MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312066110 · doi:10.1186/s12912-022-01135-2

Introducing ACTFAiREST2 to implement online assessments amid COVID–19: a case study from a low resource setting

2022· article· en· W4312066110 on OpenAlexaff
Naghma Rizvi, Kiran Mubeen, Shanaz Cassum, Hussain Maqbool Ahmed Khuwaja, Zeenar Salim, Kiran Qasim Ali, Dilshad Noor Ali, Khairulnissa Ajani, Pammla Petrucka

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineNursing research2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Health informaticsResource (disambiguation)Nursing managementHealth administrationNursingPublic healthVirologyComputer scienceInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Amid COVID-19, soon after the closure of academic institutions, academia was compelled to implement teaching and assessments virtually. The situation was not the same for all countries. This transition was much more challenging in low-resource settings like Pakistan, where the students were geographically distant with minimal connectivity. A private university in Pakistan instituted a systematic approach for ensuring quality assurance and reliability before launching online assessments amid the COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to reflect on the phased transition to online/remote assessments to facilitate continuous student learning through distance modalities during the pandemic. Method To assist faculty in re-designing their assessments, a workshop was conducted which was based on the modified Walker’s nine principles. The principles coded as “ACTFAiREST 2” were introduced to ensure that the faculty understands and adapts these principles in designing online assessments. The faculty modified and re-designed their course assessments, from face to face to online modality and submitted their proposals to the Curriculum Committee (CC). To guide the process of approving modified and re-designed assessments, a checklist was adapted. All the pre and -post workshop assessment proposals were analyzed using a content analysis approach to ensure the alignment of course learning outcomes with the assessments. Results A total of 45 undergraduate courses’ assessment proposals were approved by the CC after deliberations ensuring their applicability in a virtual environment. From the analysis of the course outlines and assessment proposals submitted to the CC, faculty made four key changes to their assessment tasks in the light of ACT FAiREST 2 principles (a) alternative to performance exams; (b) alternative to knowledge exams; (c) change in the mode of assessment administration; and (d) minimizing the overall assessment load. Conclusion This transition provided an impetus for the faculty from a low resource setting to build momentum towards improved and innovative ways of online teaching and assessments for future nursing education to adapt to the new normal situation. This development will serve as a resource in similar contexts with planned and evidence-based approaches for enhancing faculty readiness and preparedness for online/remote assessments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.390 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NursingSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207