Exam resource availability and student outcomes: an exploratory analysis in Occupational Therapy Students.

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Susan R Wilbanks, Mikaely T Schmitz
{"title":"Exam resource availability and student outcomes: an exploratory analysis in Occupational Therapy Students.","authors":"Susan R Wilbanks, Mikaely T Schmitz","doi":"10.1007/s10459-025-10472-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Written examinations are commonly used to assess learning. Different resources made available during testing (closed-note, open-note, and cheat-sheet) may influence student learning. The effect of resource availability on long-term knowledge application is unknown. Understanding the effects of exam resource availability on long-term knowledge application is needed, as application is essential in applied fields such as Occupational Therapy. To explore differences in short-term knowledge retention (course one overall score, midterm exam, and final exam) and long-term knowledge application (course two summative assessment) among occupational therapy students who had different types of exam resource availability during course one (closed-note, open-note, cheat-sheet). Data were extracted from four consecutive cohorts (n = 73) as they completed two sequential occupational therapy courses. Exam resource availability was the independent variable (k = 3), with course one midterm and final exams and overall course grade, and course two summative assessment grade as dependent variables. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared differences across conditions. Concerning short-term retention, no significant differences were observed between groups for course one midterm exam grade or overall course one grade. Course one final exam grades were significantly higher in the cheat sheet condition compared to closed note (3.9%, p = .009). Concerning long-term application as measured by the course two summative assessment grade, the closed note condition scored significantly higher than open note (6.25%, p = .01). No other comparisons were significantly different. In this sample we observed a small difference in short-term knowledge retention in favor of a cheat sheet condition and moderate difference in long-term application in favor of a closed note condition. While results suggest possible differences in performance across exam conditions, findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the small, convenience-based sample. This exploratory analysis offers preliminary insights and identifies directions for future research on the pedagogical impact of exam design.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10472-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Written examinations are commonly used to assess learning. Different resources made available during testing (closed-note, open-note, and cheat-sheet) may influence student learning. The effect of resource availability on long-term knowledge application is unknown. Understanding the effects of exam resource availability on long-term knowledge application is needed, as application is essential in applied fields such as Occupational Therapy. To explore differences in short-term knowledge retention (course one overall score, midterm exam, and final exam) and long-term knowledge application (course two summative assessment) among occupational therapy students who had different types of exam resource availability during course one (closed-note, open-note, cheat-sheet). Data were extracted from four consecutive cohorts (n = 73) as they completed two sequential occupational therapy courses. Exam resource availability was the independent variable (k = 3), with course one midterm and final exams and overall course grade, and course two summative assessment grade as dependent variables. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared differences across conditions. Concerning short-term retention, no significant differences were observed between groups for course one midterm exam grade or overall course one grade. Course one final exam grades were significantly higher in the cheat sheet condition compared to closed note (3.9%, p = .009). Concerning long-term application as measured by the course two summative assessment grade, the closed note condition scored significantly higher than open note (6.25%, p = .01). No other comparisons were significantly different. In this sample we observed a small difference in short-term knowledge retention in favor of a cheat sheet condition and moderate difference in long-term application in favor of a closed note condition. While results suggest possible differences in performance across exam conditions, findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the small, convenience-based sample. This exploratory analysis offers preliminary insights and identifies directions for future research on the pedagogical impact of exam design.

考试资源可用性与学生成绩:职业治疗学生的探索性分析。
笔试通常用于评估学习情况。测试期间提供的不同资源(封闭笔记、开放笔记和小抄)可能会影响学生的学习。资源可用性对长期知识应用的影响尚不清楚。了解考试资源可用性对知识长期应用的影响是必要的,因为应用在诸如职业治疗等应用领域是必不可少的。探讨具有不同类型考试资源(闭卷、开卷、小抄)的职业治疗学生在短期知识保留(课程一总分、期中和期末考试)和长期知识应用(课程二总结性评价)方面的差异。数据来自四个连续队列(n = 73),他们完成了两个顺序的职业治疗课程。考试资源可用性为自变量(k = 3),以课程一期中、期末考试及课程总体成绩、课程二总结性考核成绩为因变量。Kruskal-Wallis测试比较了不同条件下的差异。在短期记忆方面,两组在课程一期中考试成绩和课程一整体成绩上无显著差异。课程一期末考试成绩在小抄条件下明显高于封闭笔记(3.9%,p = 0.009)。对于长期应用,以课程二总结评估成绩衡量,封闭笔记条件得分显著高于开放笔记(6.25%,p = 0.01)。其他比较无显著差异。在这个样本中,我们观察到小抄条件下的短期知识保留有微小的差异,而封闭笔记条件下的长期应用有适度的差异。虽然结果表明不同考试条件下的表现可能存在差异,但由于样本小,基于便利性,研究结果应谨慎解释。这一探索性分析提供了初步的见解,并为未来研究考试设计的教学影响确定了方向。
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
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信