Attitude of overseas Pakistani students towards modular examination.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Modularization an innovative initiative taken by educational institutes around the globe to increase the student’s productivity and efficiency. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the knowledge and attitude regarding modularization in overseas Pakistani students. Methodology: A cross sectional survey was conducted at the International Medical College of one of the public sector university during December 2012 till February 2014. A total of 425 undergraduate students were approached through non-probability convenience sampling technique and requested to fill a semi structured questionnaire after taking written consent. Result: According to the outset of this paper a total of 425 students were questioned. Among the total 189 students were male (44.47%) and 236 were female (55.52%) out of which the majority belonged from North America/Canada (79.06%). A vast percentage (48.94) invested of about 2 hours of study daily. 63.06% of students believed modular examination to be a fair system and 32.94% of students thought it to be a failure to affect any educational standards. 36% of students blame stress/load for their poor result and 31.06% agrees with the lengthy syllabus being responsible for their down showing GPA’s. 43.06% of students face hardships because of irregular attendance. The major complaint of students (39%) was their teaching style. 46.12% of students prefer to study from lecture notes. Thus, this study completely clears all the aspects of student’s performance in modular system of examinations and its flow and shortcomings. It is important that more effort should be put into cater to student’s stress, loads and make it an effective system to improve a student’s capability and efficiency. Conclusion: The findings of this study can guide us to revise and reshape the assessment system practiced at various medical colleges in Karachi.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".