Student and Faculty Perspectives About ExaminationsNCT07912749
End of Term vs. End of Module Examinations in the Preclinical Stage: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Student and Faculty Perspectives
An observational study of Student and Faculty Perspectives About Examinations, run by New Valley University.
Trial summary
Current practice and debate: Many medical schools use hybrid models that combine modular and final exams to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. Still, there is no consensus on the optimal structure. The debate centers on three issues: educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Student and Faculty Perspectives About Examinations
- What is being tested?
- survey
- How many people
- 1,000 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Dec 2026to May 2027
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: • 2nd-year undergraduate medical students (who have experienced both systems) + faculty members involved in teaching and assessment in Years 1 and 2 (in the Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University)
Who may be able to join
- 2nd-year undergraduate medical students (who have experienced both systems) + faculty members involved in teaching and assessment in Years 1 and 2 (in the Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University)
Who cannot join
- 1- The student or faculty members who refuse to participate in the study
About this study
Official title: EndofTerm vs. End-of-Module Examinations in the PreClinical Stage: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Student and Faculty Perspectives
Current practice and debate: Many medical schools use hybrid models that combine modular and final exams to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. Still, there is no consensus on the optimal structure. The debate centers on three issues: educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. Modular systems may support continuous learning but raise concerns about assessment burden and fragmentation of knowledge, as students may learn topics in isolation rather than as an integrated whole. End-of-term exams, by contrast, risk encouraging short-term memorization even though they test integration more effectively.
Justification for the study: Given these competing advantages and drawbacks, the study aims to explore the perspectives of both students and faculty on the two approaches. Understanding how each stakeholder group perceives the effects on learning, stress, workload, and performance can fill a gap in the existing literature, which focuses mainly on learning behaviors rather than stakeholder views.
Expected contribution: The findings are intended to inform evidence-based decisions on assessment design in preclinical medical education. By clarifying the trade-offs between distributed and cumulative exams, the study seeks to help institutions optimize learning outcomes while keeping assessment workload and student stress manageable
Read the detailed description
How do end-of-term versus end-of-module examinations influence student learning, performance, and stakeholder perceptions in pre-clinical medical education? Background Assessment is a cornerstone of medical education, shaping students' learning approaches, knowledge retention, and competency development. In the preclinical stage, summative assessments are commonly delivered either as end-of-term (comprehensive, high-stakes examinations) or as end-of-module (frequent, distributed assessments). The research question underpinning this study is Existing literature highlights that assessment strategies significantly affect learning behaviors. Modular assessments, conducted at shorter intervals, are associated with enhanced knowledge retention through the "testing effect" and promote continuous engagement with course material. In contrast, end-of-term examinations tend to encourage more intensive, often surface-level revision strategies due to their cumulative nature (1). Evidence also suggests that frequent modular assessments may foster deeper learning and personal development, whereas fewer high-stakes exams may increase stress and reduce opportunities for formative feedback (2).
Currently, many medical schools adopt hybrid strategies combining modular and final assessments to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. However, there remains ongoing debate regarding the optimal structure, particularly in terms of educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. While modular systems may enhance continuous learning, concerns persist regarding assessment burden and fragmentation of knowledge. Conversely, end-of-term exams may better evaluate integrative understanding but risk promoting short-term memorization.
Therefore, this study is justified by the need to explore both student and faculty perspectives on these contrasting approaches. Understanding these perceptions will help inform evidence-based assessment design and optimize learning outcomes in preclinical medical education.
- Being tested
- survey
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
surveyOther
A structured Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale: Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree) covering satisfaction, perceived fairness, academic stress, learning continuity, and effectiveness
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
To compare student and faculty satisfaction and perceived effectiveness between the vertical (end-of-term) examination system used in Year 1 and the horizontal (end-of-module) examination system used in Year 2 among undergraduate medical students
A structured Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale: Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree) covering satisfaction, perceived fairness, academic stress, learning continuity, and effectiveness by anonymous self-administered online or paper-based survey
Measured: 2-4 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Nov 2026
- Study startDec 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completionMar 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionMay 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Student and Faculty Perspectives About ExaminationsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- New Valley University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Assiut University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Asmaa Kamel Ahmed Hassan, New Valley University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07912749
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ET vs TM E PCS
- Status last verified
- Nov 2026
- First submitted
- 27 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 5 Nov 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Nov 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- EndofTerm vs. End-of-Module Examinations in the PreClinical Stage: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Student and Faculty Perspectives
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07912749
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ET vs TM E PCS
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- New Valley UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Assiut University
- Study start
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Mar 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- May 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Nov 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Current practice and debate: Many medical schools use hybrid models that combine modular and final exams to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. Still, there is no consensus on the optimal structure. The debate centers on three issues: educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. Modular systems may support continuous learning but raise concerns about assessment burden and fragmentation of knowledge, as students may learn topics in isolation rather than as an integrated whole. End-of-term exams, by contrast, risk encouraging short-term memorization even though they test integration more effectively.
Justification for the study: Given these competing advantages and drawbacks, the study aims to explore the perspectives of both students and faculty on the two approaches. Understanding how each stakeholder group perceives the effects on learning, stress, workload, and performance can fill a gap in the existing literature, which focuses mainly on learning behaviors rather than stakeholder views.
Expected contribution: The findings are intended to inform evidence-based decisions on assessment design in preclinical medical education. By clarifying the trade-offs between distributed and cumulative exams, the study seeks to help institutions optimize learning outcomes while keeping assessment workload and student stress manageable
Detailed description
How do end-of-term versus end-of-module examinations influence student learning, performance, and stakeholder perceptions in pre-clinical medical education? Background Assessment is a cornerstone of medical education, shaping students' learning approaches, knowledge retention, and competency development. In the preclinical stage, summative assessments are commonly delivered either as end-of-term (comprehensive, high-stakes examinations) or as end-of-module (frequent, distributed assessments). The research question underpinning this study is Existing literature highlights that assessment strategies significantly affect learning behaviors. Modular assessments, conducted at shorter intervals, are associated with enhanced knowledge retention through the "testing effect" and promote continuous engagement with course material. In contrast, end-of-term examinations tend to encourage more intensive, often surface-level revision strategies due to their cumulative nature (1). Evidence also suggests that frequent modular assessments may foster deeper learning and personal development, whereas fewer high-stakes exams may increase stress and reduce opportunities for formative feedback (2).
Currently, many medical schools adopt hybrid strategies combining modular and final assessments to balance reliability, validity, and feasibility. However, there remains ongoing debate regarding the optimal structure, particularly in terms of educational impact, student stress, and faculty workload. While modular systems may enhance continuous learning, concerns persist regarding assessment burden and fragmentation of knowledge. Conversely, end-of-term exams may better evaluate integrative understanding but risk promoting short-term memorization.
Therefore, this study is justified by the need to explore both student and faculty perspectives on these contrasting approaches. Understanding these perceptions will help inform evidence-based assessment design and optimize learning outcomes in preclinical medical education.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- • 2nd-year undergraduate medical students (who have experienced both systems) + faculty members involved in teaching and assessment in Years 1 and 2 (in the Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University)
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 2nd-year undergraduate medical students (who have experienced both systems) + faculty members involved in teaching and assessment in Years 1 and 2 (in the Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 1- The student or faculty members who refuse to participate in the study
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| surveyA structured Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale: Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree) covering satisfaction, perceived fairness, academic stress, learning continuity, and effectiveness | Other | – |
Primary outcome
To compare student and faculty satisfaction and perceived effectiveness between the vertical (end-of-term) examination system used in Year 1 and the horizontal (end-of-module) examination system used in Year 2 among undergraduate medical students
Time frame: 2-4 months
A structured Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale: Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree) covering satisfaction, perceived fairness, academic stress, learning continuity, and effectiveness by anonymous self-administered online or paper-based survey
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Nov 2026.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Student and Faculty Perspectives About Examinations, run by New Valley University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Nov 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
To compare student and faculty satisfaction and perceived effectiveness between the vertical (end-of-term) examination system used in Year 1 and the horizontal (end-of-module) examination system used in Year 2 among undergraduate medical students (time frame: 2-4 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Nov 2026.