• 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

培训医学生创建和协作审查多项选择题:综合研讨会。

Training Medical Students to Create and Collaboratively Review Multiple-Choice Questions: A Comprehensive Workshop.

机构信息

Fourth-year medical student, University of Michigan Medical School.

Associate Director of Assessment and Evaluation, University of Michigan Medical School.

出版信息

MedEdPORTAL. 2020 Oct 6;16:10986. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10986.

DOI:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10986
PMID:33083537
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7549389/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Multiple-choice question (MCQ) creation is an infrequently used active-learning strategy. Previous studies demonstrated that medical students find value in the process, but have minimal training, which may limit potential learning benefits. We therefore developed a process for question-creation that required students to complete in-depth training, in addition to collaborative question-writing and editing.

METHODS

We created a question-writing workshop consisting of three components: (1) training in MCQ writing utilizing NBME online modules, a practice MCQ-writing session, and a training session, (2) writing MCQs independently after choosing topics from an institutionally generated blueprint, and (3) reviewing and editing MCQs via an in-person session. To understand students' perceptions, we held two four-student focus groups and recorded/transcribed the data. We iteratively reviewed the transcripts to generate a codebook and corresponding themes. We used the focus group data to generate a survey with Likert-scale questions, which we sent to the remaining 10 students and analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Eighteen second-year medical students participated in this workshop. Students perceived that question-writing training (3.7/5.0±0.5) and question writing (3.9/5.0±0.3) benefitted their learning. Students perceived that MCQ writing required concept integration (4.1/5.0±0.6). Students described how question writing allowed them to recognize subtle distinctions between therapies and diagnoses. Each MCQ required about 1.5 hours to write and collaboratively edit.

DISCUSSION

Our results demonstrated that students perceived question writing to benefit their learning. More importantly, students felt that question writing actively engaged them to integrate content and compare concepts; students' engagement suggests that they learned from this question-writing activity.

摘要

简介

多项选择题(MCQ)的创建是一种不常使用的主动学习策略。之前的研究表明,医学生在这个过程中发现了价值,但他们的培训很少,这可能限制了潜在的学习收益。因此,我们开发了一种问题创建的过程,要求学生完成深入的培训,除了协作问题写作和编辑。

方法

我们创建了一个问题写作研讨会,由三个部分组成:(1)使用 NBME 在线模块进行 MCQ 写作培训,进行一次实践 MCQ 写作会议,以及一次培训会议;(2)从机构生成的蓝图中选择主题后独立撰写 MCQ;(3)通过面对面会议审查和编辑 MCQ。为了了解学生的看法,我们举行了两次四人焦点小组会议,并记录/转录了数据。我们迭代地审查了转录本以生成代码本和相应的主题。我们使用焦点小组数据生成了一份带有李克特量表问题的调查,我们将其发送给其余的 10 名学生,并使用 Microsoft Excel 进行分析。

结果

18 名二年级医学生参加了这个研讨会。学生们认为问题写作培训(3.7/5.0±0.5)和问题写作(3.9/5.0±0.3)对他们的学习有益。学生们认为 MCQ 写作需要概念整合(4.1/5.0±0.6)。学生们描述了如何通过写作问题来帮助他们识别治疗方法和诊断之间的细微区别。每个 MCQ 大约需要 1.5 小时的时间来写作和协作编辑。

讨论

我们的结果表明,学生认为问题写作对他们的学习有益。更重要的是,学生们认为问题写作主动促使他们整合内容并比较概念;学生的参与表明他们从这项问题写作活动中学到了东西。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65fe/7549389/4303197aa567/mep_2374-8265.10986-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65fe/7549389/4303197aa567/mep_2374-8265.10986-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65fe/7549389/4303197aa567/mep_2374-8265.10986-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Training Medical Students to Create and Collaboratively Review Multiple-Choice Questions: A Comprehensive Workshop.培训医学生创建和协作审查多项选择题:综合研讨会。
MedEdPORTAL. 2020 Oct 6;16:10986. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10986.
2
Creating assessments as an active learning strategy: what are students' perceptions? A mixed methods study.创建评估作为一种主动学习策略:学生的看法是什么?一项混合方法研究。
Med Educ Online. 2019 Dec;24(1):1630239. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2019.1630239.
3
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.
4
Medical students create multiple-choice questions for learning in pathology education: a pilot study.医学生在病理学教育中创建多选题进行学习:一项试点研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Aug 22;18(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1312-1.
5
Medical school 2.0: How we developed a student-generated question bank using small group learning.医学院2.0:我们如何通过小组学习开发学生自主生成的题库。
Med Teach. 2015;37(10):892-6. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970624. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
6
Formative student-authored question bank: perceptions, question quality and association with summative performance.形成性学生自主命题题库:认知、问题质量与总结性表现的关联。
Postgrad Med J. 2018 Feb;94(1108):97-103. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135018. Epub 2017 Sep 2.
7
PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential.同伴互评与病理学:终止一项未发挥其潜力的教学创新。
MedEdPublish (2016). 2020 Oct 14;9:27. doi: 10.15694/mep.2020.000027.2. eCollection 2020.
8
Answering questions in a co-created formative exam question bank improves summative exam performance, while students perceive benefits from answering, authoring, and peer discussion: A mixed methods analysis of PeerWise.在共同创建的形成性考试题库中回答问题可以提高总结性考试成绩,而学生从回答、创作和同伴讨论中受益:PeerWise 的混合方法分析。
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2021 Aug;9(4):e00833. doi: 10.1002/prp2.833.
9
Question-Based Collaborative Learning for Constructive Curricular Alignment.基于问题的协作学习促进建设性课程对齐
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021 Jan 5;11:1047-1053. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S280972. eCollection 2020.
10
Does Educator Training or Experience Affect the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions?教育工作者的培训或经验会影响多项选择题的质量吗?
Acad Radiol. 2015 Oct;22(10):1317-22. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.06.012. Epub 2015 Aug 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Question-Based Collaborative Learning for Constructive Curricular Alignment.基于问题的协作学习促进建设性课程对齐
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021 Jan 5;11:1047-1053. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S280972. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

1
Creating assessments as an active learning strategy: what are students' perceptions? A mixed methods study.创建评估作为一种主动学习策略:学生的看法是什么?一项混合方法研究。
Med Educ Online. 2019 Dec;24(1):1630239. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2019.1630239.
2
Collaborative Learning Activity Utilizing Evidence-Based Medicine to Improve Medical Student Learning of the Lifestyle Management of Obesity.利用循证医学开展合作学习活动以提高医学生对肥胖症生活方式管理的学习效果
MedEdPORTAL. 2016 Jul 21;12:10426. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10426.
3
An Interactive Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Workshop for First-Year Medical Students.
面向一年级医学生的互动式质量改进与患者安全研讨会。
MedEdPORTAL. 2018 Aug 3;14:10734. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10734.
4
Medical students create multiple-choice questions for learning in pathology education: a pilot study.医学生在病理学教育中创建多选题进行学习:一项试点研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Aug 22;18(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1312-1.
5
Near-peer question writing and teaching programme.近同伴问题编写与教学计划。
Clin Teach. 2018 Oct;15(5):387-392. doi: 10.1111/tct.12704. Epub 2017 Oct 2.
6
Association Between Dental Student-Developed Exam Questions and Learning at Higher Cognitive Levels.牙科学生编写的考试题目与更高认知水平学习之间的关联
J Dent Educ. 2015 Nov;79(11):1295-304.
7
Student-written single-best answer questions predict performance in finals.学生编写的单项最佳答案问题可预测期末考试成绩。
Clin Teach. 2016 Oct;13(5):352-6. doi: 10.1111/tct.12445. Epub 2015 Oct 8.
8
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.
9
Medical school 2.0: How we developed a student-generated question bank using small group learning.医学院2.0:我们如何通过小组学习开发学生自主生成的题库。
Med Teach. 2015;37(10):892-6. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970624. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
10
Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87.为教育研究编制问卷:医学教育促进与发展协会指南第87号
Med Teach. 2014 Jun;36(6):463-74. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814. Epub 2014 Mar 24.