Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Education

Date Submitted: Sep 27, 2025
Date Accepted: Mar 16, 2026

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

“Optimizing Learning in Integrated Curriculum”—Comparative Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Formative Assessments: Mixed Methods Study

Ismail A, Hussein SM, Al-Neklawy A, El-Shafey M, Mansour A, Felemban S, Elaraby S

“Optimizing Learning in Integrated Curriculum”—Comparative Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Formative Assessments: Mixed Methods Study

JMIR Med Educ 2026;12:e84935

DOI: 10.2196/84935

PMID: 42085703

“Optimizing Learning in Integrated Curriculum”: A Comparative Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Formative Assessments

  • Amira Ismail; 
  • Sarah Mohamed Hussein; 
  • Ahmed Al-Neklawy; 
  • Mohamed El-Shafey; 
  • Ahd Mansour; 
  • Shatha Felemban; 
  • Shimaa Elaraby

ABSTRACT

Background:

Background:

Assessment is an essential part of teaching and learning and a cornerstone of demonstrating the achievement of learning objectives. Within integrated curricula—where basic and clinical sciences are taught in a coordinated manner—formative assessments and timely feedback are particularly critical. Formative Assessment with feedback facilitates student learning and helps teachers to identify learning gaps and follow up the learning progress. Based on our knowledge, few literatures compare the effect of online versus onsite formative assessment on summative performance in fully integrated curriculum. Therefore, this study aimed at examining the effectiveness of online versus on-site formative assessments and feedback on summative assessment.

Objective:

Examine the effectiveness of online versus on-site formative assessments and feedback on summative assessment.

Methods:

This study employs a mixed-methods approach to delve into students' experiences with face-to-face versus online formative assessment and its effect on their summative performance in integrated MBBS program. The quantitative part of the study involved analyzing student scores of summative assessments in two groups exposed to online and onsite formative assessment and feedback. The qualitative part aimed to explore student perceptions on formative assessment and feedback.

Results:

The passing rate in summative exams (quizzes, Mid and final) was higher in the onsite group (61.2%, 51%, 62.7% respectively) compared to the online group (53.3%,48.3%, 45.7% respectively). However, the difference was statistically significant only in final exam. Four key themes were identified from the qualitative analyses regarding participants’ different experiences of formative assessment and feedback. These ranged from the accessibility of the exam format facilitates flexibility in learning; formative assessment is a means of recognizing learning opportunities; formative assessments help shift student attitudes towards learning; and the last theme is opportunities for discussion and personalized feedback.

Conclusions:

This research sheds light on the intricate interplay between assessment modalities and student learning outcomes. Through this study contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding effective assessment practices in contemporary educational settings.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Ismail A, Hussein SM, Al-Neklawy A, El-Shafey M, Mansour A, Felemban S, Elaraby S

“Optimizing Learning in Integrated Curriculum”—Comparative Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Formative Assessments: Mixed Methods Study

JMIR Med Educ 2026;12:e84935

DOI: 10.2196/84935

PMID: 42085703

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.