PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2]
Introduction Writing and answering multiple choice questions (MCQs) is a learning activity that potentially engages deep learning. We conducted three year-long case studies of MCQ writing and answering in PeerWise to engage students in learning Pathology. Methods Overall, an instrumental...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2020-10-01
|
| Series: | MedEdPublish |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mededpublish.org/Manuscripts/3230 |
| _version_ | 1818350486514827264 |
|---|---|
| author | Christopher Dimick Smith Anya Dai Diane Kenwright Rebecca Grainger |
| author_facet | Christopher Dimick Smith Anya Dai Diane Kenwright Rebecca Grainger |
| author_sort | Christopher Dimick Smith |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction
Writing and answering multiple choice questions (MCQs) is a learning activity that potentially engages deep learning. We conducted three year-long case studies of MCQ writing and answering in PeerWise to engage students in learning Pathology.
Methods
Overall, an instrumental case-study design with the structure of sequential multiple case studies was used. Across three years fourth year medical students were required to write and answer MCQs. In 2016 students were provided with advice for writing questions and were encouraged to adhere to Bloom's taxonomy. In 2017, to reduce cognitive load, students were provided with a MCQ template and allocated topics. In 2018, to encourage engagement, students were informed that the top forty MCQs would be in the final exam.
Results
An evaluation survey was used to measure each student's perception of the MCQ exercise. In 2016 most students had a negative opinion of the MCQ exercise. Students found writing MCQs too time consuming and demanding. In 2017 student's attitudes to the MCQ exercise were more positive. In 2018 there were insufficient responses to the survey but informal student feedback suggested the MCQ exercise was considered an inefficient use of student study time.
There were minimal changes in student's activity levels from 2016 to 2017. However, in 2018 when students were informed that the top forty MCQs generated would be included in their final exam they answered a greater number of MCQs than in previous years.
Conclusions
Providing students with templates and assigning topics for MCQs may improve student attitudes toward MCQ writing and including student generated MCQs in the final exam encourages students to answer more MCQs. However, due to high demands on their time, medical students' prioritised efficiency and MCQ writing may not be an efficient strategy for deep learning. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T18:22:37Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-39dd9a45ea5f4556beab6f20633b2b1a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2312-7996 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T18:22:37Z |
| publishDate | 2020-10-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | MedEdPublish |
| spelling | doaj.art-39dd9a45ea5f4556beab6f20633b2b1a2022-12-21T23:35:41ZengF1000 Research LtdMedEdPublish2312-79962020-10-0191PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2]Christopher Dimick Smith0Anya Dai1Diane Kenwright2Rebecca Grainger3University of Otago, WellingtonThe Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, WellingtonUniversity of Otago, WellingtonUniversity of Otago, WellingtonIntroduction Writing and answering multiple choice questions (MCQs) is a learning activity that potentially engages deep learning. We conducted three year-long case studies of MCQ writing and answering in PeerWise to engage students in learning Pathology. Methods Overall, an instrumental case-study design with the structure of sequential multiple case studies was used. Across three years fourth year medical students were required to write and answer MCQs. In 2016 students were provided with advice for writing questions and were encouraged to adhere to Bloom's taxonomy. In 2017, to reduce cognitive load, students were provided with a MCQ template and allocated topics. In 2018, to encourage engagement, students were informed that the top forty MCQs would be in the final exam. Results An evaluation survey was used to measure each student's perception of the MCQ exercise. In 2016 most students had a negative opinion of the MCQ exercise. Students found writing MCQs too time consuming and demanding. In 2017 student's attitudes to the MCQ exercise were more positive. In 2018 there were insufficient responses to the survey but informal student feedback suggested the MCQ exercise was considered an inefficient use of student study time. There were minimal changes in student's activity levels from 2016 to 2017. However, in 2018 when students were informed that the top forty MCQs generated would be included in their final exam they answered a greater number of MCQs than in previous years. Conclusions Providing students with templates and assigning topics for MCQs may improve student attitudes toward MCQ writing and including student generated MCQs in the final exam encourages students to answer more MCQs. However, due to high demands on their time, medical students' prioritised efficiency and MCQ writing may not be an efficient strategy for deep learning.https://www.mededpublish.org/Manuscripts/3230MCQPeerWiseMultiple-choice questionsconstructivismdeep learning |
| spellingShingle | Christopher Dimick Smith Anya Dai Diane Kenwright Rebecca Grainger PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2] MedEdPublish MCQ PeerWise Multiple-choice questions constructivism deep learning |
| title | PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2] |
| title_full | PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2] |
| title_fullStr | PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2] |
| title_full_unstemmed | PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2] |
| title_short | PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential [Version 2] |
| title_sort | peerwise and pathology discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential version 2 |
| topic | MCQ PeerWise Multiple-choice questions constructivism deep learning |
| url | https://www.mededpublish.org/Manuscripts/3230 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christopherdimicksmith peerwiseandpathologydiscontinuingateachinginnovationthatdidnotachieveitspotentialversion2 AT anyadai peerwiseandpathologydiscontinuingateachinginnovationthatdidnotachieveitspotentialversion2 AT dianekenwright peerwiseandpathologydiscontinuingateachinginnovationthatdidnotachieveitspotentialversion2 AT rebeccagrainger peerwiseandpathologydiscontinuingateachinginnovationthatdidnotachieveitspotentialversion2 |