The Reliability and Medical Students’ Appreciation of Certainty-Based Marking

Author:

Smrkolj ŠpelaORCID,Bančov EnjaORCID,Smrkolj VladimirORCID

Abstract

Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) involves asking students not only the answer to an objective question, but also how certain they are that their answer is correct. In a mixed method design employing an embedded approach with a quasi-experimental design, we have examined the use of CBM during a 5-week Gynaecology and Obstetrics course. The study was conducted as a non-mandatory revision exam with two additional questionnaires on Moodle. Majority of students perceive CBM as fair (78%) and useful (94%). Most students would immediately want CBM to be used for revision exams, but more practice would be needed for CBM to be used in graded exams. The lowest self-evaluation of knowledge was mostly seen by worst (less than 70% Accuracy) and best achievers (more than 90% Accuracy); the worst achievers probably have knowledge gaps, and the best achievers probably correctly guessed at least one question. Our findings conclude that CBM does not discriminate any learner type (p = 0.932) and does not change the general distribution of the exam scores, since there is no significant differences between Certainty-Based Score (M = 80.4%, SD = 10.4%) and Accuracy (M = 79.8%, SD = 11.1%); t(176) = 0.8327, p = 0.4061. These findings are widely applicable, as learner type study models are used extensively in education. In the future, larger samples should be studied and the implementation of CBM on question types other than MCQ should be investigated.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference50 articles.

1. The Assessment of Partial Knowledge

2. A Method of Correcting for Guessing in True-False Tests and Empirical Evidence in Support of IT

3. A new Method of Weighting Scores in a True-False Test

4. Optimisation of Certainty-Based Assessment Scoreshttps://tmedwin.net/~ucgbarg/tea/IUPS_2013a.pdf

5. Reliability, Predictive Validity, and Personality Bias of Confidence Weighted Scoreshttps://www.ucl.ac.uk/lapt/ahlgren.pdf

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Certainty-Based Self-Assessment: A Chance for Enhanced Learning Engagement in Higher Education. An Experience at the University of Barcelona;Creative Approaches to Technology-Enhanced Learning for the Workplace and Higher Education;2023

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3