ArticleCBE life sciences education2019
Does the Format of Preclass Reading Quizzes Matter? An Evaluation of Traditional and Gamified, Adaptive Preclass Reading Quizzes.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers.CBE life sciences education · 2022Review
- Revisiting Clickers: In-Class Questions Followed by At-Home Reflections Are Associated with Higher Student Performance on Related Exam Questions.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
- Preparing for Class: Actions and Resources of Introductory Biology Students.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- The Challenges of Teaching Anatomy and Physiology Laboratory Online in the Time of COVID-19.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- From Bored Games to Board Games: Student-Driven Game Design in the Virtual Classroom.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preclass reading quizzes (RQs) have been shown to enhance student performance. Many instructors implementing evidence-based teaching assign preclass RQs to ensure their students are prepared to engage in class activities. Textbook companies now offer a gamified, adaptive-learning RQ format. In these RQs, students answer point-valued questions until they reach a threshold. If students answer incorrectly, the question decreases in point value on the next attempt. These RQs also give students who answer questions incorrectly more questions on that topic and direct students to sections of a textbook they need to review. We assessed the impact of gamified, adaptive preclass RQs compared with more traditional preclass RQs on in-class RQs and course exam performance as well as students' perceptions of RQs. Students in the gamified, adaptive treatment performed equally compared with students in the traditional, static treatment on in-class RQs and course exams. While students in the gamified, adaptive treatment did have a more positive perception of preclass RQs, this factor explained less than 3% of the variation in RQ perception. Our findings suggest that instructors should verify that gamified, adaptive technologies impact student learning in their course before integrating them into their course and asking students to pay for them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.