多样化的实验评估模式扩大了生命科学学生对实践能力的参与。

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1152/advan.00257.2023
Bernard T Drumm, Ronan Bree, Caoimhin S Griffin, Niall O'Leary
{"title":"多样化的实验评估模式扩大了生命科学学生对实践能力的参与。","authors":"Bernard T Drumm, Ronan Bree, Caoimhin S Griffin, Niall O'Leary","doi":"10.1152/advan.00257.2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laboratory practicals in life science subjects are traditionally assessed by written reports that reflect disciplinary norms for documenting experimental activities. However, the exclusive application of this assessment has the potential to engage only a narrow range of competencies. In this study, we explored how multiple modes of laboratory assessment might affect student perceptions of learned skills in a life science module. We hypothesized that while a mixture of assessments may not impact student summative performance, it might positively influence student perceptions of different skills that varied assessments allowed them to practice. This was informed by universal design for learning and teaching for understanding frameworks. In our study, in a third-year Bioscience program, written reports were complemented with group presentations and online quizzes via Moodle. Anonymous surveys evaluated whether this expanded portfolio of assessments promoted awareness of, and engagement with, a broader range of practical competencies. Aspects that influenced student preferences in assessment mode included time limitations, time investment, ability to practice new skills, links with lecture material, and experience of assessment anxiety. In particular, presentations were highlighted as promoting collaboration and communication and the quiz as an effective means of diversifying assessment schedules. A key takeaway from students was that while reports were important, an overreliance on them was detrimental. This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversifying laboratory assessment modes broadens engagement with practical competencies in life science students.\",\"authors\":\"Bernard T Drumm, Ronan Bree, Caoimhin S Griffin, Niall O'Leary\",\"doi\":\"10.1152/advan.00257.2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Laboratory practicals in life science subjects are traditionally assessed by written reports that reflect disciplinary norms for documenting experimental activities. However, the exclusive application of this assessment has the potential to engage only a narrow range of competencies. In this study, we explored how multiple modes of laboratory assessment might affect student perceptions of learned skills in a life science module. We hypothesized that while a mixture of assessments may not impact student summative performance, it might positively influence student perceptions of different skills that varied assessments allowed them to practice. This was informed by universal design for learning and teaching for understanding frameworks. In our study, in a third-year Bioscience program, written reports were complemented with group presentations and online quizzes via Moodle. Anonymous surveys evaluated whether this expanded portfolio of assessments promoted awareness of, and engagement with, a broader range of practical competencies. Aspects that influenced student preferences in assessment mode included time limitations, time investment, ability to practice new skills, links with lecture material, and experience of assessment anxiety. In particular, presentations were highlighted as promoting collaboration and communication and the quiz as an effective means of diversifying assessment schedules. A key takeaway from students was that while reports were important, an overreliance on them was detrimental. This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00257.2023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00257.2023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生命科学学科的实验室实践活动传统上以书面报告的形式进行评估,反映了记录实验活动的学科规范。然而,只采用这种评估方式有可能只涉及狭窄的能力范围。在本研究中,我们探讨了多种实验评估模式会如何影响学生对生命科学模块所学技能的看法。我们假设,虽然混合评估可能不会影响学生的终结性成绩,但它可能会积极影响学生对不同技能的看法,因为不同的评估可以让他们练习不同的技能。这一点参考了通用学习设计(UDL)和理解教学(TfU)框架。在我们的研究中,在生物科学三年级课程中,书面报告与小组展示和通过 Moodle 进行的在线测验相辅相成。匿名调查评估了这种扩展的评估组合是否促进了对更广泛的实践能力的认识和参与。影响学生对评估模式偏好的因素包括时间限制、时间投入、练习新技能的能力、与授课材料的联系以及评估焦虑体验。特别强调的是,演讲可以促进合作与交流,而测验则是使评估时间安排多样化的有效手段。学生们得出的一个重要结论是,虽然报告很重要,但过度依赖报告是有害的。这项研究表明,生命科学本科生可以从全面的评估策略中获益匪浅,这种策略是对报告的补充,采用基于表现的方法,将更广泛的能力纳入其中,并允许学生在本科模块中更多地参与和表达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diversifying laboratory assessment modes broadens engagement with practical competencies in life science students.

Laboratory practicals in life science subjects are traditionally assessed by written reports that reflect disciplinary norms for documenting experimental activities. However, the exclusive application of this assessment has the potential to engage only a narrow range of competencies. In this study, we explored how multiple modes of laboratory assessment might affect student perceptions of learned skills in a life science module. We hypothesized that while a mixture of assessments may not impact student summative performance, it might positively influence student perceptions of different skills that varied assessments allowed them to practice. This was informed by universal design for learning and teaching for understanding frameworks. In our study, in a third-year Bioscience program, written reports were complemented with group presentations and online quizzes via Moodle. Anonymous surveys evaluated whether this expanded portfolio of assessments promoted awareness of, and engagement with, a broader range of practical competencies. Aspects that influenced student preferences in assessment mode included time limitations, time investment, ability to practice new skills, links with lecture material, and experience of assessment anxiety. In particular, presentations were highlighted as promoting collaboration and communication and the quiz as an effective means of diversifying assessment schedules. A key takeaway from students was that while reports were important, an overreliance on them was detrimental. This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study suggests that undergraduate life science students can benefit significantly from a holistic assessment strategy that complements reports with performance-based approaches that incorporate broader competencies and allow for greater student engagement and expression in undergraduate modules.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
×
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