Assessing the Evidence: Student Response System Versus Computer Based Testing for Undertaking Multiple Choice Question Assessment in Undergraduate Nursing Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/PNNOJ-3-119Keywords:
Computer-based testing; Student response system; Summative assessment; Undergraduate nursing education.Abstract
There is a dearth of evidence focusing on student preferences for computer-based testing versus
testing via student response systems for summative assessment in undergraduate education.
This quantitative study compared the preference and acceptability of computer-based testing
and a student response system for completing multiple choice questions in undergraduate
nursing education. After using both computer-based testing and a student response system to
complete multiple choice questions, 192 first year undergraduate nursing students rated their
preferences and attitudes towards using computer-based testing and a student response system.
Results indicated that seventy four percent felt the student response system was easy to use.
Fifty six percent felt the student response system took more time than the computer-based testing
to become familiar with. Sixty Percent felt computer-based testing was more users friendly.
Seventy Percent of students would prefer to take a multiple choice question summative exam
via computer-based testing, although Fifty percent would be happy to take using student response
system. Results are useful for undergraduate educators in relation to student’s preference
for using computer-based testing or student response system to undertake a summative
multiple choice question exam.
References
Patterson B, Kilpatrick J, Woebkenberg E. Evidence for teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Educ Today. 2010; 30(7); 603-607. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.12.008
Fernandez-Alemán JL, Garcia AB, Montesinos MJ, Jimenez JJ. Examining the benefits of learning based on an audience response system when confronting emergency situations. Comput Inform Nurs. 2014; 32(5): 207-213. doi: 10.1097/ CIN.0000000000000053
Satheesh KM, Saylor-Boles CD, Rapley JW, Liu Y, Gadbury-Amyot CC. Student evaluation of clickers in a combined dental and dental hygiene periodontology course. J Den Educ. 2013; 77(10): 1321-1329. Web site. http://www.jdentaled.org/con-tent/77/10/1321.long. Accessed May 9 2006
Millor M, Etxano J, Slon P, et al. Use of remote response de-vices: an effective interactive method in the long- term learning. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25(3): 894-900. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014- 3468-3
Tregonning AM, Doherty DA, Hornbuckle J, Dickin-son JE. The audience response system and knowledge gain: a prospective study. Med Teach. 2012; 34: e269-e274. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.660218
Fies C, Marshall J. Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. J Sci Educ Technol. 2006; 15(1): 101-109. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
Carroll JA, Rodgers J, Sankupellay M, Newcomb M, Cook R. Systematic evaluation of Go SoapBox in tertiary education: a student response system for improving learning experiences and outcomes. In INTED2014 Proceedings, IATED. Valencia, Spain; (2014). Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/67262/
De Gagne JC. The impact of clickers in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2011; 31(8): e34- e40. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.007
Ibrahim RH. Nursing student’s attitudes towards clickers in the classroom. Kufa J Nursing Scie. 2015; 5(1): 1-7. Web site. http://www.kuiraq.com/journals/index.php/kjns/article/view/ 3953. Accessed May 9, 2016
Lantz ME, Stawiski A. Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Com-puter in Human Behaviour. 2014; 31: 280-286. doi: 10.1016/j. chb.2013.10.009
Bojinova ED, Oigara JN. Teaching and learning with clickers: are clickers good for students? Interdisciplinary j E-learning and learning objectives. 2011; 7: 169-184. Web site. http://www.ijel-lo.org/Volume7/IJELLOv7p169-184Bojinova772.pdf Accessed May 9, 2016
Klein K, Kientz M. A model for successful use of student response systems. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2013; 35(5): 334-338.
Hancock TM. Use of audience response system for summa-tive assessment in large classes. Australia J Educational Tech-nology. 2010; 26(2) 226-237. Web site. http://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.9425&rep=rep1&type =pdf. Accessed May 9, 2016
Sprague EW, Dahl DW. Learning to Click: An Evaluation of the Personal Response System Clicker Technology in Introduc-tory Marketing Courses. Journal of Marketing Education. 2010; 32: 93-103. doi: 10.1177/0273475309344806
FitzPatrick KA, Finn KE, Campisi J. Effect of personal re-sponse systems on students and academic performance in cours-es in a health science curriculum. Advances in Physiological Ed-ucation. 2011; 35(3): 280-289. doi: 10.1152/advan.00036.2011
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Pediatrics and Neonatal Nursing (PNN) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
