IJCRR

IJCRR - 10(18), September, 2018

Pages: 01-05

Date of Publication: 28-Sep-2018

Post Lecture Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) Test Improves the Performance of Students

Author: Pradnya Pradeep Kulkarni, Pradeep P. Kulkarni

Category: Healthcare

Abstract:Aim: To study whether post lecture MCQs tests improves the performance of students.

Keywords: MCQs Test, Cross sectional study, Terminal examination performance

Full Text:

Introduction:

Inspite of good potential, good infrastructure, many doctors and advances in medical care, health problems of our society are not reduced. We must study “Where we are going wrong?” Performance of the doctor is reduced if it is not based on proper knowledge. To gain proper knowledge students should be motivated. There are many reasons why all medical students do not become good, efficient, skilled doctors. One of these is knowledge.¹ If post lecture MCQ test is conducted, students will take more interest. MCQ test is a very effective assessment technique². They will study and will get knowledge automatically. More and more efficient doctors will serve society. Healthy community will be formed because of good doctors.

Key points:  MCQs Test

Methodology:

Study design- original, Cross sectional study, qualitative and quantitative study

Study place- P.I.M.S.& R, Urun Islampur

Study Duration - 5 months

Source of funding: No big amount was required, so whatever was required, used from my pocket.

Two batches (one batch 2015-16, another batch-2016-17) of 1^st MBBS students were considered for the study. Students of batch 2015-16 were not exposed to MCQs tests after lectures but students of another batch-2016-17 were exposed to MCQs tests after lectures. Results of terminal examination of both batches were compared.

Material and method:

1. Orally Informed and Written Consent of Students was taken. Approval of administrative committee & ethical committee was obtained.

2. Pre-validated MCQs were used for MCQ Tests. MCQ tests were taken after lectures of various topics for 2017-18 batch. These tests were not conducted for 2016-17 batch.

3. Questionnaire was prepared and feedback was taken.

4. Now results of terminal examination of these two batches were compared. MCQ Tests were used as these often require less time to administer³ and lower likelihood of teacher bias in the results. Terminal exams of two batches were based on same topics.

5. No Conflict of interest.

Results:

Statistical analysis was done using independent t test. P< 0.000 Results of terminal examination of two batches were considered.

Students obtaining marks below 9 (In the group 1 and 2) are many from 2016-17 batch as compared to 2017-18 batch. Students obtaining marks above 9 (In the group 3 and 4) are many from 2017-18 batch as compared to 2016-17 batch.

Discussion-

(Refer Table1, chart 2 and  3) Students of batch 2017-18 were giving MCQ tests after Lectures. In terminal examination performance of this batch was good as compared to performance of students of  batch 2016-17.

Bhatt M, Thapa B and Bhattacharya A also came to the same conclusion after their work in physiology. They mansion ‘MCQ supplementation in a physiology diadactic class is a good learning tool^3. Use of multiple choice questions test after lectures helps medical students to improve their performance in written formative assessment in physiology⁴.

Another study done by Stanger-Hall  says ‘Students show improved scores in their formative written assessment when  the lectures are assisted with the use of MCQs than when MCQs are not   employed before and during the lecture⁵. The same conclusion is drawn from this study.

According to Beckert, L., Wilkinson, T. J., & Sainsbury, R. ‘While giving MCQ test every time students retrieve information from memory and use it to answer a test question, they are potentially strengthening (i.e. Better retention) and/or changing the representation of that information in memory (i.e. Deeper understanding)⁶.

 Multiple-choice questions increases performance on a subsequent short-answer test⁷

Refer chart 1 which shows feedback of students about MCQs tests

1)  96.666% students strongly agree that good knowledge achieved and retained by MCQ tests.

2)  94.444% students strongly agree that MCQ tests should be conducted by other departments also.

3)  93.333 students strongly agree that interaction with students also increased by MCQ tests.

^Conclusion

MCQs tests improve the performance of students. Other studies referred above also conclude the same thing.

^{Acknowledgement:}

^{Without the help of students, faculties, members of management committee, members of ethical committee and Dean Madam my project would not be completed. I am very thankful to them. Head of my department also allowed me to carry on my research activity after lecture. Authors which are mentioned in references, without their published, valuable information, there would not be any weight age to my study.}

References:

1.Paul Root Wolpe,What is a good doctor and how can we make one? bmj.com 2002.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7353/DC1

2. Abdel-Hameed AA, Al-Faris EA, Alorainy IA, Al-Rukban MO. The criteria and analysis of good multiple

choice questions in a health professional setting. Saudi Med J 2005;26:1505-1
3. Julie Considine, Mari Botti, Deakin University Shane Thomas, La Trobe University  ‘Design, format, validity and reliability of multiple choice questions for use in nursing research and education’ Collegian Vol 12 No 1 2005, page-20

4. Bhatt M, Thapa B, Bhattacharya A, Bhinganiya P, Minhas S, Sharma S. MCQ supplementation in a physiology diadactic class: A learning tool. Natl J Integr Res Med.2015;6(1):72-6

5. Stanger-Hall, K.R. (2012). Multiple-choice exams: An obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 11 (3), 294-306

6. Beckert, L., Wilkinson, T. J., & Sainsbury, R. (2003). A needs-based study and examination skills course improves students' performance Medical Education 37 (5),

424–428.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01499.x

7. The Journal of General Psychology Volume 142, 2015 - Issue 2