Comparative analysis of opinions of Warsaw Medical University students on electronic examinations and final tests by their participation in this form of knowledge assessment – preliminary report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction. Apart from the increasing popularity of modern information technologies and the development of e-learning methods used for teaching medicine and health sciences, there was a spike of interest in using modern computer techniques for checking students’ knowledge. Aim. The aim of the study was to compare the opinions of students of Medical University of Warsaw about the examinations and final tests conducted using the e-exam ASK Systems platform, measured by their participation in this form of assessmen knowledge. Material and methods. 148 students; group 1 comprised students participating in an e-exam (59 persons) and group 2 included students not participating in an e-exam (89 persons). A voluntary, anonymous questionnaire study, electronic questionnaire, 58 statements measured using the Likert scale. Questionnaire reliability assessment: analysis of internal consistency with Cronbach’s Alfa coefficient (α>0.70). Statistical analysis: STATISTICA 12.0 licensed to WMU, Mann-Whitney U test. Results. Cronbach’s α coefficient for the scale amounted to 0.70. Members of group 1 were more likely to admit that students need to put in extra effort into participating in an e-exam (p<0.001) and that test results might be worse than in case of a regular exam (p<0.050). Group 1 significantly more often reported that the participation in an e-exam can cause additional examination stress (p<0.002) and makes cheating during exams more probable (p<0.003). Conclusions. 1. An analysis of the questionnaire demonstrated that this tool is reliable and can be used in further studies. 2. The participation in an e-exam slightly influenced the opinions of students on this form of knowledge assessment, which may mean that the students’ expectations concerning e-exams were consistent with the actual course of the exam. Therefore, students do not need any special procedure to prepare for e-exams. 3. This was a pilot study and it needs to be continued among the same group of students before and after the e-exam.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it