Are First Year Medical Students Distracted by On-Screen Exams in Relation to On- Paper Exams

M. Amanullah, Khalid Mohanna Sarah Afaq Ayyub Patel
{"title":"Are First Year Medical Students Distracted by On-Screen Exams in Relation to On- Paper Exams","authors":"M. Amanullah, Khalid Mohanna Sarah Afaq Ayyub Patel","doi":"10.17781/P008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessment over the electronic media has been questioned for its validity and sensitivity, especially for the purpose of evaluating a student at the university level, though not for competitive exams. On-screen visibility, readability and interpretation during an exam are under cynicism as compared to paper. We have undertaken the evaluation of the effectiveness of on-screen examinations in comparison to pen and paper exams. Both on-screen and on-paper exams were conducted during November 2013, enrolling 180 students. These were divided into 61 male students taking an on-paper exam, immediately followed by the onscreen exam with the same set of questions. Similarly a batch of 57 girl students took an initial exam onpaper and then the same questions were displayed on the screen. 31 students were given on-screen exam only, and yet another 31 students took on-paper exams only. Comparing the results obtained various exams conducted indicated that there was considerable distraction among first year medical students over the on-screen exams. The scores obtained were graded as \"A\" for 90-100% marks, \"B\", \"C\", \"D\" and \"F\" for 80-89%, 70-79%, 60-69% and 0-60% respectively. Hogana (2007) formulae was used to calculate the distraction index (DI) wherein the % of students scoring highest grade was subtracted with the % of students scoring lowest grade. Distraction by the students in a particular exam was assessed by a negative value of DI and vice-versa. A remarkable distraction in the on-screen exams with a DI of -33 between on-paper and onscreen exams was observed. 29% of the students scored \"A\" grade in the on-paper exam whereas in the on-screen exam only 19% were able to obtain this grade. Analysis of the date about students failing (\"F\" grade) in the exam revealed that only 3% of students failed in the on-paper exam as compared to 26% in the on-screen exam. More time was taken by the students for completing the exam on-screen which was 46 minutes as compared to on-paper exam, where the average time taken to complete the exam was only 36 minutes. In conclusion we can say that there will definitely be some degree of distraction during the on-screen exams as compared to on-paper exams. More studies are needed to conclude the exact degree of distraction over the onscreen exams with a wide population of universal students.","PeriodicalId":211757,"journal":{"name":"International journal of new computer architectures and their applications","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of new computer architectures and their applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17781/P008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Assessment over the electronic media has been questioned for its validity and sensitivity, especially for the purpose of evaluating a student at the university level, though not for competitive exams. On-screen visibility, readability and interpretation during an exam are under cynicism as compared to paper. We have undertaken the evaluation of the effectiveness of on-screen examinations in comparison to pen and paper exams. Both on-screen and on-paper exams were conducted during November 2013, enrolling 180 students. These were divided into 61 male students taking an on-paper exam, immediately followed by the onscreen exam with the same set of questions. Similarly a batch of 57 girl students took an initial exam onpaper and then the same questions were displayed on the screen. 31 students were given on-screen exam only, and yet another 31 students took on-paper exams only. Comparing the results obtained various exams conducted indicated that there was considerable distraction among first year medical students over the on-screen exams. The scores obtained were graded as "A" for 90-100% marks, "B", "C", "D" and "F" for 80-89%, 70-79%, 60-69% and 0-60% respectively. Hogana (2007) formulae was used to calculate the distraction index (DI) wherein the % of students scoring highest grade was subtracted with the % of students scoring lowest grade. Distraction by the students in a particular exam was assessed by a negative value of DI and vice-versa. A remarkable distraction in the on-screen exams with a DI of -33 between on-paper and onscreen exams was observed. 29% of the students scored "A" grade in the on-paper exam whereas in the on-screen exam only 19% were able to obtain this grade. Analysis of the date about students failing ("F" grade) in the exam revealed that only 3% of students failed in the on-paper exam as compared to 26% in the on-screen exam. More time was taken by the students for completing the exam on-screen which was 46 minutes as compared to on-paper exam, where the average time taken to complete the exam was only 36 minutes. In conclusion we can say that there will definitely be some degree of distraction during the on-screen exams as compared to on-paper exams. More studies are needed to conclude the exact degree of distraction over the onscreen exams with a wide population of universal students.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大一医学生是否更容易被屏幕上的考试和纸上的考试分散注意力
对电子媒体进行评估的有效性和敏感性受到质疑,特别是为了评估大学一级的学生,尽管不是为了竞争性考试。与试卷相比,考试中的屏幕可视性、可读性和解释性都受到了质疑。我们对屏幕考试与纸笔考试的有效性进行了评估。2013年11月进行了屏幕和纸面考试,共有180名学生参加。这些人被分成61名男生参加纸面考试,紧接着是同样一组问题的屏幕考试。同样,57名女学生参加了第一次考试,然后同样的问题显示在屏幕上。31名学生只参加了屏幕考试,另外31名学生只参加了笔试。比较各种考试的结果表明,一年级医学生在屏幕上的考试中有相当大的注意力分散。所得分数分别为90-100%为A, 80-89%为B, 70-79%为C, 60-69%为D, 0-60%为F。使用Hogana(2007)公式计算分心指数(DI),用分数最高的学生百分比减去分数最低的学生百分比。学生在特定考试中的注意力分散被评估为负DI值,反之亦然。在纸面和屏幕测试之间的DI为-33的屏幕测试中,观察到显着的分心。29%的学生在纸面考试中获得“A”的成绩,而在屏幕考试中只有19%的学生能够获得这个成绩。对学生在考试中不及格(“F”级)的日期的分析显示,只有3%的学生在纸面考试中不及格,而在屏幕考试中不及格的学生占26%。学生们花了更多的时间在屏幕上完成考试(46分钟),而在纸上完成考试的平均时间只有36分钟。总之,我们可以说,与纸上考试相比,屏幕考试肯定会有一定程度的分心。需要更多的研究来得出在广泛的全球学生群体中进行屏幕考试时分散注意力的确切程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Introduction to Sociology of Online Social Networks in Morocco. Data Acquisition Process: Results and Connectivity Analysis SLA-BASED RESOURCE ALLOCATION WITHIN CLOUD NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT Proportional Weighted Round Robin: A Proportional Share CPU Scheduler inTime Sharing Systems Variation Effect of Silicon Film Thickness on Electrical Properties of NANOMOSFET CAUSALITY ISSUES IN ORIENTATION CONTROL OF AN UNDER-ACTUATED DRILL MACHINE
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1