Question-writing as a learning tool for students – outcomes from curricular exams

BMC Medical Education

Gunther Weitz⁴  Hendrik Lehnert¹  Hendrik Bonnemeier²  Anna Göbel⁴  Christoph Twesten¹  Alexander Jobs³ 

[1] Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany;Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Kiel, 24105, Germany;Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany;Medical Section, University of Lübeck, Hs. 23A, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany

关键词: Internal medicine;    Learning behavior;    Curricular exams;    Multiple choice questions;    Question-writing;   

Others  :  1138875
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-89

 received in 2012-08-12, accepted in 2013-06-14,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Writing exam questions can be a valuable learning tool. We asked students to construct multiple choice questions for curricular exams in Internal Medicine. The questions for the particular exams were chosen from a pool of at least 300 student-written questions. The uncorrected pool was accessible to all students. We studied the influence of this approach on the students’ learning habits and their test results. We hypothesized that creating a pool of their own questions for the exams could encourage students to discuss the learning material.

Methods

All students had to pass 4 exams in 7 fields of Internal Medicine. Three exams were comprised of 20 questions, and we applied the new method in one of these exams. The fourth exam was comprised of 30 questions, 15 of which were chosen from a students’ pool. After all exams had been completed we asked the students to fill in a web-based questionnaire on their learning habits and their views on the new approach. The test-results were compared to the results of the lecturers’ questions that defined high and low performing students.

Results

A total of 102 students completed all four exams in a row, 68 of whom filled in the questionnaire. Low performing students achieved significantly better results in the students’ questions. There was no difference in the number of constructed questions between both groups of students. The new method did not promote group work significantly. However, high performing students stated a stronger wish to be rewarded by good performance.

Conclusions

Creating a curricular exam by choosing questions from a pool constructed by students did not influence the learning habits significantly and favored low performing students. Since the high performing students sought to be rewarded for their efforts, we do not consider the approach applied in our study to be appropriate.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Jobs et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Fig. 7.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bloom BS, Madaus GF, Hastings JT: Evaluation to improve learning. New York: Mcgraw-Hill; 1981.
• [2]Frase LT, Schwartz BJ: Effect of question production and answering on prose recall. J Educ Psychol 1975, 67(5):628-635.
• [3]Brown IW: To learn is to teach is to create the final exam. Coll Teach 1991, 39:150-153.
• [4]Rash AM: An alternative method of assessment: Using student-created problems. Primus 1997, 7(1):89-95.
• [5]Smith K: Let your students write their own tests. Ireland: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Conference in Dublin; 1990.
• [6]Sircar SS, Tandon OP: Involving students in question writing: a unique feedback with fringe benefits. Am J Physiol 1999, 277(6 Pt 2):S84-S91.
• [7]Palmer E, Devitt P: Constructing multiple choice questions as a method for learning. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2006, 35(9):604-608.
• [8]Yu FY, Liu YH: The comparative effects of student question-posing and question-answering strategies on promoting college students' academic achievement, cognitive and metacognitive strategies use. J Educ Psychol 2008, 31(3):25-52.
• [9]Bottomley S, Denny P: A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2011, 39(5):352-361.
• [10]Papinczak T, Peterson R, Babri AS, Ward K, Kippers V, Wilkinson D: Using student-generated questions for student-centred assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 2011, 37(4):439-452.
• [11]Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011. http://www.R-project.org/ webcite
• [12]Mattick K, Dennis I, Bligh J: Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: Validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Med Educ 2004, 38(5):535-543.
• [13]Bouville M: Exam fairness. General Physics; 2008. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.4235.pdf webcite
• [14]Epstein RM: Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 2007, 356(4):387-396.
• [15]Weitz G, Twesten C, Hoppmann J, Lau M, Bonnemeier H, Lehnert H: Differences between students and physicians in their entitlement towards procedural skills education - a needs assessment of skills training in internal medicine. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2012., 29(1)