The intelligent anatomy spotter: A new approach to incorporate higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy

Abstract

The spotter test is an assessment that has been used widely to test practical knowledge of anatomy. Traditional spotter formats often focus solely on knowledge recall, in addition to being an onerous marking burden on staff where consistency in marking free text responses can be questioned. First-year optometry students at the University of Manchester study the functional anatomy of the eye in the first semester of their first year. Included in the assessment of this unit is a spotter examination worth 45% of the total unit mark. Due to the factors listed above, a new spotter format was designed. Students had to answer three questions per specimen where the answers to the questions were the labeled structures themselves (A, B, C, or D). They had to work out the answer to the question and then work out which of the labeled structures was the correct structure, negating the "cueing effect" of standard multiple choice questions. Examination results were analyzed over a six-year period (control groups 2008/2009, 2009/2010, 2010/2011; treatment groups 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014). There were no significant differences between marks obtained for the new spotter format when compared with the traditional format. The new format spotter tested comprehension rather than just knowledge, and facilitated marking because subjectiveness was erased, and less time was spent determining whether an answer was correct or not. Anat Sci Educ 9: 440-445. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

Cospe in Anatomy: An Innovative Method of Evaluation.

“…This is partly due to increasing student numbers and thus time required for conducting such exams; marker variability and impartiality are also issues 4 . Traditional spotter formats often focus solely on knowledge recall, in addition to being an onerous marking burden on staff where consistency in marking free text responses can be questioned 5 .…”

“…are less as compared to traditional examination, also it is more transparent, and with less anxiety level makes the student more comfortable as compared to traditional practical examination. OSPE as a single method is time consuming, more space is required and affects the performance of students because out of vast portion only few and selective questions are asked 5 . To innovate this method, computer-assisted OSPE (COSPE) was introduced for the first time at AIMSR…”

Role of comprehension on performance at higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy: Findings from assessments of healthcare professional students

“…Based on the thinking of many researchers about the cumulative hierarchy (Cizek et al, ; Dobson, ; Knecht, ; Harries and Botha, ; Crowe et al, ; Kim et al, ; Thompson and O'Loughlin, ; Choudhury et al, ; Semsar and Casagrand, ; Zaidi et al, ), it was expected that student performance at knowledge and comprehension levels, either individually or on both levels, would be greater than student performances at application and/or analysis levels. This hypothesis provides sufficient flexibility without demanding that the trend in scores be strictly hierarchical (i.e., knowledge would be higher than comprehension, which would be higher than application, which would be higher than analysis).…”

“…Three recent articles published in the Anatomical Sciences Education journal concerned Bloom's taxonomy. Choudhury et al () used Bloom's taxonomy to compare the novel use of multiple‐choice items to traditional short‐answer questions in the assessment of anatomical specimen identification. Whereas short‐answer questions tested at the lowest taxonomic level (knowledge), the multiple‐choice questions enabled students to demonstrate learning at the next taxonomic level, comprehension.…”

“…As noted by Roberts (), “research regarding Bloom's taxonomy falls into two general categories.” The first category is testing the assumption that the taxonomy represents a cumulative hierarchy of thought (Dobson, ; Knecht, ; Harries and Botha, ; Thompson and O'Loughlin, ; Choudhury et al, ). The second category accepts the cumulative hierarchy assumption and tests its implications by measuring behaviors related to teaching and learning.…”