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。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Stephen D Schneid, Chris Armour, Katharina Brandl
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在本研究中,我们考察了在药理学课程中使用a型选择题(mcq)给选定的答案分配部分学分对学生表现和认知的影响。方法:在为期10周的药理学学士学位后医学预科学生的小测验和考试中引入部分学分评分。根据每个选项与最佳答案的接近程度,使用预定的权重对选定的A型mcq进行评分。学生们选择了一个最佳答案,保持了传统的MCQ格式。我们回顾性地重新计算分数,使用传统的二分评分进行比较。在课程结束时,学生们被问到:“在多项选择题上提供部分学分对你的学习有积极的影响吗?”使用基于理论的方法分析回复,并将评论分组为主题类别。结果:105例A型mcq中,31例(30%)获得部分学分。这些项目的平均百分比得分(86.1%,标准差= 5.7%)显著高于传统评分(76.5%,标准差= 9.1%;结论:mcq的部分学分评分提高了学生的表现,并有助于更令人鼓舞的评估体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
6.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
419
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
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