降低风险:对公共卫生研究方法研究生课程中重新调整的评分方法进行准实验、混合方法评估

IF 1.1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Delia L. Lang, Caroline M. Barry, U. Ibragimov, Juan L. Rodriguez, Elizabeth Reisinger Walker
{"title":"降低风险:对公共卫生研究方法研究生课程中重新调整的评分方法进行准实验、混合方法评估","authors":"Delia L. Lang, Caroline M. Barry, U. Ibragimov, Juan L. Rodriguez, Elizabeth Reisinger Walker","doi":"10.1177/23733799241263025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In schools and programs of public health, active learning and restructured feedback strategies may improve student learning and course performance compared to traditional lecture-based formats and grading systems. To promote student engagement and active learning, we implemented the team-based learning (TBL) model and a restructured grading approach based on principles of “ungrading” in the required behavioral research methods course of a master’s level public health curriculum. We conducted a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of restructured grading approach (two sections, n = 46) compared to the traditional grading approach (two sections, n = 34). For the restructured grading sections, numeric grades were removed for weekly team quizzes and team assignments. We administered and analyzed pre- and post-course surveys to compare perceived mastery of course learning objectives, intrinsic motivation, and perceptions of grading and instructor feedback by grading approach. Additionally, we compared course grades and final paper grades by grading approach and conducted two focus groups (one for each approach). The results indicate that students’ learning, satisfaction, and perceptions of the course were mainly equivalent across grading approaches. Students in the restructured grading sections demonstrated a few modestly improved outcomes compared to their peers in the traditional grading courses. Students in the restructured grading sections had slightly higher mean course grades, reported greater increase in confidence to critically evaluate research designs, and found team quizzes to be more helpful. Removing grades for team quizzes and assignments supported student learning and reduced student stress.","PeriodicalId":29769,"journal":{"name":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lowering the Stakes: Quasi-Experimental, Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Restructured Grading Approach in a Graduate Public Health Research Methods Course\",\"authors\":\"Delia L. Lang, Caroline M. Barry, U. Ibragimov, Juan L. Rodriguez, Elizabeth Reisinger Walker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23733799241263025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In schools and programs of public health, active learning and restructured feedback strategies may improve student learning and course performance compared to traditional lecture-based formats and grading systems. To promote student engagement and active learning, we implemented the team-based learning (TBL) model and a restructured grading approach based on principles of “ungrading” in the required behavioral research methods course of a master’s level public health curriculum. We conducted a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of restructured grading approach (two sections, n = 46) compared to the traditional grading approach (two sections, n = 34). For the restructured grading sections, numeric grades were removed for weekly team quizzes and team assignments. We administered and analyzed pre- and post-course surveys to compare perceived mastery of course learning objectives, intrinsic motivation, and perceptions of grading and instructor feedback by grading approach. Additionally, we compared course grades and final paper grades by grading approach and conducted two focus groups (one for each approach). The results indicate that students’ learning, satisfaction, and perceptions of the course were mainly equivalent across grading approaches. Students in the restructured grading sections demonstrated a few modestly improved outcomes compared to their peers in the traditional grading courses. Students in the restructured grading sections had slightly higher mean course grades, reported greater increase in confidence to critically evaluate research designs, and found team quizzes to be more helpful. Removing grades for team quizzes and assignments supported student learning and reduced student stress.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pedagogy in Health Promotion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pedagogy in Health Promotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799241263025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pedagogy in Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799241263025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在公共卫生学校和课程中,与传统的讲授形式和评分系统相比,主动学习和重组反馈策略可以提高学生的学习效果和课程成绩。为了促进学生的参与和主动学习,我们在公共卫生硕士课程的行为研究方法必修课程中实施了基于团队的学习(TBL)模式和基于 "取消评分 "原则的重组评分方法。与传统的评分方法(两节,人数=46)相比,我们对重组评分方法(两节,人数=34)的实施情况进行了准实验性的混合方法评估。在重构评分法中,每周的团队测验和团队作业取消了数字评分。我们对课前和课后调查进行了管理和分析,以比较不同评分方法对课程学习目标的掌握程度、内在动力以及对评分和教师反馈的看法。此外,我们还比较了不同评分方法下的课程成绩和期末试卷成绩,并开展了两个焦点小组讨论(每种方法各一个)。结果表明,在不同的评分方法下,学生的学习效果、满意度和对课程的看法基本相同。与传统评分法课程的学生相比,重组评分法课程的学生成绩略有提高。调整后评分部分的学生的平均课程成绩略高,他们表示批判性评估研究设计的信心有了更大的提高,并认为团队测验更有帮助。取消团队测验和作业的成绩有助于学生的学习,并减轻了学生的压力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lowering the Stakes: Quasi-Experimental, Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Restructured Grading Approach in a Graduate Public Health Research Methods Course
In schools and programs of public health, active learning and restructured feedback strategies may improve student learning and course performance compared to traditional lecture-based formats and grading systems. To promote student engagement and active learning, we implemented the team-based learning (TBL) model and a restructured grading approach based on principles of “ungrading” in the required behavioral research methods course of a master’s level public health curriculum. We conducted a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of restructured grading approach (two sections, n = 46) compared to the traditional grading approach (two sections, n = 34). For the restructured grading sections, numeric grades were removed for weekly team quizzes and team assignments. We administered and analyzed pre- and post-course surveys to compare perceived mastery of course learning objectives, intrinsic motivation, and perceptions of grading and instructor feedback by grading approach. Additionally, we compared course grades and final paper grades by grading approach and conducted two focus groups (one for each approach). The results indicate that students’ learning, satisfaction, and perceptions of the course were mainly equivalent across grading approaches. Students in the restructured grading sections demonstrated a few modestly improved outcomes compared to their peers in the traditional grading courses. Students in the restructured grading sections had slightly higher mean course grades, reported greater increase in confidence to critically evaluate research designs, and found team quizzes to be more helpful. Removing grades for team quizzes and assignments supported student learning and reduced student stress.
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
3.10
自引率
33.30%
发文量
0
×
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