HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tannerthies, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tannerthies, R.

Illuminations

THE EXAMINATION POST MORTEM: A TEACHING OPPORTUNITY

Department of Physiology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Retired to 6710 Frasher Dr. Jefferson City, MO 65109, E-mail: tannerthies{at}compuserve.com

We have used a lunchtime review of the answers to the morning’s examination to help students understand physiological concepts. This system helps students by correcting their misconceptions, reinforcing correct information, and giving them an opportunity to alert faculty to misleading or ambiguous questions.

Our human physiology one-semester, six-credit-hour course had four term examinations plus a comprehensive final examination. The class of about 180 dental, pharmacy, and physician assistant students was taught by four to six faculty members. The term exams were given from 8:00 to 9:50 AM, with answer keys being distributed when all students were finished.

The course coordinator met in the lecture/examination room with students at noon on the day of the examination. He invited students to propose alternative correct answers to the 50 multiple-choice questions in their sequential order. Miskeyed answers were corrected immediately, clearly incorrect answers were explained, and possibly correct alternatives were "taken under advisement" for further consideration.

The students’ answer sheets were scored by machine that same afternoon. The scoring print-out also summarized the number of students who answered each choice. The course coordinator met with the faculty member who had written each question that was controversial. The scoring showed whether the alternative answer was a general misconception or was isolated to a few students. The coordinator presented the arguments of the students to the faculty member, who then decided whether to allow an alternative correct answer. Once corrections had been made, the answer sheets were rescored to produce student grades. The posted grades included a printed explanation of why alternative answers had been accepted or rejected by the faculty.

This system was tried with medical students but not continued, because emotions were too high during the post mortem to achieve learning. Faculty simply considered alternatives where fewer than 50% of the students marked the correct answer. (This was also done for the final examination of 50 questions in the six-credit-hour course). For other than medical students, the examination post mortem is a teaching opportunity.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tannerthies, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tannerthies, R.