Introducing multiple-choice questions to promote learning for medical students: effect on exam performance in obstetrics and gynecology

Sebastian M Jud, Susanne Cupisti, Wolfgang Frobenius, Andrea Winkler, Franziska Schultheis, Sophia Antoniadis, Matthias W Beckmann, Felix Heindl, Sebastian M Jud, Susanne Cupisti, Wolfgang Frobenius, Andrea Winkler, Franziska Schultheis, Sophia Antoniadis, Matthias W Beckmann, Felix Heindl

Abstract

Purpose: Testing is required in medical education. The large number of exams that students face requires effective learning strategies. Various methods of improving knowledge retention and recall have been discussed, two of the most widely evaluated of which are test-enhanced learning and pause procedures. This study investigated the effect of voluntary multiple-choice questions on students' performance.

Methods: In a prospective study from April 2013 to March 2015, 721 students were randomly assigned to receive supplementary online material only (control group) or additional multiple-choice questions (investigative group) accompanying lectures. Their performance in the final exam was evaluated.

Results: A total of 675 students were ultimately included, with 299 randomly assigned to the investigative group and 376 to the control group. Students in the investigative group scored significantly better in relation to grades and points (2.11 vs. 2.49; 33 vs 31.31; p < 0.05). The effect declined over time.

Conclusion: This is the first study of the use of voluntary multiple-choice questions to improve medical students' performance. The results support test-enhanced learning and the feasibility of implementing multiple-choice questions in lectures.

Keywords: Gynecology; Lecture; Multiple choice; Obstetrics; Teaching; Testing.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare to have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Differences between the groups (grade and points achieved) during the study

References

    1. Binks S. Testing enhances learning: a review of the literature. J Prof Nurs. 2018;34(3):205–210. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.08.008.
    1. Norcini J, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206–214. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.551559.
    1. McConnell MM, St-Onge C, Young ME. The benefits of testing for learning on later performance. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(2):305–320. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-9529-1.
    1. McConnell M, et al. Does testing enhance learning in continuing medical education? Can Med Educ J. 2018;9(3):e83–e88. doi: 10.36834/cmej.42236.
    1. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL., 3rd Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959–966. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x.
    1. Aftab MT, Tariq MH. Continuous assessment as a good motivational tool in medical education. Acta Med Acad. 2018;47(1):76–81. doi: 10.5644/ama2006-124.216.
    1. Pan SC, Rickard TC. Transfer of test-enhanced learning: meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychol Bull. 2018;144(7):710–756. doi: 10.1037/bul0000151.
    1. Palmer S, Chu Y, Persky AM. Comparison of rewatching class recordings versus retrieval practice as post-lecture learning strategies. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(9):7217. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7217.
    1. Schneider M, Preckel F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(6):565–600. doi: 10.1037/bul0000098.
    1. Richards LW, et al. Use of the pause procedure in continuing medical education: a randomized controlled intervention study. Med Teach. 2017;39(1):74–78. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1230664.
    1. Bachhel R, Thaman RG. Effective use of pause procedure to enhance student engagement and learning. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(8):XM01–XM03.
    1. Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. Active learning of respiratory physiology improves performance on respiratory physiology examinations. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25(2):55–61. doi: 10.1152/advances.2001.25.2.55.
    1. Schmidmaier R, et al. Using electronic flashcards to promote learning in medical students: retesting versus restudying. Med Educ. 2011;45(11):1101–1110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04043.x.
    1. Bloom BS. Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):380–385. doi: 10.1017/S026646230505049X.
    1. Mansouri M, Lockyer J. A meta-analysis of continuing medical education effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007;27(1):6–15. doi: 10.1002/chp.88.
    1. O'Neil KM, et al. Continuing medical education effect on physician knowledge application and psychomotor skills: effectiveness of continuing medical education: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Educational Guidelines. Chest. 2009;135(3 Suppl):37S–41S. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-2516.
    1. Davis D, et al. Continuing medical education effect on practice performance: effectiveness of continuing medical education: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Educational Guidelines. Chest. 2009;135(3 Suppl):42S–48S. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-2517.
    1. Cervero RM, Gaines JK. The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: an updated synthesis of systematic reviews. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015;35(2):131–138. doi: 10.1002/chp.21290.
    1. Jud SM, et al. Logbooks alone are not enough: initial experience with implementing a logbook for medical students in a clinical internship in gynecology and obstetrics. Eur J Med Res. 2020;25(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s40001-020-00413-6.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit