比较生物医学学生对在线考试和纸质考试的看法

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Frontiers in Education Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2023.1321206
Elizabeth Winters, William G. Mitchell, Kris P. Jeremy, Mirza M. F. Subhan
{"title":"比较生物医学学生对在线考试和纸质考试的看法","authors":"Elizabeth Winters, William G. Mitchell, Kris P. Jeremy, Mirza M. F. Subhan","doi":"10.3389/feduc.2023.1321206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online examinations are becoming increasingly incorporated into higher education. However, Biomedical Science students’ perspectives on exam format preferences remains unexplored. This study aims to investigate exam format preferences and attitudes of these students.A self-reported survey of 31 questions on online exam perceptions was utilized and composed of six dimensions: affective factors, validity, practicality, reliability, security, and pedagogy. Scores measured student attitudes around online exams. Additionally, categorical questions examined attitudes around open-book online exams (OBOEs), closed-book online exams (CBOEs), and paper-based exams (PBEs). Qualitative analysis was conducted via the use of open-ended questions and a focus group on five participants. The questionnaire was distributed to undergraduates and 146 students responded across six different programmes.The findings revealed that 57.5% of students preferred OBOEs while only 19.9% preferred PBEs. OBOEs were perceived as more favorable in all six dimensions and superior in terms of reducing stress, ensuring fairness, allowing demonstration of understanding, and retaining information. Gender had no statistically significant influence on perception. However, programme statistically significantly affected responses. Qualitative data supported the main statistical analysis and identified a trade-off between the ability to retain information with PBEs, despite the stress and better demonstration of understanding with OBOEs.Overall, OBOEs were viewed positively and were well accepted; they are anticipated to be a dominant examination format at the UoP. Institutions wishing to implement online exams should consider the perceived benefits they have over traditional exams. These findings contribute to the understanding of students’ perceptions of exam formats, which can inform their design and application in higher education. Further research should explore the perceptions of other disciplines and identify ways to address any challenges associated with online exams.","PeriodicalId":52290,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Education","volume":"41 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of biomedical science students’ perceptions of online versus paper-based examinations\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Winters, William G. Mitchell, Kris P. Jeremy, Mirza M. F. Subhan\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/feduc.2023.1321206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Online examinations are becoming increasingly incorporated into higher education. However, Biomedical Science students’ perspectives on exam format preferences remains unexplored. This study aims to investigate exam format preferences and attitudes of these students.A self-reported survey of 31 questions on online exam perceptions was utilized and composed of six dimensions: affective factors, validity, practicality, reliability, security, and pedagogy. Scores measured student attitudes around online exams. Additionally, categorical questions examined attitudes around open-book online exams (OBOEs), closed-book online exams (CBOEs), and paper-based exams (PBEs). Qualitative analysis was conducted via the use of open-ended questions and a focus group on five participants. The questionnaire was distributed to undergraduates and 146 students responded across six different programmes.The findings revealed that 57.5% of students preferred OBOEs while only 19.9% preferred PBEs. OBOEs were perceived as more favorable in all six dimensions and superior in terms of reducing stress, ensuring fairness, allowing demonstration of understanding, and retaining information. Gender had no statistically significant influence on perception. However, programme statistically significantly affected responses. Qualitative data supported the main statistical analysis and identified a trade-off between the ability to retain information with PBEs, despite the stress and better demonstration of understanding with OBOEs.Overall, OBOEs were viewed positively and were well accepted; they are anticipated to be a dominant examination format at the UoP. Institutions wishing to implement online exams should consider the perceived benefits they have over traditional exams. These findings contribute to the understanding of students’ perceptions of exam formats, which can inform their design and application in higher education. Further research should explore the perceptions of other disciplines and identify ways to address any challenges associated with online exams.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Education\",\"volume\":\"41 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1321206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1321206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在线考试正越来越多地融入高等教育。然而,生物医学科学专业学生对考试形式的偏好仍未得到深入探讨。本研究旨在调查这些学生对考试形式的偏好和态度。研究采用了一项包含 31 个问题的自我报告式在线考试认知调查,由六个维度组成:情感因素、有效性、实用性、可靠性、安全性和教学法。分数衡量了学生对在线考试的态度。此外,分类问题还考察了学生对开卷在线考试(OBOE)、闭卷在线考试(CBOE)和纸质考试(PBE)的态度。定性分析是通过开放式问题和针对五名参与者的焦点小组进行的。调查结果显示,57.5%的学生更喜欢 OBOE,而只有 19.9%的学生更喜欢 PBE。在所有六个维度上,学生都认为开放式职业教育更为有利,在减轻压力、确保公平、展示理解能力和保留信息方面更胜一筹。在统计上,性别对认知没有显著影响。然而,从统计学角度看,计划对回答有重大影响。定性数据为主要统计分析提供了支持,并确定了尽管有压力但仍能通过普通教育考试保留信息的能力与通过开放式在线考试更好地展示理解能力之间的权衡。希望实施在线考试的院校应考虑其与传统考试相比的优势。这些研究结果有助于了解学生对考试形式的看法,从而为其在高等教育中的设计和应用提供参考。进一步的研究应探讨其他学科的看法,并找出应对在线考试相关挑战的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of biomedical science students’ perceptions of online versus paper-based examinations
Online examinations are becoming increasingly incorporated into higher education. However, Biomedical Science students’ perspectives on exam format preferences remains unexplored. This study aims to investigate exam format preferences and attitudes of these students.A self-reported survey of 31 questions on online exam perceptions was utilized and composed of six dimensions: affective factors, validity, practicality, reliability, security, and pedagogy. Scores measured student attitudes around online exams. Additionally, categorical questions examined attitudes around open-book online exams (OBOEs), closed-book online exams (CBOEs), and paper-based exams (PBEs). Qualitative analysis was conducted via the use of open-ended questions and a focus group on five participants. The questionnaire was distributed to undergraduates and 146 students responded across six different programmes.The findings revealed that 57.5% of students preferred OBOEs while only 19.9% preferred PBEs. OBOEs were perceived as more favorable in all six dimensions and superior in terms of reducing stress, ensuring fairness, allowing demonstration of understanding, and retaining information. Gender had no statistically significant influence on perception. However, programme statistically significantly affected responses. Qualitative data supported the main statistical analysis and identified a trade-off between the ability to retain information with PBEs, despite the stress and better demonstration of understanding with OBOEs.Overall, OBOEs were viewed positively and were well accepted; they are anticipated to be a dominant examination format at the UoP. Institutions wishing to implement online exams should consider the perceived benefits they have over traditional exams. These findings contribute to the understanding of students’ perceptions of exam formats, which can inform their design and application in higher education. Further research should explore the perceptions of other disciplines and identify ways to address any challenges associated with online exams.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Education
Frontiers in Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
887
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of math abilities before school entry: a tool development Predictability of Duolingo English mock test for Chinese college-level EFLs: using assessment use argument What makes an excellent reader? Short-term memory contrasts between two groups of children The influence of institutional characteristics on implementing school-based universal addiction prevention: a Hungarian mixed-methods nationwide study on the state of implementation, barriers, and facilitators Foregrounding co-artistry in an aesthetic and plurilingual/pluriliteracies approach to additional language teaching and learning
×
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