[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
Registered in

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE

..
Open Access Policy
..
:: Volume 12, Issue 3 (2020) ::
RME 2020, 12(3): 32-43 Back to browse issues page
Comparing two methods of traditional and electronics tests based on attitude and experiences of medical students: A combined study
F Zaer Sabet , P Pourghane * , F Besharati , H Khoshrang , A Ebrahiminia
Department of Nursing, Zeynab (P.B.U.H) School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences,Langeroud, Iran , pourghanep@gmail.com
Abstract:   (2612 Views)
Introduction: Today, using computer-based tests has received more attention than traditional tests (pencil and paper) in universities. Given the key role of students, their knowledge and attitude to implement this method can be helpful. This study was performed to compare two methods of traditional and electronic tests based on attitude and experiences of medical students.
Methods: This mixed method study (quantitative and qualitative) was conducted in medical faculty of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. Samples were selected through census method. In the final exam, medical students (n=54) were randomly divided into two groups, half in traditional test and the other half in electronic test. In the quantitative section, Students' Attitude was measured using self-structured questionnaires whose validity and reliability had been confirmed. Then the experiences of 19 students in the qualitative part were collected through individual interviews and purposive sampling. Quantitative data were analyzed by mean, standard deviation and T-independent test also, qualitative data by content analysis approach.
Results: Results show that attitude’s mean score in electronic test group (39.36±6.37) was more than traditional group(38.25±5.2) but there was no significant differences between two groups(p=0.508).In qualitative part, Four main categories (electronic test efficiency, unfamiliar innovation, challenging the old format, smoothing ways) and 15 subcategories were extracted.
Conclusions: The results indicated that there was no significant difference in students' attitudes in traditional and electronic tests. To solve or reduce some of the problems in the electronic test, students refer to aware of test process before exam and having the draft paper available.
Full-Text [PDF 633 kb]   (1106 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: assessment and evaluation
References
1. kayzouri A H, Sadeghpour M. [A Comparison on the effects of traditional, E-Learning and traditional -E Learning on the Pharmacology Course of Nursing students]. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences 2017; 24 (2): 123-7. [persian]
2. Nourian A, Nourian A, Ebnahmadi A, Akbarzadeh Baghban A, Khoshnevisan MH. Comparison of both virtual and traditional teaching methods in the teaching of theoretical community-oriented dentistry for Ph.D. students of Shahid Beheshti dentistry faculty of 2011-2010. Journal of Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2012; 30 (3): 174-83. [persian]
3. Bashirian S, Jalilian F, Barati M, Ghaffari A.[A Study on the Predicting Factors of Intended E-Learning among Faculty Members Based on Theory of Planned Behavior. J Med Educ Dev 2014; 7 (15): 10-21. [persian]
4. Hosseini SN, Ataee M, Ahmadi Jouybari T, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Jalilian F, Karami Matin B, et al. The Attitudes of the Faculty Members of Kermanshah University ofMedical Sciences on E-Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences 2020; 6(1): 25-31. [persian]
5. Esmaeili H, Rahmani SH, Kazemi A, Ahmadi MA.[Evaluation of E-Learning of the virtual learning program from the student's point of view]. Public Management Research 2016; 9 (34): 221-41. [persian]
6. Ganji Arjenaki B. Surveying the Quality Of Electronic Tests in the Student Satisfaction. Education Strategies in Medical 2017; 10 (3): 180-8.
7. Anarinezhad A, Safavi AA, Mohammady M. [The Evaluation of E-learning by Benchmarking Approach Iran Higher Education as a Case Study]. Quarterly Journal of Research. Journal of Information and Communication Technology 2012; 4 (11 -12): 19-25. [persian]
8. Khodadad Hoseiny SH, Noori A, Zabihi MR. [E-learning Acceptance in Higher Education: Application of Flow Theory, Technology Acceptance Model and E-Service Quality]. IRPHE 2013; 19 (1): 111-136. [persian]
9. Seraji F. [Providing a Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Education in E-learning Universities]. 5th Conference Quality Evaluation in the Academic System; 2011 Apr; University of Tehran, College of Engineering: Civilica; 2011. [persian]
10. Khalifeh GH, Razavi S A. Evaluating and Assuring Quality in E-Learning Using a Significance-Performance Analysis Model. MEDIA 2012; 3 (1): 33-44. [persian]
11. Faghihi A, Daryazadeh S, Yamani N. [Medical Students' Experiences of Pre-Internship Electronic Exam in Isfahan and Kashan Universities of Medical Sciences in 2016]. JME 2017; 17 (1): 15-31. [persian]
12. Jouybari L, Nodeh Sharifi A, Sanagoo A, Araghian Mojarad F.[Do The Students Prefer Using Web-Based System for Evaluation of The Quality Of Instruction]. Journal of Educational Studies, Center for Medical Education Development and Development, Aja University of Medical Sciences 2016; 7: 35-40. [persian] [DOI:10.21859/jne-05066]
13. Habibi H, Aghapour B, Fatemi M, Khodayari S, Homayoni Damirchi A, Rahimi A. [Pathological Approach to Electronic Tests in Iran Case Study of TOEFL Test]. Training Measurement 2016; 6 (24): 145-70. [persian]
14. Brozi Niat AR, Akbari M, Karimi F.[Designing and implementing a centralized electronic test for the final evaluation of the students in the department of restorative and comparing it with the traditional method. Mashhad] [dissertation]. Mashhad: Mashhad University of Medical Sciences; 2013. [persian]
15. Kuhpayezadeh J, Afsharpor S, Naghizadeh Moogari Z.[Psychometric Adequacy of The Persian Version of the DELES questionnaire to evaluate the educational environment of environment of Iran University of Medical Sciences]. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences 2017; 24 (159): 69-78. [persian]
16. Esfijani A. [Quality Evaluation Indicators in Virtual Education: A Wider Study of Approaches, Criteria and Quality Standards]. Developmental steps in medical education Magazine Center for Medical Education Development and Development. 2015; 12 (1): 150-8. [persian]
17. Sissine M, Segan R, Taylor M, Jefferson B, Borrelli A, Koehler M, et al. Cost Comparison Model: Blended eLearning versus traditional training of community health workers OJPHI. 2014; 6 (3): e196. [DOI:10.5210/ojphi.v6i3.5533]
18. Lahti M, Hätönen H, Välimäki M. Impact of e-learning on nurses' and student nurses knowledge, skills, and satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2014; 51 (1): 136-49. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.12.017]
19. Hochlehnert A, Brass K, Moeltner A, Juenger J. Does Medical Students' Preference of Test Format (Computer-based vs. Paper-based) have an Influence on Performance? BMC Medical Education 2011; 11 (89): 1-6. [DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-11-89]
20. Delavar A, Koshki Sh.[ Mixed research method]. 2 nd ed. Virayesh Publish; 2013 [Persian]
21. Polit DF, Tatano Beck CH. Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
22. Guba EG. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper: Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology 1981; 29 (2): 75-91.
23. Yazdani F, Ebrahimzadeh I, Zandi2 B, Alipour A, Zare H.[Recognizing of Fundamental Factors in Effectiveness of E-learning Systems].JIPM 2012; 27 (2): 385-411.[Persian]
24. Washburn Sh, Herman J, Stewart R. Evaluation of performance and perceptions of electronic vs. paper multiple-choice exams. Adv Physiol Educ 2017; 41 (4): 548-55. [DOI:10.1152/advan.00138.2016]
25. Dana A, Nili Ahmadabadi MR, Amirteimoori MH.[The Impact of E-learning on Learning Strategies Student self-regulation]. Educational Measurement 2014; 15 (5): 77-104. [persian]
26. Francisco D. Guillén-Gámez, María J. Mayorga-Fernández. Identification of Variables that Predict Teachers' Attitudes toward ICT in Higher Education for Teaching and Research: A Study with Regression 2020; 12 (4): 1312. [DOI:10.3390/su12041312]
27. Khatib Zanjani N, Ajam AA, Badnava S.[Determining the Relationship Between Self-directed Learning Readiness and Acceptance of E-learning and Academic Achievement of Students]. IJN 2017; 30 (106): 11- 22. [DOI:10.29252/ijn.30.106.11]
28. Fill K. Student-focused evaluation of e-learning activities. European Conference on Educational Research. 2005 September 7-10, University College Dublin; 2005.
29. Taghizadeh ME.[Comparison of e-learning and face to face instruction based to anticipate alteration of creativity and academic achievement of student in Payamnoor University] [dissertation]. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University; 2008. [persian]
30. Alyahya D, Almutairi. The Impact of Electronic Tests on Students' Performance Assessment. International Education studies 2019; 12(5):109-19. [DOI:10.5539/ies.v12n5p109]
Send email to the article author



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Zaer Sabet F, pourghane P, Besharati F, khoshrang H, Ebrahiminia A. Comparing two methods of traditional and electronics tests based on attitude and experiences of medical students: A combined study. RME 2020; 12 (3) :32-43
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-964-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 12, Issue 3 (2020) Back to browse issues page
پژوهش در آموزش علوم پزشکی Research in Medical Education