非监考总结评估与心理健康困难之间的感知联系:一项横断面研究。

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS
Amanda Graf, Esther Adama, Ebenezer Afrifa-Yamoah, Kwadwo Adusei-Asante
{"title":"非监考总结评估与心理健康困难之间的感知联系:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Amanda Graf,&nbsp;Esther Adama,&nbsp;Ebenezer Afrifa-Yamoah,&nbsp;Kwadwo Adusei-Asante","doi":"10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly led to changes in the mode of teaching, learning and assessments in most tertiary institutions worldwide. Notably, non-invigilated summative assessments became predominant. These changes heightened anxiety and depression, especially among individuals with less resilient coping mechanism. We explored the perceptions and experiences of mental health difficulties of students in tertiary education regarding non-invigilated alternative assessments in comparison to invigilated assessments. A pragmatic, mixed method cross sectional design was conducted online via Qualtrics. Thematic analysis of text was carried out using NVivo 12. In the quantitative analysis, univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic models were used to examine the potential factors for preference among students in higher education. A total of 380 Nursing and Social Science students responded to the survey. Approximately 77% of students perceived non-invigilated assessments to be less stressful compared to invigilated exams. Age, course of study, stage of studies, and number of units enrolled per semester were identified as significant drivers for students' perceived preference for non-invigilated assessments. There was an inverse relationship between the perception of stress associated with invigilated exams and the age of students. For instance, students aged between 18-24 were 5 times more likely to prefer non-invigilated exams compared to those aged 55 or more. Comparatively, students in early stages of studies had higher preference for non-invigilated assessments. However, there was a preference reversal for students enrolled in 2 or less units per semester. Social sciences students were two times more likely to prefer non-invigilated examinations to invigilated examinations compared to nursing students. The findings reinforce the use of alternative assessments in higher education as a mitigating agency to lessen the mental health burden of tertiary students in post COVID-19 era.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10063941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceived Nexus Between Non-Invigilated Summative Assessment and Mental Health Difficulties: A Cross Sectional Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Graf,&nbsp;Esther Adama,&nbsp;Ebenezer Afrifa-Yamoah,&nbsp;Kwadwo Adusei-Asante\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly led to changes in the mode of teaching, learning and assessments in most tertiary institutions worldwide. Notably, non-invigilated summative assessments became predominant. These changes heightened anxiety and depression, especially among individuals with less resilient coping mechanism. We explored the perceptions and experiences of mental health difficulties of students in tertiary education regarding non-invigilated alternative assessments in comparison to invigilated assessments. A pragmatic, mixed method cross sectional design was conducted online via Qualtrics. Thematic analysis of text was carried out using NVivo 12. In the quantitative analysis, univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic models were used to examine the potential factors for preference among students in higher education. A total of 380 Nursing and Social Science students responded to the survey. Approximately 77% of students perceived non-invigilated assessments to be less stressful compared to invigilated exams. Age, course of study, stage of studies, and number of units enrolled per semester were identified as significant drivers for students' perceived preference for non-invigilated assessments. There was an inverse relationship between the perception of stress associated with invigilated exams and the age of students. For instance, students aged between 18-24 were 5 times more likely to prefer non-invigilated exams compared to those aged 55 or more. Comparatively, students in early stages of studies had higher preference for non-invigilated assessments. However, there was a preference reversal for students enrolled in 2 or less units per semester. Social sciences students were two times more likely to prefer non-invigilated examinations to invigilated examinations compared to nursing students. The findings reinforce the use of alternative assessments in higher education as a mitigating agency to lessen the mental health burden of tertiary students in post COVID-19 era.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10063941/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新冠肺炎疫情迅速导致全球大多数高等院校的教学、学习和评估模式发生变化。值得注意的是,非监考的总结性评估占主导地位。这些变化加剧了焦虑和抑郁,尤其是在应对机制不太灵活的人中。与监考评估相比,我们探讨了高等教育学生对非监考替代评估的心理健康困难的看法和经历。通过Qualtrics在线进行了实用的混合方法横截面设计。使用NVivo 12对文本进行了专题分析。在定量分析中,使用单变量和多变量有序逻辑模型来检验高等教育学生偏好的潜在因素。共有380名护理和社会科学专业的学生对调查做出了回应。大约77%的学生认为,与监考相比,非监考评估的压力较小。年龄、学习课程、学习阶段和每学期注册的单元数量被认为是学生对非监考评估偏好的重要驱动因素。与监考相关的压力感知与学生年龄之间存在反比关系。例如,18-24岁的学生更喜欢非监考考试的可能性是55岁或55岁以上学生的5倍。相比之下,处于学习早期阶段的学生更喜欢非监考评估。然而,对每学期就读2个或更少单元的学生的偏好发生了逆转。与护理专业的学生相比,社会科学专业的学生更喜欢非监考考试而不是监考考试的可能性高出两倍。研究结果加强了在高等教育中使用替代评估作为缓解机构,以减轻后新冠肺炎时代大学生的心理健康负担。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,网址为10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceived Nexus Between Non-Invigilated Summative Assessment and Mental Health Difficulties: A Cross Sectional Studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly led to changes in the mode of teaching, learning and assessments in most tertiary institutions worldwide. Notably, non-invigilated summative assessments became predominant. These changes heightened anxiety and depression, especially among individuals with less resilient coping mechanism. We explored the perceptions and experiences of mental health difficulties of students in tertiary education regarding non-invigilated alternative assessments in comparison to invigilated assessments. A pragmatic, mixed method cross sectional design was conducted online via Qualtrics. Thematic analysis of text was carried out using NVivo 12. In the quantitative analysis, univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic models were used to examine the potential factors for preference among students in higher education. A total of 380 Nursing and Social Science students responded to the survey. Approximately 77% of students perceived non-invigilated assessments to be less stressful compared to invigilated exams. Age, course of study, stage of studies, and number of units enrolled per semester were identified as significant drivers for students' perceived preference for non-invigilated assessments. There was an inverse relationship between the perception of stress associated with invigilated exams and the age of students. For instance, students aged between 18-24 were 5 times more likely to prefer non-invigilated exams compared to those aged 55 or more. Comparatively, students in early stages of studies had higher preference for non-invigilated assessments. However, there was a preference reversal for students enrolled in 2 or less units per semester. Social sciences students were two times more likely to prefer non-invigilated examinations to invigilated examinations compared to nursing students. The findings reinforce the use of alternative assessments in higher education as a mitigating agency to lessen the mental health burden of tertiary students in post COVID-19 era.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-023-09472-w.

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
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
×
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