• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

克服陷阱:笔试强制同行评审过程的结果

Overcoming pitfalls: Results from a mandatory peer review process for written examinations.

作者信息

Wilby Kyle John, El Hajj Maguy S, El-Bashir Marwa, Mraiche Fatima

机构信息

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, PO Box 2713, Doha, Qatar.

出版信息

Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Apr;10(4):423-426. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.12.015. Epub 2018 Jan 17.

DOI:10.1016/j.cptl.2017.12.015
PMID:29793702
Abstract

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Written assessments are essential components of higher education practices. However, faculty members encounter common pitfalls when designing questions intended to evaluate student-learning outcomes. The objective of this project was to determine the impact of a mandatory examination peer review process on question accuracy, alignment with learning objectives, use of best practices in question design, and language/grammar.

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT METHODS

A mandatory peer review process was implemented for all midterm (before phase) and final (after phase) examinations. Peer review occurred by two reviewers and followed a pre-defined guidance document. Non-punitive feedback given to faculty members served as the intervention. Frequencies of flagged questions according to guidance categories were compared between phases.

RESULTS OF CQI INQUIRY

A total of 21 midterm and 21 final exam reviews were included in the analysis. A total of 637 questions were reviewed across all midterms and 1003 questions were reviewed across all finals. Few questions were flagged for accuracy and alignment with learning outcomes. The median total proportion of questions flagged for best practices was significantly lower for final exams versus midterm exams (15.8 vs. 6.45%, p = 0.014). The intervention did not influence language and grammar errors (9.68 vs. 10.0% of questions flagged before and after, respectively, p = 0.305).

CONCLUSIONS

A non-punitive peer review process for written examinations can overcome pitfalls in exam creation and improve best practices in question writing. The peer-review process had a substantial effect at flagging language/grammar errors but error rate did not differ between midterm and final exams.

摘要

问题描述

书面评估是高等教育实践的重要组成部分。然而,教师在设计旨在评估学生学习成果的问题时会遇到常见的陷阱。本项目的目的是确定强制性考试同行评审过程对问题准确性、与学习目标的一致性、问题设计中最佳实践的运用以及语言/语法的影响。

质量改进方法

对所有期中考试(阶段前)和期末考试(阶段后)实施了强制性同行评审过程。由两名评审员进行同行评审,并遵循一份预先定义的指导文件。向教师提供的非惩罚性反馈作为干预措施。比较各阶段根据指导类别标记的问题频率。

持续质量改进调查结果

分析共纳入21次期中考试和21次期末考试的评审。所有期中考试共评审了637个问题,所有期末考试共评审了1003个问题。很少有问题因准确性和与学习成果的一致性而被标记。期末考试中因最佳实践被标记问题的总比例中位数显著低于期中考试(15.8%对6.45%,p = 0.014)。干预措施对语言和语法错误没有影响(前后分别有9.68%和10.0%的问题被标记,p = 0.305)。

结论

书面考试的非惩罚性同行评审过程可以克服考试命题中的陷阱,并改进问题编写中的最佳实践。同行评审过程在标记语言/语法错误方面有显著效果,但期中考试和期末考试的错误率没有差异。

相似文献

1
Overcoming pitfalls: Results from a mandatory peer review process for written examinations.克服陷阱:笔试强制同行评审过程的结果
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Apr;10(4):423-426. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.12.015. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
2
How-to-guide for writing multiple choice questions for the pharmacy instructor.给药学教师的多项选择题编写指南
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017 Jan-Feb;9(1):137-144. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.036. Epub 2016 Oct 28.
3
More than I expected: Reflections on being observed and reviewed as a pharmacy teacher.超出我的预期:作为一名药学教师被观察和评估后的反思
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Jun;10(6):803-806. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.005. Epub 2018 Apr 7.
4
Best Practices on Examination Construction, Administration, and Feedback.最佳考试设计、管理和反馈实践。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2018 Dec;82(10):7066. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7066.
5
Evaluation of a peer- and self-grading process for clinical writing assignments.临床写作作业的同伴评分与自我评分过程评估
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019 Oct;11(10):979-986. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.06.003. Epub 2019 Jul 24.
6
Should multiple-choice questions get the SAQ? Development of a short-answer question writing rubric.多选题应纳入 SAQ 吗?短答题写作评分标准的制定。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2022 May;14(5):591-596. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2022.04.004. Epub 2022 May 7.
7
Inter-Rater Reliability of Web-Based Calibrated Peer Review within a Pharmacy Curriculum.基于网络的药学课程中经过校准的同伴互评的评分者间信度。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2020 Apr;84(4):7583. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7583.
8
Peer review improves psychometric characteristics of multiple choice questions.同行评审可提高多选题的心理测量学特征。
Med Teach. 2017 Apr;39(sup1):S50-S54. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1254743. Epub 2017 Jan 20.
9
A novel student-led approach to multiple-choice question generation and online database creation, with targeted clinician input.一种由学生主导的新颖方法,用于生成多项选择题并创建在线数据库,同时有针对性地征求临床医生的意见。
Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(2):182-8. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2015.1011651.
10
Assessing a traditional case-based application exercise and a student question creation exercise on student performance and perceptions.评估一个基于案例的传统应用练习以及一个学生问题创建练习对学生表现和认知的影响。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017 Jul;9(4):689-697. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 May 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Differences in medical student performance on examinations: exploring score variance between Kolb's Learning Style Inventory classifications.医学生考试成绩差异:探索柯尔布学习风格量表分类之间的分数差异。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Nov 11;20(1):423. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02353-5.