Does A Self‐Paced, Fixed‐Time, Laboratory Examination Improve Anxiety and Performance among Undergraduate Students?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The use of the traditional laboratory examination structure for the evaluation of student knowledge has a long history of success in anatomical education. Various professional and graduate level programs have recently experimented with self‐paced (SP) versus belled‐paced (BP) laboratory examination structures, revealing that students typically prefer SP as this reduces test anxiety while producing comparable performance (knowledge) outcomes. Such success among more senior level students in completing the SP structure may depend on one's ability to self‐monitor and self‐regulate progression through the examination in order to ensure sufficient timing for all stations. It is currently unknown if an SP examination structure would also benefit more junior undergraduate students. Using a randomized cross‐over design this research evaluated the impact of an SP vs. BP laboratory examination structure on student anxiety and student performance. Undergraduate students (n=20) in an advanced dissection course completed both a midterm (31 specimen stations with A/B split questions arranged as a “staircase” with 4 equally spaced rest stations) and a final laboratory examination (details tbd). For the midterm students were randomly assigned to one of two cohorts; the SP cohort (n=10) or the BP cohort (n=10). Both cohorts received 35 total minutes. Test anxiety was measured pre‐ and post‐examination using a modified State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (out of 60). Differences in test performance and change in anxiety level pre‐ to post‐ examination were compared using unpaired t‐tests. Student perceptions of the examination structure were collected via open‐ended feedback and qualitatively assessed. From the midterm results, student performance was similar between examination structures (SP: 84.9 ± 10.2%, BP: 88.6 ± 6.4%, p > 0.05). Interesting trends have begun to emerge as the SP cohort experienced both greater pre‐exam anxiety and reduced post‐exam anxiety as compared to the BP cohort, resulting in near significant pre‐ to post‐ change scores (SP: +5.4 ± 9.5, BP: −3.3 ± 10.8, p = 0.071). Open‐ended feedback revealed that students consistently reported the SP structure to be “stressful” due to both i) aspects of having to self‐monitor timing throughout the examination and ii) aspects of students being “back‐logged” against each other. Further results collected from the final examination, when the SP and BP cohorts cross‐over, will provide additional statistical power and qualitative comparisons of the SP and BP structures. This preliminary pilot study work reveals that undergraduate students completing a SP laboratory examination, with its current design, may not experience the reduced student‐anxiety levels that professional students experience. In fact, the BP examination structure may be ideal for more junior learners as it provides explicit direction and guidance. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».