Previous Familiarity with an Anatomy Laboratory Exam Does Not Influence Preferred Timing Structure or Test Anxiety
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction The bell‐ringer lab exam is a common assessment in anatomy education. Traditionally, students travel between specimen stations displaying anatomical material to the chime of a bell. Various professional programs have experimented with the timing structure of lab exams and report that senior level students prefer a self‐paced (SP) exam over a belled‐paced (BP) exam. However, we were unable to replicate these results among undergraduate students in an advanced dissection course; despite greater changes in pre‐ to post‐exam anxiety, our students preferred the BP exam because “the bell helps keep [them] on task”. Research Statement Continuing this line of investigation, this research sought to determine if previous familiarity with a traditional bell‐ringer lab exam influences either preferred timing structure or test anxiety. Methodology This research employed a randomized cross‐over design within an introductory undergraduate course in human anatomy and histology (n=71) with both a midterm and final lab exam (27 A/B specimen stations each). At the midterm lab exam students were randomly assigned to either the SP or BP timing structure, each with a 45min maximum time. Students crossed‐over to the alternative timing condition for the final lab exam. Familiarity was self‐reported at course initiation, test anxiety was measured pre‐ and post‐exam using a modified State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and timing structure preference was self‐reported upon completion of the final lab exam. Students justified their timing preference using open free‐text for qualitative thematic analysis. Test performance (%) and change in STAI were compared between the two conditions using paired t‐tests. Correlations determined if familiarity influenced preferred timing structure (Phi correlation) or test anxiety (point‐biserial correlation). Institutional REB #36496. Results Fifty‐five (78%) students consented; 20 had lab exam familiarity. Regardless of timing condition, students performed academically equivalent (SP: 76±17%, BP: 76±17%, p>0.05) with similar changes in pre‐ to post‐exam anxiety (SP: 3.1±7.5, BP: 3.3±7.4, p>0.05). Contrary to the research hypothesis, familiarity did not influence preferred timing structure (Phi=0.03, p>0.05) or change in test anxiety (r=0.52, p>0.05). Preliminary qualitative analysis suggests that students who preferred the BP structure (n=23) liked that they could focus on the exam questions instead of worrying about time management. Comparatively, students who preferred the SP structure (n=32) liked that they could determine the time they spent at stations based on difficulty. Context This research shows that familiarity with a traditional bell‐ringer lab exam does not influence student preference for timing structure, nor does it impact anxiety experienced by students during lab exams. Further, these findings align with previous work demonstrating that while more students prefer the self‐paced timing structure, timing structure itself does not affect academic performance. Thus, while allowing students to choose their lab exam timing structure may not influence their test anxiety or academic performance, it may provide students with much needed autonomy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».