{"title":"超越对错:多项选择题的部分学分评分如何提高学生的表现和对评估的看法。","authors":"Stephen D Schneid, Chris Armour, Katharina Brandl","doi":"10.1002/bcp.70127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>In this study, we examined the effects of assigning partial credit to selected answer choices on student performance and perceptions in a pharmacology course using Type A multiple-choice questions (MCQs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Partial credit scoring was incorporated into quizzes and exams in a 10-week pharmacology course for postbaccalaureate premedical students (n = 27). Selected Type A MCQs were scored using predetermined weights based on the proximity of each option to the best answer. Students selected a single best answer, maintaining the traditional MCQ format. We retrospectively recalculated scores using a conventional dichotomous grading for comparison. At the end of the course, students were asked, \"Did providing partial credit on multiple-choice questions impact your learning in a positive way?\" Responses were analysed using a grounded theory-based approach, with comments grouped into thematic categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 105 Type A MCQs administered, 31 (30%) were awarded partial credit. The average percentage score on these items was significantly higher with partial credit (86.1%, standard deviation = 5.7%) compared to conventional scoring (76.5%, standard deviation = 9.1%; paired Student t-test, P < .0001). Students with lower performance showed greater score increases compared to high performing students. Qualitative analysis of student reflections provided insights into their experiences with partial scoring. Nine themes emerged from their responses including recognition of effort, reduced pressure, increased confidence and motivation to learn from mistakes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Partial credit scoring on MCQs improved student performance and contributed to a more encouraging assessment experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond right or wrong: How partial credit scoring on multiple-choice questions improves student performance and assessment perceptions.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen D Schneid, Chris Armour, Katharina Brandl\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bcp.70127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>In this study, we examined the effects of assigning partial credit to selected answer choices on student performance and perceptions in a pharmacology course using Type A multiple-choice questions (MCQs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Partial credit scoring was incorporated into quizzes and exams in a 10-week pharmacology course for postbaccalaureate premedical students (n = 27). Selected Type A MCQs were scored using predetermined weights based on the proximity of each option to the best answer. Students selected a single best answer, maintaining the traditional MCQ format. We retrospectively recalculated scores using a conventional dichotomous grading for comparison. At the end of the course, students were asked, \\\"Did providing partial credit on multiple-choice questions impact your learning in a positive way?\\\" Responses were analysed using a grounded theory-based approach, with comments grouped into thematic categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 105 Type A MCQs administered, 31 (30%) were awarded partial credit. The average percentage score on these items was significantly higher with partial credit (86.1%, standard deviation = 5.7%) compared to conventional scoring (76.5%, standard deviation = 9.1%; paired Student t-test, P < .0001). Students with lower performance showed greater score increases compared to high performing students. Qualitative analysis of student reflections provided insights into their experiences with partial scoring. Nine themes emerged from their responses including recognition of effort, reduced pressure, increased confidence and motivation to learn from mistakes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Partial credit scoring on MCQs improved student performance and contributed to a more encouraging assessment experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70127\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70127","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Beyond right or wrong: How partial credit scoring on multiple-choice questions improves student performance and assessment perceptions.
Aims: In this study, we examined the effects of assigning partial credit to selected answer choices on student performance and perceptions in a pharmacology course using Type A multiple-choice questions (MCQs).
Methods: Partial credit scoring was incorporated into quizzes and exams in a 10-week pharmacology course for postbaccalaureate premedical students (n = 27). Selected Type A MCQs were scored using predetermined weights based on the proximity of each option to the best answer. Students selected a single best answer, maintaining the traditional MCQ format. We retrospectively recalculated scores using a conventional dichotomous grading for comparison. At the end of the course, students were asked, "Did providing partial credit on multiple-choice questions impact your learning in a positive way?" Responses were analysed using a grounded theory-based approach, with comments grouped into thematic categories.
Results: Of the 105 Type A MCQs administered, 31 (30%) were awarded partial credit. The average percentage score on these items was significantly higher with partial credit (86.1%, standard deviation = 5.7%) compared to conventional scoring (76.5%, standard deviation = 9.1%; paired Student t-test, P < .0001). Students with lower performance showed greater score increases compared to high performing students. Qualitative analysis of student reflections provided insights into their experiences with partial scoring. Nine themes emerged from their responses including recognition of effort, reduced pressure, increased confidence and motivation to learn from mistakes.
Conclusions: Partial credit scoring on MCQs improved student performance and contributed to a more encouraging assessment experience.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.