Assessing Faculty Preference Regarding Online Tools for Assessment in Medical Education: A Cross-Sectional Multi-Center Study

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice Pub Date : 2023-01-04 DOI:10.46743/1540-580x/2023.2261
Zarreen Raza, Samira Adnan, Sanaa Ahmed, Zahid Memon, Saad Saleem, Ziyad Sanaullah
{"title":"Assessing Faculty Preference Regarding Online Tools for Assessment in Medical Education: A Cross-Sectional Multi-Center Study","authors":"Zarreen Raza, Samira Adnan, Sanaa Ahmed, Zahid Memon, Saad Saleem, Ziyad Sanaullah","doi":"10.46743/1540-580x/2023.2261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: E-assessment is a novel practice in developing countries; hence it is essential to determine the online platforms and tools preferred by health sciences education faculty for online assessment. The purpose of this study was to assess the preference of faculty in medical and dental education regarding the online tools for e-assessment of undergraduate students. Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted from June until August 2020 on the faculty of medical and dental undergraduate programs of private and public sector institutes across Karachi, with a sample size of 152. Data was collected through convenience sampling using a validated questionnaire and was analyzed using SPSS version 23. Mean and standard deviation was calculated for numerical data while frequencies and percentages analyzed for categorical data. Results: A total of 125 faculty members participated in the study, having mean age of 37.8±9.99 years, with the majority affiliated with medical program (78%), working in private institutes (58.4%), and teaching basic sciences (64%). Faculty of both basic and clinical sciences preferred Question and Answer (Zoom) for formative assessment (37.6% and 20.8% respectively). Although most faculty were found to not use any online tool for summative assessment, nonetheless, Socrative was preferred for this purpose (23.2% basic sciences, 12.8% clinical sciences). Almost 68% of the faculty faced difficulties in conducting e-assessments and reported that their issues were not resolved effectively (48.2%). Conclusion: Formative assessment was found to be preferably conducted by the Question-and-Answer feature of Zoom. Even though most of the faculty reported not utilizing any online tool for conducting summative assessment, it was found that quiz-based platforms were preferred.","PeriodicalId":45065,"journal":{"name":"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2023.2261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: E-assessment is a novel practice in developing countries; hence it is essential to determine the online platforms and tools preferred by health sciences education faculty for online assessment. The purpose of this study was to assess the preference of faculty in medical and dental education regarding the online tools for e-assessment of undergraduate students. Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted from June until August 2020 on the faculty of medical and dental undergraduate programs of private and public sector institutes across Karachi, with a sample size of 152. Data was collected through convenience sampling using a validated questionnaire and was analyzed using SPSS version 23. Mean and standard deviation was calculated for numerical data while frequencies and percentages analyzed for categorical data. Results: A total of 125 faculty members participated in the study, having mean age of 37.8±9.99 years, with the majority affiliated with medical program (78%), working in private institutes (58.4%), and teaching basic sciences (64%). Faculty of both basic and clinical sciences preferred Question and Answer (Zoom) for formative assessment (37.6% and 20.8% respectively). Although most faculty were found to not use any online tool for summative assessment, nonetheless, Socrative was preferred for this purpose (23.2% basic sciences, 12.8% clinical sciences). Almost 68% of the faculty faced difficulties in conducting e-assessments and reported that their issues were not resolved effectively (48.2%). Conclusion: Formative assessment was found to be preferably conducted by the Question-and-Answer feature of Zoom. Even though most of the faculty reported not utilizing any online tool for conducting summative assessment, it was found that quiz-based platforms were preferred.
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
评估教师对医学教育在线评估工具的偏好:一项横断面多中心研究
目的:电子评估是发展中国家的一种新实践;因此,确定健康科学教育教师首选的在线评估平台和工具至关重要。摘要本研究旨在探讨医学及牙科教育教师对本科学生电子评核工具的偏好。方法:这项横断面描述性研究于2020年6月至8月在卡拉奇的私营和公共部门机构的医学和牙科本科专业进行,样本量为152人。数据通过方便抽样的方式收集,使用有效的问卷,并使用SPSS version 23进行分析。数值数据计算平均值和标准差,分类数据分析频率和百分比。结果:共有125名教师参与研究,平均年龄37.8±9.99岁,以医学专业为主(78%),民办院校为主(58.4%),基础科学教学为主(64%)。基础科学和临床科学学院更倾向于问答(Zoom)作为形成性评估(分别为37.6%和20.8%)。尽管大多数教师被发现不使用任何在线工具进行总结性评估,但Socrative在这方面更受欢迎(23.2%的基础科学,12.8%的临床科学)。近68%的教师在进行电子评估时遇到困难,并报告说他们的问题没有得到有效解决(48.2%)。结论:发现Zoom的问答功能更适合进行形成性评价。尽管大多数教师报告称没有使用任何在线工具进行总结性评估,但研究发现,基于测验的平台更受欢迎。
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
25.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊最新文献
DTSaM を用いた橈骨遠位端骨折の治療成績 スマートフォンを用いた反張膝の測定方法に対する予備的研究 自閉スペクトラム症児における日本版感覚プロファイルを用いた感覚反応に対する幼児と学齢児の比較 介護老人保健施設における日常生活動作能力と転帰先との関連性 Effectiveness of WiiⓇ-based rehabilitation in Patients with Brain Tumors:
×
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