基于团队学习课程中答案直至正确评估与满分评估的比较。

Comparison of answer-until-correct and full-credit assessments in a team-based learning course.

作者信息

Farland Michelle Z, Barlow Patrick B, Levi Lancaster T, Franks Andrea S

机构信息

University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida.

The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.

出版信息

Am J Pharm Educ. 2015 Mar 25;79(2):21. doi: 10.5688/ajpe79221.

DOI:10.5688/ajpe79221

PMID:25861102

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4386742/

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of awarding partial credit to team assessments on team performance and on quality of team interactions using an answer-until-correct method compared to traditional methods of grading (multiple-choice, full-credit).

METHODS

Subjects were students from 3 different offerings of an ambulatory care elective course, taught using team-based learning. The control group (full-credit) consisted of those enrolled in the course when traditional methods of assessment were used (2 course offerings). The intervention group consisted of those enrolled in the course when answer-until-correct method was used for team assessments (1 course offering). Study outcomes included student performance on individual and team readiness assurance tests (iRATs and tRATs), individual and team final examinations, and student assessment of quality of team interactions using the Team Performance Scale.

RESULTS

Eighty-four students enrolled in the courses were included in the analysis (full-credit, n=54; answer-until-correct, n=30). Students who used traditional methods of assessment performed better on iRATs (full-credit mean 88.7 (5.9), answer-until-correct mean 82.8 (10.7), p<0.001). Students who used answer-until-correct method of assessment performed better on the team final examination (full-credit mean 45.8 (1.5), answer-until-correct 47.8 (1.4), p<0.001). There was no significant difference in performance on tRATs and the individual final examination. Students who used the answer-until-correct method had higher quality of team interaction ratings (full-credit 97.1 (9.1), answer-until-correct 103.0 (7.8), p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Answer-until-correct assessment method compared to traditional, full-credit methods resulted in significantly lower scores for iRATs, similar scores on tRATs and individual final examinations, improved scores on team final examinations, and improved perceptions of the quality of team interactions.

摘要

目的

与传统评分方法（多项选择题、全分制）相比，评估采用“直至答对计分法”对团队评估给予部分分数对团队表现和团队互动质量的影响。

方法

受试者为参加过3次门诊护理选修课程的学生，课程采用基于团队的学习方式授课。对照组（全分制）由采用传统评估方法时选修该课程的学生组成（2次课程）。干预组由采用“直至答对计分法”进行团队评估时选修该课程的学生组成（1次课程）。研究结果包括学生在个人和团队准备情况保证测试（iRATs和tRATs）、个人和团队期末考试中的表现，以及学生使用团队表现量表对团队互动质量的评估。

结果

分析纳入了选修这些课程的84名学生（全分制，n = 54；直至答对计分法，n = 30）。采用传统评估方法的学生在iRATs上表现更好（全分制平均88.7（5.9），直至答对计分法平均82.8（10.7），p<0.001）。采用“直至答对计分法”评估的学生在团队期末考试中表现更好（全分制平均45.8（1.5），直至答对计分法47.8（1.4），p<0.001）。在tRATs和个人期末考试中的表现没有显著差异。采用“直至答对计分法”的学生团队互动评分质量更高（全分制97.1（9.1），直至答对计分法103.0（7.8），p = 0.004）。