Dataset Information

Remote E-exams during Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of students' preferences and academic dishonesty in faculties of medical sciences.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), distance education has been extensively implemented in all educational institutes and remote electronic exams (E-exams) have been adopted as a primary mode of assessment.

Objectives

This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the experience of students at faculties of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing and Applied Medical Sciences at Jordan University of Science and Technology regarding remote E-exams preferences and academic dishonesty during the pandemic.

Materials and methods

The survey composed of 16 questions, prepared using Google forms and distributed through students' E-learning platforms. The survey explored factors affecting students' preference for remote E-exams, methods for course assessment/evaluation, factors related to students' exam dishonesty/misconduct during remote E-exams and measures that can be considered to reduce this behavior. Data were analyzed using descriptive, cross tabulation and Chi-square tests.

Results

Among 730 students, approximately only one third preferred remote E-exams. This was significantly (P < 0.05) associated with academic major, efforts/time for remote E-exam preparation, questions appropriateness with study material, and academic achievements (students Grade Point Average (GPA), curriculum objectives). Combining both exams and quizzes was the most preferred method of assessment (30%), while submission of reports or short written assignments were the least preferred ones. Exam dishonesty/misconduct appears as one of the major challenges with remote E-exams. The main measures considered by students to reduce exam dishonesty included substituting the exam with other forms of assessment, using different exam forms, the use of online proctoring solutions and considering compulsory pass/fail grades.

Conclusion

Results suggested less preference of remote E-exams among students at medical faculties. Findings from this study are highly valuable to plan for academic strategies to overcome difficulties and challenges of remote E-exams. These might include improvement for the distance teaching methodologies, rearrangement of assessment options, modification of the academic curriculum to fit the current situation, and adopting certain measures to prevent exam dishonesty and maintain academic integrity.

SUBMITTER: Elsalem L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7825891 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) forced the worldwide higher educational institutes to adopt distance learning mode. Further, remote electronic exams (E-exams) were considered as mode of assessment. Objectives: This cross-sectional study evaluated the students' experience of remote E-exams during the COVID-19 pandemic among Medical Sciences students in Jordan. Materials and Methods: A survey of 29 questions was prepared on Google forms and distributed among students at Faculties of Medical Sciences (Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing and Applied Medical Sciences) at Jordan University of Science and Technology. The questions include students' demographics, stress experience, and factors contributing to stress as well as behavioral changes related to remote E-exams. Responses were analyzed using descriptive, cross tabulation and Chi-square tests. Results: Among 1019 respondents, 32% reported more stress with remote E-exams. This was associated with academic major and gender. Among students with more stress during remote E-exams, the exam duration, mode of questions navigation and technical problems (exam platform and internet connectivity) appeared as the main factors related to stress in 78%, 76% and >60%, respectively. Other factors include concern regarding the teaching methods, exam environment and students' dishonesty. Remote E-exams had negative impact on students' dietary habits (increase consumption of caffeine and high energy drinks, high sugar food, fast food), sleep (reduction in sleeping hours, more consumption of insomnia medications), physical activity (less exercises) and smoking habits (increase). Conclusion: Results suggested a negative impact of E-exams on students within Medical Faculties. Robust exam platform and remote mock E-exams are recommended to reduce students' potential stress. A stress-free environment is very essential to encourage students to adopt remote E-exams, particularly if the pandemic will take longer. Various awareness programs about students' habits related to dietary, sleep quality, physical activity and smoking are highly valuable for students' health benefits. This is of particular importance since the current students at Faculties of Medical Sciences are the future health care providers.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide. DESIGN:Cross sectional study. SETTING:International sample of universities. PARTICIPANTS:170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Presence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties. RESULTS:A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria. CONCLUSIONS:This study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria. STUDY REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).