Anatomical knowledge is commonly assessed by practical examinations that are often administered in summative format. The format of anatomy practical examination was changed at the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine in Singapore from summative (graded; must pass) to formative (ungraded; no pass/fail) in academic year (AY) 2017–2018. Both assessment formats were undertaken online, but the formative mode used a team‐based learning activity comprising individual and team assessments. This gave an unique opportunity to investigate: (1) the impact of two different online assessment formats on student performance in practical examination; (2) the impact of new formative practical examination on students’ performance in summative examinations; and (3) students’ opinions of these two practical examination formats. The class of 2021 perceptions was obtained as they experienced both formats. A retrospective cohort study was also conducted to analyze the Year 2 students’ performance in anatomy practical and year‐end summative examinations of cohorts AY 2015–2016, AY 2016–2017 (summative format), and AY 2017–2018 (formative format). There were no significant differences in students’ performance between two practical examination formats. The cohort who experienced the formative format, performed significantly better in summative examinations (mean ± SD: 82.32 ± 10.22%) compared with the cohort who experienced the summative format (73.77 ± 11.09%) (P < 0.001). Students highlighted positive features of the formative practical examination, including team reinforcement of learning, instant feedback, and enhanced learning. These findings indicate that students continue to study for anatomy practical examination without the need for external drivers. The team‐based learning style practical examination enhances students’ performance in summative examinations.

中文翻译：

---

总结性和形成性风格的解剖学实践考试：它们对学生的表现和学习动力有影响吗？

解剖学知识通常通过通常以汇总形式进行管理的实际检查来评估。在新加坡李光前医学院，解剖学实践考试的形式在2017-2018学年（AY）从汇总（分级；必须通过）变为成形（未分级；没有通过/未通过）。两种评估形式都是在线进行的，但是形成方式使用了基于团队的学习活动，包括个人评估和团队评估。这提供了一个独特的机会来进行调查：（1）两种不同的在线评估格式对实践考试中学生成绩的影响；（2）新的形式化实践考试对学生在总结考试中的表现的影响；（3）学生对这两种实践考试形式的看法。由于他们经历了两种形式，因此获得了2021年的感知等级。还进行了一项回顾性队列研究，以分析2015年至2016年，2016年至2017年（2017年）（摘要格式）和2017年至2018年（正式版）的解剖学实际和年终总结考试中二年级学生的表现。在两种实践考试形式之间，学生的表现没有显着差异。经历过形成形式的队列，在总结检查中的表现要好得多（平均±SD：82.32±10.22％），而经历过形成形式的队列（73.77±11.09％）（2016-2017 AY（摘要格式）和2017-2018 AY（正式格式）。在两种实践考试形式之间，学生的表现没有显着差异。经历过形成形式的队列，在总结检查中的表现要好得多（平均±SD：82.32±10.22％），而经历过形成形式的队列（73.77±11.09％）（2016-2017 AY（摘要格式）和2017-2018 AY（正式格式）。在两种实践考试形式之间，学生的表现没有显着差异。经历过形成形式的队列，在总结检查中的表现要好得多（平均±SD：82.32±10.22％），而经历过形成形式的队列（73.77±11.09％）（P  <0.001）。学生强调了形成性实践考试的积极特征，包括团队学习的加强，即时反馈和增强的学习。这些发现表明，学生无需外部驱动程序即可继续学习解剖学实践考试。以团队为基础的学习方式实践考试可提高学生在总结考试中的表现。