Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Pharmacology, Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhuj, Gujarat, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: “Three‑way summaries” (TWS) are a teaching–learning tool in which students
respond to a question or topic inquiry by three different summaries (10–15 words, 30–50 words,
and 75–100 words). The aim of this study was to introduce TWS, to establish its impact on learning
retention, and to identify students’ perception for TWS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was an educational interventional study. It was carried out in two
randomly allocated groups, Group A having TWS as intervention and Group B without TWS, followed
by crossover of the groups. Participants were assessed using two multiple choice question (MCQ)
tests, ten marks each (one immediately and second after 1 week) during both phases. Students’
perception regarding TWS was assessed by questionnaire using Likert scale. Statistical analysis
was done by two‑tailed independent t‑test.
RESULTS: Both groups’ performance deteriorate after 1 week, but it was affected more in Group B
without TWS (4.85 ± 1.89–4.70 ± 2.05, P = 0.05) as compared to Group A with TWS (5.30 ± 1.81–4.63
± 1.90, P = 0.69). While in second phase, performance of the Group B with TWS improved more
significantly (5.92 ± 2.24–6.83 ± 2.21, P = 0.04) in comparison with Group A without TWS (4.96 ±
1.89–5.66 ± 2.35, P = 0.09). Most of the students liked TWS as an educational tool using Likert scale
(72%–86% agreeing and strongly agreeing).
CONCLUSIONS: TWS is highly acceptable teaching–learning tool which improves learning retention.
Keywords
Educ Princ Policy Pract 1998;5:7‑74.
2. Brown S. Assessment for learning. Learn Teach High Educ
2005;1:81‑9.
3. Dixson DD, Worrell FC. Formative and summative assessment
in the classroom. Theory Pract 2016;55:153‑9.
4. Johnson CC, Sondergeld TA, Walton JB. A study of the
implementation of formative assessment in three large urban
districts. Am Educ Res J 2019;56:2408‑38.
5. Weurlander M, Söderberg M, Scheja M, Hult H, Wernerson A.
Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: Students’
experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assess
Eval High Educ 2012;37:747‑60.
6. Bean JC. Summary writing, Rogerian listening, and dialectic
thinking. Coll Compos Commun 1986;37:343‑6.
7. Kirkland M, Saunders MA. Maximizing student performance
in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Q
1991;25:105‑22.
8. Lin OP, Maarof N. Collaborative writing in summary writing:
Student perceptions and problems. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
2013;90:599‑606.
9. Brown AL, Day JD. Macrorules for summarizing texts: The
development of expertise. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav
1983;22:1‑14.
10. King A. Comparison of self‑questioning, summarizing, and
notetaking‑review as strategies for learning from lectures. Am
Educ Res J 1992;29:303‑23.
11. Radmacher SA, Latosi‑Sawin E. Summary writing: A tool to
improve student comprehension and writing in psychology.
Teach Psychol 1995;22:113‑5.
12. Kintsch W, van Dijk TA. Toward a model of text comprehension
and production. Psychol Rev 1978;85:363‑94.
)