The Use of an Audience Response System in a Dental Gross Anatomy Practical Exam
International Journal of Anatomy and Research, ISSN: 2321-4287, Vol: 12, Issue: 1, Page: 8834-8839
2024
- 4Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures4
- Readers4
Article Description
Background: Traditional methods for administering and scoring gross anatomy practical laboratory examinations are time and resource-intensive and can be susceptible to errors in grading. Alternative approaches, such as audience response systems (e.g., clickers) and computerized scoring, appear to hold promise to improve the examination experience for students and improve the efficiency and accuracy of grading. Method: To assess perceptions of using such systems, two cohorts of students who completed the gross anatomy practical examination using clicker technology at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry were invited to complete the survey. Results: A total of 155 students completed the study. Responses reflect a mostly positive appraisal of the use of clicker technology by most students. In particular, students reported that submitting responses was easier and that the speed of grading and feedback on examination performance improved considerably. Conclusion: Based on the survey results, the use of audience response systems appears to have more benefits than liabilities and seems to be a worthwhile technology to use for practical laboratory examinations.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know