2006
DOI: 10.1080/01421590600877822
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Innovative learning: employing medical students to write formative assessments

Abstract: Peninsula Medical School, UK, employed six students to write MCQ items for a formative applied medical knowledge item bank. The students successfully generated 260 quality MCQs in their six-week contracted period. Informal feedback from students and two staff mentors suggests that the exercise provided a very effective learning environment and that students felt they were 'being paid to learn'. Further research is under way to track the progress of the students involved in the exercise, and to formally evaluat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“… no significant difference Survey (learning methods ranking) Both groups ranked learning methods similarly Australia Single group cross-sectional 5th year N = 53 Diverse Students were asked to rank their preferred learning methods before and after an activity in which they had to do research on a topic witha presentation and construct 3 MCQs for their peers to answer NR NR Students created good quality MCQs. Survey a significant difference for the MCQ as a learning exercise option (p = 0.04) but the ranking among other activities remains poor Chamberlain S et al 2006 [ 43 ] UK Single-group cross-sectional 1st year N = 3, 2nd year N = 3 Diverse After item-writing training Students worked singly or with peers to create (MCQs).students were getting paid to write MCQs Feedback on each option given. Type A NR Qualitative feedback Students reported that the method helped them to consolidate their knowledge and comprehension of the curriculum Gooi ACet al, 2014 [ 46 ] Canada Single-cross-sectional 1st year N = 113 Oto-laryngology First step: Introductory session to how to write a high quality MCQs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“… no significant difference Survey (learning methods ranking) Both groups ranked learning methods similarly Australia Single group cross-sectional 5th year N = 53 Diverse Students were asked to rank their preferred learning methods before and after an activity in which they had to do research on a topic witha presentation and construct 3 MCQs for their peers to answer NR NR Students created good quality MCQs. Survey a significant difference for the MCQ as a learning exercise option (p = 0.04) but the ranking among other activities remains poor Chamberlain S et al 2006 [ 43 ] UK Single-group cross-sectional 1st year N = 3, 2nd year N = 3 Diverse After item-writing training Students worked singly or with peers to create (MCQs).students were getting paid to write MCQs Feedback on each option given. Type A NR Qualitative feedback Students reported that the method helped them to consolidate their knowledge and comprehension of the curriculum Gooi ACet al, 2014 [ 46 ] Canada Single-cross-sectional 1st year N = 113 Oto-laryngology First step: Introductory session to how to write a high quality MCQs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, guiding students to write MCQs makes it possible to test higher-order skills as application and analysis besides recall and comprehension. Accordingly, in several studies, students were provided with instructions on how to write high-quality multiple-choice questions, resulting in high-quality student-generated MCQs [ 10 , 43–45 ]. Even so, such guidelines must take into account not making students’ job more challenging to maintain the process as pleasant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, we combined the pedagogical concepts that inform adult learning theory with the ideas that assessment should drive and sustain learning, by incorporating the requirement for medical students to write their own MCQs as a component of their assessment (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2015;Taylor & Hamdy, 2013). There is evidence that medical students can write high quality MCQs (Bottomley & Denny, 2011;Chamberlain et al, 2009;Galloway & Burns, 2015;Harris et al, 2015;Palmer & Devitt, 2007); that they find the process engaging and beneficial for learning and exam preparation (Craft et al 2017;Fellenz, 2004;Gonzales-Cabezas et al, 2015;Gooi & Sommerfeld, 2015;Jobs et al, 2013), and they have previously reported increased confidence and more reflective learning (Baerheim & Meland, 2003). These positive effects also appear to transfer to other forms of assessment (Yu Tsao Pan et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extended educational interventions in the area of item writing have been shown to improve written item quality with shorter interventions showing a similar impact 46. The literature suggests learners involved in item writing find it to be a positive learning experience that potentially improves performance on a summative assessment 710…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%