Sally Haack1, Anisa Fornoff2, Frank Caligiuri3, Eliza Dy-Boarman4, Michelle Bottenberg5, Wendy Mobley-Bukstein6, Ginelle Bryant7, Andrew Bryant8. 1. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: sally.haack@drake.edu. 2. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: anisa.fornoff@drake.edu. 3. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: frank.caligiuri@drake.edu. 4. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: eliza.dy@drake.edu. 5. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: michelle.bottenberg@drake.edu. 6. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: wendy.mobley-bukstein@drake.edu. 7. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: ginelle.bryant@drake.edu. 8. Drake University, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311, United States. Electronic address: andrew.bryant@drake.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate an electronic counseling rubric to facilitate timely student feedback and explore differences in student performance, student anxiety, and self-perceived preparedness in a high stakes practical exam when using a paper rubric versus an electronic rubric. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Two cohorts of students in the third professional year were evaluated using the same rubric criteria: cohort 1 (n = 97) used traditional paper rubrics and cohort 2 (n = 104) used electronic rubrics. Cohorts were surveyed to measure anxiety and perceived preparedness in patient counseling skills one week prior to a practical exam, and cohort responses were compared. Student practical exam performance was also compared between the two cohorts. FINDINGS: Results showed no significant relationship between electronic rubric use and student anxiety (p = 0.07) or student exam performance [average score 53.42 points (SD 3.65) and 53.93 points (SD 3.78) in Cohort 1 and Cohort 2, respectively]. Perceived exam preparedness was higher among students using electronic rubrics, with timing of feedback being the mediating process in increasing preparedness (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY: Electronic rubrics resulted in more timely feedback on patient counseling skills, and students felt more prepared for their practical exam. This did not result in a significant difference in practical exam performance between the two cohorts. Additional methods to incorporate electronic rubrics into the course will be explored.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate an electronic counseling rubric to facilitate timely student feedback and explore differences in student performance, student anxiety, and self-perceived preparedness in a high stakes practical exam when using a paper rubric versus an electronic rubric. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Two cohorts of students in the third professional year were evaluated using the same rubric criteria: cohort 1 (n = 97) used traditional paper rubrics and cohort 2 (n = 104) used electronic rubrics. Cohorts were surveyed to measure anxiety and perceived preparedness in patient counseling skills one week prior to a practical exam, and cohort responses were compared. Student practical exam performance was also compared between the two cohorts. FINDINGS: Results showed no significant relationship between electronic rubric use and student anxiety (p = 0.07) or student exam performance [average score 53.42 points (SD 3.65) and 53.93 points (SD 3.78) in Cohort 1 and Cohort 2, respectively]. Perceived exam preparedness was higher among students using electronic rubrics, with timing of feedback being the mediating process in increasing preparedness (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY: Electronic rubrics resulted in more timely feedback on patient counseling skills, and students felt more prepared for their practical exam. This did not result in a significant difference in practical exam performance between the two cohorts. Additional methods to incorporate electronic rubrics into the course will be explored.
Authors: Kristin R Villa; Tracy L Sprunger; Alison M Walton; Tracy J Costello; Alex N Isaacs Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Rafael García-Ros; Maria-Arantzazu Ruescas-Nicolau; Natalia Cezón-Serrano; Juan J Carrasco; Sofía Pérez-Alenda; Clara Sastre-Arbona; Constanza San Martín-Valenzuela; Cristina Flor-Rufino; Maria Luz Sánchez-Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.390