Group Work and Peer Assessment in Optometry Higher Education.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In health-related professions, education has unique challenges. Problem-based learning can be extremely useful and driven by strategies such as group-work (GW) and peer assessment (PA), which are both used as formative and assessment tools. This study aimed to explore experience and perceptions about GW and PA held by educators and students in optometry. In a first survey, 45 Italian educators (43.8 ± 13.0 years old) of optometric clinical modules answered an email questionnaire investigating their attitudes towards GW and PA. In a second survey, 66 3rd-year undergraduates (22.5 ± 2.0 years old) answered a questionnaire investigating the perception and attitudes towards GW and PA at the beginning and at the end of a module of Advanced Optometry structured with a formative/summative GW activity with a final PA. Two-thirds of optometry educators declared they use GW, but not as a summative assessment tool. Only a quarter of the sample answered that they used PA at least once. Educators’ attitudes towards GW were more positive than PA (p < 0.001). About 60% and 80% of the interviewed students stated they have never participated in GW and PA, respectively. Students’ pre-course attitudes towards GW and PA resulted in values close to the middle of the scale with no significant differences and positive correlations between them (p < 0.001). When students’ GW attitudes were compared with educators’ GW attitudes, the latter were more positive. Students’ post-course attitudes towards GW and PA were enhanced. Although GW and PA are considered very good strategies to improve teaching, the results of the present study have demonstrated that the use of these strategies in Italian optometric higher education is limited. However, the study has also demonstrated that Italian optometry educators have positive attitudes towards “social” teaching strategies especially for GW. Furthermore, optometry students showed improved attitudes towards these strategies once exposed to them. Overall, the results of the study open the possibility to integrate “social” teaching strategies to improve the effectiveness of optometry education.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".