Certainty-based marking in a formative assessment improves student course appreciation but not summative examination scores.

Clicks: 265
ID: 57198
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #74 of 146 articles by views in BMC medical education

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 146 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Study motivation and knowledge retention benefit from regular student self-assessments. Inclusion of certainty-based learning (CBL) in computer-assisted formative tests may further enhance this by enabling students to identify whether they are uninformed or misinformed regarding the topics tested, which may trigger future study actions including instructor consultation.Using a cross-over study design involving two out of thirteen computer-assisted formative assessments (CAFAs) of a first-year cell biology course, we compared student-instructor interactions, student learning experiences and final exam scores between two (bio)medical science student cohorts who worked with different CBL-containing CAFAs.A total of 389 students participated in the study. After completion 159 (41%) filled in a questionnaire on their experience with CBL during supervised CAFAs. In the control group the median duration of student-instructor interactions was 90 s (range 60-140 s), and this increased with 20 s to 110 s (range 60-150 s) in the group working with a CBL-based CAFA. The number of interactions was similar in both groups (0.22 per student per hour, regardless of CBL inclusion). Forty percent of the students expected that CBL would positively influence their study behavior, and 23% also anticipated a positive effect on examination scores. Student examination scores, however, were not affected by CBL. Almost half of the students (43%) were in favor of CBL inclusion in future computer-assisted learning modules, whereas 33% did not see merit in including CBL in CAFAs.Incorporation of CBL in a single formative assessment led to a slight increase in student-instructor interaction times, but had effect neither on the number of student-instructor interactions nor on exam scores. CBL inclusion positively influenced student's appreciation of the coursework, presumably by helping students to evaluate their mastery level and identify misconceptions. A more extensive enrollment of CBL beyond an individual formative assessment, throughout a course or a curriculum, may possibly reveal positive effects on study efficacy.
Reference Key
hendriks2019certaintybasedbmc Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Hendriks, Wiljan J A J;Bakker, Nicole;Pluk, Helma;de Brouwer, Arjan;Wieringa, Bé;Cambi, Alessandra;Zegers, Mirjam;Wansink, Derick G;Leunissen, Ron;Klaren, Peter H M;
Journal BMC medical education
Year 2019
DOI
10.1186/s12909-019-1610-2
URL
Keywords
self-directed learning computer-assisted learning certainty-based marking confidence-based learning misconceptions student performance undergraduate biomedical education

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.