Does A Self‐Paced, Fixed‐Time, Laboratory Examination Improve Anxiety and Performance among Undergraduate Students?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the traditional laboratory examination structure for the evaluation of student knowledge has a long history of success in anatomical education. Various professional and graduate level programs have recently experimented with self‐paced (SP) versus belled‐paced (BP) laboratory examination structures, revealing that students typically prefer SP as this reduces test anxiety while producing comparable performance (knowledge) outcomes. Such success among more senior level students in completing the SP structure may depend on one's ability to self‐monitor and self‐regulate progression through the examination in order to ensure sufficient timing for all stations. It is currently unknown if an SP examination structure would also benefit more junior undergraduate students. Using a randomized cross‐over design this research evaluated the impact of an SP vs. BP laboratory examination structure on student anxiety and student performance. Undergraduate students (n=20) in an advanced dissection course completed both a midterm (31 specimen stations with A/B split questions arranged as a “staircase” with 4 equally spaced rest stations) and a final laboratory examination (details tbd). For the midterm students were randomly assigned to one of two cohorts; the SP cohort (n=10) or the BP cohort (n=10). Both cohorts received 35 total minutes. Test anxiety was measured pre‐ and post‐examination using a modified State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (out of 60). Differences in test performance and change in anxiety level pre‐ to post‐ examination were compared using unpaired t‐tests. Student perceptions of the examination structure were collected via open‐ended feedback and qualitatively assessed. From the midterm results, student performance was similar between examination structures (SP: 84.9 ± 10.2%, BP: 88.6 ± 6.4%, p > 0.05). Interesting trends have begun to emerge as the SP cohort experienced both greater pre‐exam anxiety and reduced post‐exam anxiety as compared to the BP cohort, resulting in near significant pre‐ to post‐ change scores (SP: +5.4 ± 9.5, BP: −3.3 ± 10.8, p = 0.071). Open‐ended feedback revealed that students consistently reported the SP structure to be “stressful” due to both i) aspects of having to self‐monitor timing throughout the examination and ii) aspects of students being “back‐logged” against each other. Further results collected from the final examination, when the SP and BP cohorts cross‐over, will provide additional statistical power and qualitative comparisons of the SP and BP structures. This preliminary pilot study work reveals that undergraduate students completing a SP laboratory examination, with its current design, may not experience the reduced student‐anxiety levels that professional students experience. In fact, the BP examination structure may be ideal for more junior learners as it provides explicit direction and guidance. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".