未经监考与经过监考的考试对学生成绩和知识长期保留的影响。

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Chiropractic Education Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.7899/JCE-23-16
Niu Zhang, James Larose, Megan Franklin
{"title":"未经监考与经过监考的考试对学生成绩和知识长期保留的影响。","authors":"Niu Zhang, James Larose, Megan Franklin","doi":"10.7899/JCE-23-16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare unproctored and proctored online exams among chiropractic students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pre-existing data of 234 students across 4 consecutive endocrinology classes were analyzed for this study. The course was comprised of 3 lectures (50 minutes per lecture) each week. Student performance was evaluated by midterm exam and summative exam (S1). The students from 3 classes were asked to take a voluntary second summative exam (S2) approximately 7 months after the S1. Since this study was partially conducted during the COVID pandemic, some classes took the midterm and the S1 proctored in the classroom while others took them unproctored from a remote location.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean midterm exam (p < .001) and S1 scores (p = .01) for the unproctored group (93.6 ± 7.0 and 88.8 ± 8.2) were significantly higher than the proctored group (88.1 ± 8.2 and 83.9 ± 11.2). The mean time taken by students was much greater for the unproctored exams than for the proctored exams (midterm: 40.7 ± 10.2 versus 16.7 ± 7.0, p < .001; S1: 47.0 ± 8.7 versus 21.5 ± 9.0, p < .001). By contrast, the mean unproctored S2 scores were lower than the proctored group (60.2 ± 14.7 versus 88.1 ± 8.2, p < .001). A linear regression test showed that the final exam was a statistically significant predictor of the recall exam (p < .01, R2 = 28.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that student performance is significantly altered by test format.</p>","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of unproctored versus proctored examinations on student performance and long-term retention of knowledge.\",\"authors\":\"Niu Zhang, James Larose, Megan Franklin\",\"doi\":\"10.7899/JCE-23-16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare unproctored and proctored online exams among chiropractic students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pre-existing data of 234 students across 4 consecutive endocrinology classes were analyzed for this study. The course was comprised of 3 lectures (50 minutes per lecture) each week. Student performance was evaluated by midterm exam and summative exam (S1). The students from 3 classes were asked to take a voluntary second summative exam (S2) approximately 7 months after the S1. Since this study was partially conducted during the COVID pandemic, some classes took the midterm and the S1 proctored in the classroom while others took them unproctored from a remote location.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean midterm exam (p < .001) and S1 scores (p = .01) for the unproctored group (93.6 ± 7.0 and 88.8 ± 8.2) were significantly higher than the proctored group (88.1 ± 8.2 and 83.9 ± 11.2). The mean time taken by students was much greater for the unproctored exams than for the proctored exams (midterm: 40.7 ± 10.2 versus 16.7 ± 7.0, p < .001; S1: 47.0 ± 8.7 versus 21.5 ± 9.0, p < .001). By contrast, the mean unproctored S2 scores were lower than the proctored group (60.2 ± 14.7 versus 88.1 ± 8.2, p < .001). A linear regression test showed that the final exam was a statistically significant predictor of the recall exam (p < .01, R2 = 28.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that student performance is significantly altered by test format.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较脊骨神经科学生中未经监考和监考的在线考试:本研究分析了连续 4 个内分泌学班 234 名学生的已有数据。课程包括每周 3 次讲座(每次讲座 50 分钟)。学生成绩通过期中考试和总结性考试(S1)进行评估。在 S1 考试结束约 7 个月后,3 个班级的学生被要求自愿参加第二次总结性考试(S2)。由于本研究部分是在 COVID 大流行期间进行的,因此有些班级的期中考试和 S1 考试是在教室内监考的,而其他班级则是在远程地点监考的:未经监考组的期中考试平均分(p < .001)和 S1 平均分(p = .01)(93.6 ± 7.0 和 88.8 ± 8.2)明显高于监考组(88.1 ± 8.2 和 83.9 ± 11.2)。学生在未经监考的考试中所花费的平均时间远远高于监考组(期中:40.7 ± 10.2 对 16.7 ± 7.0,p < .001;中考:47.0 ± 8.7 对 21.5 ± 9.0,p < .001)。相比之下,未经监考的 S2 平均得分低于监考组(60.2 ± 14.7 对 88.1 ± 8.2,p < .001)。线性回归测试表明,期末考试对回忆考试的预测具有显著的统计学意义(P < .01,R2 = 28.3%):研究结果表明,考试形式对学生成绩的影响很大。
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
Effect of unproctored versus proctored examinations on student performance and long-term retention of knowledge.

Objective: To compare unproctored and proctored online exams among chiropractic students.

Methods: Pre-existing data of 234 students across 4 consecutive endocrinology classes were analyzed for this study. The course was comprised of 3 lectures (50 minutes per lecture) each week. Student performance was evaluated by midterm exam and summative exam (S1). The students from 3 classes were asked to take a voluntary second summative exam (S2) approximately 7 months after the S1. Since this study was partially conducted during the COVID pandemic, some classes took the midterm and the S1 proctored in the classroom while others took them unproctored from a remote location.

Results: The mean midterm exam (p < .001) and S1 scores (p = .01) for the unproctored group (93.6 ± 7.0 and 88.8 ± 8.2) were significantly higher than the proctored group (88.1 ± 8.2 and 83.9 ± 11.2). The mean time taken by students was much greater for the unproctored exams than for the proctored exams (midterm: 40.7 ± 10.2 versus 16.7 ± 7.0, p < .001; S1: 47.0 ± 8.7 versus 21.5 ± 9.0, p < .001). By contrast, the mean unproctored S2 scores were lower than the proctored group (60.2 ± 14.7 versus 88.1 ± 8.2, p < .001). A linear regression test showed that the final exam was a statistically significant predictor of the recall exam (p < .01, R2 = 28.3%).

Conclusion: The findings suggest that student performance is significantly altered by test format.

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
Journal of Chiropractic Education
Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
37.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.
期刊最新文献
Patient satisfaction with clinical services provided by chiropractic students under supervision compared to licensed chiropractors: An observational study. Development of a new examination for the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board. Improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in chiropractic education and profession: Report from three 2020-2021 summit meetings. Compliance with evidence-based radiographic imaging guidelines by chiropractic interns at a chiropractic training program. Comparison of mistakes on multiple-choice question and fill-in-the-blank examinations: A retrospective 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