Consequences of Historical Exam Access vs Timely Exam Feedback on Knowledge Retention (CHEATER)

IF 3.8 4区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101361

Alina McCue , Adam M. Persky , Cassie Donnell , Kathryn A. Fuller

{"title":"Consequences of Historical Exam Access vs Timely Exam Feedback on Knowledge Retention (CHEATER)","authors":"Alina McCue , Adam M. Persky , Cassie Donnell , Kathryn A. Fuller","doi":"10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to compare the impact of examination feedback with access to historical examination questions on information retention.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>First-year student pharmacists completed a baseline knowledge assessment comprising 30 examination questions divided into 3 conditions, with 10 questions each. In the CHEAT condition, students were provided with 10 questions and their correct answers ahead of time. These 10 questions appeared in the baseline assessment. In the FEEDBACK condition, students answered 10 previously unseen questions but received feedback at the end of the baseline assessment, including correct answers and explanations. The CONTROL condition included 10 previously unseen questions, and no information on correctness or feedback was provided. A total of 3 days after the baseline assessment, the students took a surprise retention quiz with 30 similar questions, including all 3 conditions. The primary outcome measure was student performance on a retention quiz.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Regarding the measures of retention, the FEEDBACK condition resulted in the highest performance compared with the CHEAT (50% vs 44%) and CONTROL (50% vs 23%) conditions. Students were 30% more likely to answer questions correctly when they received feedback in advance through explanations than when they received only correct answers through historical examinations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Providing students with feedback on examinations improves future performance. Despite concerns regarding returning completed examinations and the potential for future students to access these materials, the advantages of feedback in enhancing learning and retention outweigh the associated risks.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55530,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","volume":"89 3","pages":"Article 101361"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002945925000063","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the impact of examination feedback with access to historical examination questions on information retention.

Methods

First-year student pharmacists completed a baseline knowledge assessment comprising 30 examination questions divided into 3 conditions, with 10 questions each. In the CHEAT condition, students were provided with 10 questions and their correct answers ahead of time. These 10 questions appeared in the baseline assessment. In the FEEDBACK condition, students answered 10 previously unseen questions but received feedback at the end of the baseline assessment, including correct answers and explanations. The CONTROL condition included 10 previously unseen questions, and no information on correctness or feedback was provided. A total of 3 days after the baseline assessment, the students took a surprise retention quiz with 30 similar questions, including all 3 conditions. The primary outcome measure was student performance on a retention quiz.

Results

Regarding the measures of retention, the FEEDBACK condition resulted in the highest performance compared with the CHEAT (50% vs 44%) and CONTROL (50% vs 23%) conditions. Students were 30% more likely to answer questions correctly when they received feedback in advance through explanations than when they received only correct answers through historical examinations.

Conclusion

Providing students with feedback on examinations improves future performance. Despite concerns regarding returning completed examinations and the potential for future students to access these materials, the advantages of feedback in enhancing learning and retention outweigh the associated risks.

查看原文本刊更多论文

历史考试访问与及时考试反馈对知识保留的影响（作弊者）。

目的：比较考试反馈与获得历史考题对信息保留的影响。方法：一年级药学专业学生完成一项由30道试题组成的基线知识评估，试题分为3个条件，每个条件10题。在作弊条件下，学生提前得到10个问题和正确答案。这10个问题出现在基线评估中。在反馈条件下，学生们回答了10个以前未见过的问题，但在基线评估结束时收到了反馈，包括正确答案和解释。控制条件包括10个以前未见过的问题，没有提供关于正确性或反馈的信息。基线评估三天后，学生们参加了一个包含30个类似问题的记忆测验，包括所有三种情况。主要的结果衡量标准是学生在记忆测验中的表现。结果：在保留率方面，与CHEAT条件（50%对44%）和CONTROL条件（50%对23%）相比，FEEDBACK条件的保留率最高。当学生们提前通过解释获得反馈时，他们答对问题的可能性比只通过历史考试获得正确答案的可能性高30%。结论：为学生提供考试反馈可以提高他们未来的表现。尽管担心归还已完成的考试，以及未来学生访问这些材料的可能性，但反馈在提高学习和记忆方面的优势大于相关风险。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 医学-学科教育

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

15.20%

发文量

114

期刊介绍： The Journal accepts unsolicited manuscripts that have not been published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The Journal only considers material related to pharmaceutical education for publication. Authors must prepare manuscripts to conform to the Journal style (Author Instructions). All manuscripts are subject to peer review and approval by the editor prior to acceptance for publication. Reviewers are assigned by the editor with the advice of the editorial board as needed. Manuscripts are submitted and processed online (Submit a Manuscript) using Editorial Manager, an online manuscript tracking system that facilitates communication between the editorial office, editor, associate editors, reviewers, and authors. After a manuscript is accepted, it is scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal. All manuscripts are formatted and copyedited, and returned to the author for review and approval of the changes. Approximately 2 weeks prior to publication, the author receives an electronic proof of the article for final review and approval. Authors are not assessed page charges for publication.