Two-stage Examinations in STEM: A Narrative Literature Review

Q3 Social Sciences
T. R. Lee, M. Pye, O. Lilje, Hong Dao Nguyen, Samantha Hockey, M. de Bruyn, Francesca Trudy Van den Berg
{"title":"Two-stage Examinations in STEM: A Narrative Literature Review","authors":"T. R. Lee, M. Pye, O. Lilje, Hong Dao Nguyen, Samantha Hockey, M. de Bruyn, Francesca Trudy Van den Berg","doi":"10.30722/ijisme.30.05.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":" \nWritten, invigilated examinations are valued for their reliability, economy and academic integrity. Nevertheless, examinations are problematic. Final, summative examinations can disadvantage students who experience assessment anxiety, and students may not receive useable feedback. An alternative is the two-stage examination, where a traditional examination is followed by a group examination with similar questions. Students gain peer feedback on their examination performance, and can meaningfully apply this feedback. Use of this format in tertiary STEM education in universities has indicated that students prefer the format, although it has been little studied in Australia. Furthermore, its effects on reducing stress and fostering deeper learning are not well understood. The COVID-19 pandemic and switch to online learning has provided us with an opportunity to review our assessment practices and has led to a new willingness to test different examination formats. Here we provide a narrative review of the results of previous studies on two-stage examinations and, based on this and our experience teaching in large-cohort introductory biology courses at an Australian university, we propose a formula for employing them in this context.","PeriodicalId":39044,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30722/ijisme.30.05.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

  Written, invigilated examinations are valued for their reliability, economy and academic integrity. Nevertheless, examinations are problematic. Final, summative examinations can disadvantage students who experience assessment anxiety, and students may not receive useable feedback. An alternative is the two-stage examination, where a traditional examination is followed by a group examination with similar questions. Students gain peer feedback on their examination performance, and can meaningfully apply this feedback. Use of this format in tertiary STEM education in universities has indicated that students prefer the format, although it has been little studied in Australia. Furthermore, its effects on reducing stress and fostering deeper learning are not well understood. The COVID-19 pandemic and switch to online learning has provided us with an opportunity to review our assessment practices and has led to a new willingness to test different examination formats. Here we provide a narrative review of the results of previous studies on two-stage examinations and, based on this and our experience teaching in large-cohort introductory biology courses at an Australian university, we propose a formula for employing them in this context.
STEM的两阶段考试:叙述文献综述
笔试、监考考试因其可靠性、经济性和学术完整性而受到重视。然而,考试是有问题的。最后,总结性考试可能不利于那些经历评估焦虑的学生,学生可能得不到有用的反馈。另一种选择是两阶段考试,即传统考试之后是带有类似问题的小组考试。学生可以获得同伴对他们考试成绩的反馈,并且可以有意义地应用这些反馈。在大学的高等STEM教育中使用这种形式表明学生更喜欢这种形式,尽管澳大利亚对这种形式的研究很少。此外,它在减轻压力和促进深度学习方面的作用还没有得到很好的理解。2019冠状病毒病大流行和转向在线学习为我们提供了审查评估实践的机会,并使我们有了新的意愿来测试不同的考试形式。在此,我们对以往关于两阶段考试的研究结果进行了叙述性回顾,并基于此以及我们在澳大利亚一所大学教授大型队列生物学入门课程的经验,我们提出了在这种情况下使用两阶段考试的公式。
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信