MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Previous Familiarity with an Anatomy Laboratory Exam Does Not Influence Preferred Timing Structure or Test Anxiety

2020· article· en· W3016512422 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle C. Bentley, Kristina Lisk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyTest (biology)PreferenceTest anxietyPsychologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207