A Natural Experiment on the Effect of Time Given for Quizzes on Veterinary Student Performance in a Required Principles of Anesthesia Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessments can cause significant distress in veterinary students and are listed as some of the greatest causes of academic stress. The purpose of this natural experiment was to determine if there is a relationship between amount of time given to complete quizzes and the students' score on the quiz. The Principles of Anesthesia course is required of all students. Quizzes are administered at the start of a class period and spaced throughout the course to cover 2-4 lectures per quiz. Once the allotted time has passed (3-6 minutes), students are notified they have 2 minutes to return the quiz to the instructor. To complete the quiz, students had 3 minutes in 2012 and 2013, 4 minutes in 2014, 5 minutes in 2015, and 6 minutes in 2016. The average quiz score was significantly lower with 3 minutes than with 4 or 6 minutes. Students in the bottom quartile scored significantly higher with 4, 5, or 6 minutes than with 3 minutes. Students in the upper quartile scored significantly higher with 4 minutes than with 3 minutes and with 4 minutes than with 5 minutes. The time provided for students to complete a free-response quiz was not associated with student performance once a certain minimum time (4 minutes) was provided. Providing students an appropriate, but not excessive, amount of time to complete assessments will allow for appropriately applied assessments and preserve time dedicated to instruction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".