多项选择问卷评估:它们在评估法律系学生方面有作用吗?

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2021-10-11 DOI:10.1080/03069400.2021.1979762
S. Whittaker, Tarik Olcay
{"title":"多项选择问卷评估:它们在评估法律系学生方面有作用吗?","authors":"S. Whittaker, Tarik Olcay","doi":"10.1080/03069400.2021.1979762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the UK there has been a resistance to using multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) assessments to assess undergraduate students. This resistance is based on traditional legal pedagogy and the needs of the legal profession. However, the use of MCQ-style assessments by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and other shifts in legal education make it necessary to reflect on the role that MCQs could play in assessing law students. This article seeks to contribute to this discussion by providing a pedagogical analysis of the assessment strategy of the “Public Law I – Sources of Power” module at the University of Dundee. First, the article sets out Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and its applicability to legal education. The article then applies this taxonomy to identify the complexity of the module’s learning outcomes and its assessments, as well as considering the extent to which they align with each other. The article finds that while MCQs cannot contribute to all of a module’s learning outcomes, they do provide some pedagogical value in assessing law students, particularly when implemented in parallel with other assessment methods. The article concludes by reflecting on the broader position of MCQs and their role in assessing undergraduate students.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiple-choice questionnaire assessments: do they have a role in assessing law students?\",\"authors\":\"S. Whittaker, Tarik Olcay\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03069400.2021.1979762\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In the UK there has been a resistance to using multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) assessments to assess undergraduate students. This resistance is based on traditional legal pedagogy and the needs of the legal profession. However, the use of MCQ-style assessments by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and other shifts in legal education make it necessary to reflect on the role that MCQs could play in assessing law students. This article seeks to contribute to this discussion by providing a pedagogical analysis of the assessment strategy of the “Public Law I – Sources of Power” module at the University of Dundee. First, the article sets out Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and its applicability to legal education. The article then applies this taxonomy to identify the complexity of the module’s learning outcomes and its assessments, as well as considering the extent to which they align with each other. The article finds that while MCQs cannot contribute to all of a module’s learning outcomes, they do provide some pedagogical value in assessing law students, particularly when implemented in parallel with other assessment methods. The article concludes by reflecting on the broader position of MCQs and their role in assessing undergraduate students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2021.1979762\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2021.1979762","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在英国,使用多项选择问卷(MCQ)评估本科生一直存在阻力。这种抵制是基于传统的法律教育学和法律职业的需要。然而,律师监管局使用MCQ风格的评估,以及法律教育的其他转变,使得有必要反思MCQ在评估法律学生方面可以发挥的作用。本文试图通过对邓迪大学“公法I——权力来源”模块的评估策略进行教学分析,为这一讨论做出贡献。文章首先阐述了布鲁姆修订后的分类法及其在法律教育中的适用性。然后,本文应用这种分类法来确定模块学习结果及其评估的复杂性,并考虑它们之间的一致程度。文章发现,虽然MCQ不能对一个模块的所有学习结果做出贡献,但它们在评估法学院学生时确实提供了一些教学价值,尤其是在与其他评估方法并行实施时。文章最后反思了MCQ的更广泛地位及其在评估本科生中的作用。
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
Multiple-choice questionnaire assessments: do they have a role in assessing law students?
ABSTRACT In the UK there has been a resistance to using multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) assessments to assess undergraduate students. This resistance is based on traditional legal pedagogy and the needs of the legal profession. However, the use of MCQ-style assessments by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and other shifts in legal education make it necessary to reflect on the role that MCQs could play in assessing law students. This article seeks to contribute to this discussion by providing a pedagogical analysis of the assessment strategy of the “Public Law I – Sources of Power” module at the University of Dundee. First, the article sets out Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and its applicability to legal education. The article then applies this taxonomy to identify the complexity of the module’s learning outcomes and its assessments, as well as considering the extent to which they align with each other. The article finds that while MCQs cannot contribute to all of a module’s learning outcomes, they do provide some pedagogical value in assessing law students, particularly when implemented in parallel with other assessment methods. The article concludes by reflecting on the broader position of MCQs and their role in assessing undergraduate students.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. Analysis of Medical Rehabilitation Needs of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Victims: Adıyaman Example. Efficacy of whole body vibration on fascicle length and joint angle in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Prevalence and predictors of hand hygiene compliance in clinical, surgical and intensive care unit wards: results of a second cross-sectional study at the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome.
×
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