The effect of online quizzes in improving physical therapy students’ exam scores in a pharmacology course

IF 0.8 Q4 REHABILITATION Physical Therapy Reviews Pub Date : 2021-11-05 DOI:10.1080/10833196.2021.2000288
Khaled M Hasan, Patrick Makary
{"title":"The effect of online quizzes in improving physical therapy students’ exam scores in a pharmacology course","authors":"Khaled M Hasan, Patrick Makary","doi":"10.1080/10833196.2021.2000288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives: This study aimed to measure the performance of physical therapy students in the pharmacology course by using pre-and post-lecture online quizzes. Methods: A total of 119 graduate students from the physical therapy program in their second year participated in this study. Pre- and post-lecture online quizzes, created using Google forms, were delivered before and after each lecture, respectively. Each online quiz consisted of ten multiple-choice questions about the three different pharmacology topics covered in the classroom from midterm to final exam. Results: The average score of the post-lecture quiz was improved significantly compared with the pre-lecture quiz in all three pharmacology units: CNS (4.51/10 vs. 8.18/10) Endocrine (5.67/10 vs. 8.84/10), and Chemotherapeutics (3.27/10 vs. 6.77/100), p < 0.0001. By using the total percent of pre-and post-lecture quizzes, the results remained significantly higher in the post-lecture quiz (44.97% vs. 80.00%) (p < 0.0001). However, by comparing the effect of online quizzes on students’ performance between the midterm and the final exam, our data revealed that students’ grades on the final exam were insignificantly higher compared with midterm grades (85.37% vs. 86.58%, P-value <0.51). An experimental group that took the online quizzes had insignificantly higher grades on the final exam compared with the final exam scores of the control group that did not take the quizzes (86.58% vs. 84.21%, p-value 0.39). Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated significant improvement in students’ performance in their online post-lecture quizzes compared to their pre-lecture quizzes, but that improvement did not reflect significantly on their final exam grades.","PeriodicalId":46541,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.2000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: This study aimed to measure the performance of physical therapy students in the pharmacology course by using pre-and post-lecture online quizzes. Methods: A total of 119 graduate students from the physical therapy program in their second year participated in this study. Pre- and post-lecture online quizzes, created using Google forms, were delivered before and after each lecture, respectively. Each online quiz consisted of ten multiple-choice questions about the three different pharmacology topics covered in the classroom from midterm to final exam. Results: The average score of the post-lecture quiz was improved significantly compared with the pre-lecture quiz in all three pharmacology units: CNS (4.51/10 vs. 8.18/10) Endocrine (5.67/10 vs. 8.84/10), and Chemotherapeutics (3.27/10 vs. 6.77/100), p < 0.0001. By using the total percent of pre-and post-lecture quizzes, the results remained significantly higher in the post-lecture quiz (44.97% vs. 80.00%) (p < 0.0001). However, by comparing the effect of online quizzes on students’ performance between the midterm and the final exam, our data revealed that students’ grades on the final exam were insignificantly higher compared with midterm grades (85.37% vs. 86.58%, P-value <0.51). An experimental group that took the online quizzes had insignificantly higher grades on the final exam compared with the final exam scores of the control group that did not take the quizzes (86.58% vs. 84.21%, p-value 0.39). Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated significant improvement in students’ performance in their online post-lecture quizzes compared to their pre-lecture quizzes, but that improvement did not reflect significantly on their final exam grades.
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
在线测验在提高物理治疗学生药理学课程考试成绩方面的作用
摘要目的:本研究旨在通过课前和课后在线测验来衡量物理治疗学生在药理学课程中的表现。方法:共有119名物理治疗专业二年级的研究生参加了本研究。使用谷歌表格创建的课前和课后在线测验分别在每次讲座前后进行。从期中考试到期末考试,每个在线测验由10道关于课堂上涵盖的三个不同药理学主题的选择题组成。结果:在所有三个药理学单元中,与课前测验相比,课后测验的平均得分都有显著提高:中枢神经系统(4.51/10对8.18/10)内分泌(5.67/10对8.84/10),和化学疗法(3.27/10对6.77/100),p < 0.0001。通过使用课前和课后测验的总百分比,在课后测验中的结果仍然显著较高(44.97%对80.00%)(p < 0.0001)。然而,通过比较在线测验对期中考试和期末考试学生成绩的影响,我们的数据显示,学生在期末考试中的成绩与期中成绩相比没有显著提高(85.37%对86.58%,P值<0.051)。一个参加在线测验的实验组在期末考试上的成绩与没有参加测验的对照组的期末考试成绩相比没有显着提高(86.58%对84.21%,P值0.39)。结论:这项研究的结果表明,与课前测验相比,学生在课后在线测验中的表现有了显著改善,但这种改善并没有显著反映在他们的期末考试成绩上。
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
Physical Therapy Reviews
Physical Therapy Reviews REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy Reviews is an international journal which aims to publish contemporary reviews, discussion papers and editorials within physical therapy, and in those basic and clinical sciences which are the basis of physical therapy. The journal is aimed at all those involved in research, teaching and practice within the area of physical therapy. Reviews (both descriptive and systematic) are invited in the following areas, which reflect the breadth and diversity of practice within physical therapy: •neurological rehabilitation •movement and exercise •orthopaedics and rheumatology •manual therapy and massage •sports medicine •measurement •chest physiotherapy •electrotherapeutics •obstetrics and gynaecology •complementary therapies •professional issues •musculoskeletal rehabilitation
期刊最新文献
The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of tests used to assess the effects of power training in older adults: a systematic review Physical therapy treatment interventions and the effects thereof on clinical outcomes when addressing intra-pleural abnormalities in patients with trauma: protocol for a systematic review Motivational modulation enhances movement performance in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review What influences patient decision making after anterior cruciate ligament injury in Australia; an internet survey What is the contribution of latissimus dorsi to trunk movement and control? A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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