-stakes assessments can enhance students' preparation for high-stakes exams. Low-stakes assessments can also increase students' motivation to study more deeply and regularly, but this depends on the quality of the feedback provided. DOI : 10.54052/jhds.v5n2.p187-198

Review

The paper "LOW-STAKES ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EFFECTIVE FEEDBACK IS WORTHLESS: A DESCRIPTIVE-ANALYTICAL STUDY OF PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT IN UNDERGRADUATE DENTAL EDUCATION" addresses a critical aspect of medical and dental education: the role of assessment, particularly low-stakes formative assessments. The abstract effectively highlights the importance of assessment not only for evaluating learning outcomes but also for fostering competence and stimulating deeper learning. The central premise, echoed strongly in the title, is that the effectiveness of low-stakes assessments is contingent upon their integration with timely, specific, and actionable feedback. The authors aim to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability factors of programmatic assessment through data analysis, setting a relevant objective for understanding current assessment practices. Employing a descriptive-analytical study design, the research utilized a survey of undergraduate student grade data from the Periodontology study program at Jenderal Ahmad Yani University. The methodology involved analyzing longitudinal low-stakes grades, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and statistical analysis focused on mean and standard deviation. The findings present a striking contrast: an average low-risk score of 83.94 with a 100% passing rate, juxtaposed with an average high-risk score of 68.47 and a mere 7% passing rate. This significant discrepancy suggests a major disconnect within the programmatic assessment structure. The authors attribute this disparity to several factors, including the absence of a holistic programmatic approach, students not receiving timely feedback, poorly designed final exam questions, and internal student factors like nervousness. The conclusion, advocating for a combination of low-stakes and high-stakes assessments, and emphasizing the role of quality feedback in enhancing preparation and motivation, is well-supported by the presented data. The dramatic difference in pass rates powerfully underscores the paper's core assertion: without effective feedback and a holistic approach, the high scores in low-stakes assessments do not translate to competence in high-stakes scenarios, rendering them indeed "worthless" in terms of preparing students for higher-level evaluation. While the study effectively identifies the symptoms of a dysfunctional programmatic assessment, future work could delve deeper into the *nature* of the low-stakes assessments themselves (e.g., their alignment with learning objectives and high-stakes exams) and propose concrete strategies for improving feedback mechanisms and exam design. Nevertheless, this study provides valuable empirical evidence for educators to critically re-evaluate their low-stakes assessment practices and ensure that they are genuinely contributing to student learning and competence.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.