The impact of traditional versus hotspot-driven anatomy practical assessment on student cognitive processes

传统解剖学实践评估与热点驱动型评估对学生认知过程的影响

阅读:1

Abstract

Practical examinations are commonly implemented to assess student knowledge of human gross anatomy. The in-person timed cadaveric practical is a classic assessment tool; however, several new approaches, like online or oral practical assessments, have become increasingly popular in recent years due to time, space, and/or financial constraints. These formats assess working memory, and thus, cognitive functioning. Various tasks such as recognition and recall are employed in memory retrieval. At the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville (USCSOMG), we utilized two different practical formats to assess student memory of similar anatomy content: traditional in-person practical (IPP) and virtual hotspot practical (HSP). In the HSP exams, students selected a particular area of interest in an image based on a question prompt. During the same testing session, first-year medical students took HSP and IPP examinations covering comparable content at four distinct time points. Exam performance was consistently higher on HSP examinations compared to IPPs (mean HSPs 86.54% vs. IPPs 83.95% [p < 0.001]). However, IPP examinations were found to be significantly more discriminating (IPP items = 0.24 vs. HSP items = 0.20 [p = 0.01]) and reliable (IPP = 0.79 vs. HSP = 0.52 [p < 0.001]) at distinguishing strong students from weak students. These differences likely stem from the varying cognitive demands: IPPs emphasize recall, considered more challenging than recognition tasks central to HSPs. Based on these results, we recommend that instructors carefully consider the intended cognitive process assessment when selecting the format of anatomy practicals.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。