{"title":"Comparative evaluation of open book and conventional assessment methods in medical undergraduate students","authors":"Monica Irungbam, Shailata Prisi, Ritika Shrivastava, Binita Goswami","doi":"10.1002/bmb.21831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Medical science is a dynamic field of knowledge that is constantly broadening with upcoming clinical research and analysis. Traditional medical education has been focused on textbook-based recall assessments—closed book assessment (CBA). However, the availability of newer technologies has made the accessibility to encyclopedic knowledge expeditious, which demands for a new approach for medical education. As medical professionals, the purpose of learning should be higher cognitive skills such as interpretation and synthesis. So, analyzing students’ ability to comprehend the concepts and learning to apply it in a realistic context than merely recalling the facts has come into attention. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of 250 first-year MBBS students at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India, between closed book and open book method for biochemistry. Students were divided into two groups, Group A and Group B, based on their average monthly internal assessment marks. CBA was followed by open book assessment (OBA) 1 week apart with similar questionnaire pattern and allotted time. A significant difference in average marks obtained by the two groups was observed in CBA. Group A scored better in CBA, but performance was comparable with Group B in OBA. OBA and CBA can contribute to an assessment program in part because of their complementary pros and cons, and OBA should not be thought of as an alternative to CBA, but their value may be in expanding beyond what is measured by CBA.</p>","PeriodicalId":8830,"journal":{"name":"Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education","volume":"52 4","pages":"436-441"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.21831","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Medical science is a dynamic field of knowledge that is constantly broadening with upcoming clinical research and analysis. Traditional medical education has been focused on textbook-based recall assessments—closed book assessment (CBA). However, the availability of newer technologies has made the accessibility to encyclopedic knowledge expeditious, which demands for a new approach for medical education. As medical professionals, the purpose of learning should be higher cognitive skills such as interpretation and synthesis. So, analyzing students’ ability to comprehend the concepts and learning to apply it in a realistic context than merely recalling the facts has come into attention. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of 250 first-year MBBS students at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India, between closed book and open book method for biochemistry. Students were divided into two groups, Group A and Group B, based on their average monthly internal assessment marks. CBA was followed by open book assessment (OBA) 1 week apart with similar questionnaire pattern and allotted time. A significant difference in average marks obtained by the two groups was observed in CBA. Group A scored better in CBA, but performance was comparable with Group B in OBA. OBA and CBA can contribute to an assessment program in part because of their complementary pros and cons, and OBA should not be thought of as an alternative to CBA, but their value may be in expanding beyond what is measured by CBA.
医学是一个充满活力的知识领域,它随着临床研究和分析的不断深入而不断拓宽。传统的医学教育侧重于基于课本的回忆性评估--闭卷评估(CBA)。然而,新技术的出现使得百科知识的获取更加便捷,这就要求医学教育采用新的方法。作为医学专业人员,学习的目的应该是更高的认知技能,如解释和综合。因此,分析学生理解概念的能力以及学会在现实情境中应用概念的能力,而不仅仅是回忆事实,已引起人们的关注。本研究旨在评估和比较印度新德里毛拉纳-阿扎德医学院(Maulana Azad Medical College)250 名医学学士学位一年级学生在生物化学闭卷和开卷两种方法中的表现。根据学生每月校内评估的平均分,将他们分为 A 组和 B 组。闭卷考试与开卷考试(OBA)相隔一周,问卷模式和分配时间相似。在 CBA 中,两组学生的平均分有明显差异。A 组在 CBA 中得分更高,但在 OBA 中的表现与 B 组相当。我们不应将 OBA 视为 CBA 的替代品,但它们的价值可能在于扩展了 CBA 的测量范围。
期刊介绍:
The aim of BAMBED is to enhance teacher preparation and student learning in Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and related sciences such as Biophysics and Cell Biology, by promoting the world-wide dissemination of educational materials. BAMBED seeks and communicates articles on many topics, including:
Innovative techniques in teaching and learning.
New pedagogical approaches.
Research in biochemistry and molecular biology education.
Reviews on emerging areas of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to provide background for the preparation of lectures, seminars, student presentations, dissertations, etc.
Historical Reviews describing "Paths to Discovery".
Novel and proven laboratory experiments that have both skill-building and discovery-based characteristics.
Reviews of relevant textbooks, software, and websites.
Descriptions of software for educational use.
Descriptions of multimedia materials such as tutorials on various aspects of biochemistry and molecular biology.