Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Actual versus expected scores on exam questions from the University of Minnesota Biology Program exam question database

This table summarizes information on the exam questions from the University of Minnesota Biology Program exam question database for BIOL 1009 that were analyzed as part of this work. "Mean actual score" refers to the percentage of students who correctly answered the indicated question on the indicated exam for the indicated year and course section. "Mean expected score" refers to the percentage of students who correctly answered the indicated question on all exams in which the question was used, excluding exams from one of the seven course sections being analyzed as part of this work (i.e. course sections for which online study questions were available) and from honor's sections. "# of other exams on which question was used" refers to the number of times the indicated question has been used on a BIOL 1009 exam at the University of Minnesota, excluding exams from one of the seven course sections being analyzed as part of this work and exams from honor's sections of BIOL 1009.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1223v1/supp-1

Numbers of study and quiz questions answered and exam scores in 2012

The numbers of study questions, quiz questions and total questions (study plus quiz questions) answered by each student in preparation for exams 1 and 2 during 2012 are shown. The overall exam 1 and 2 scores for each student are also indicated. In addition, the scores on different groups of exam 2 questions are shown. "Exam 2 study questions" refers to questions on exam 2 that were taken directly from the online study questions. "Questions on same material" refers to questions covering the same material covered by the online study questions; these questions were chosen by the author from the exam question database maintained by the Biology Program at the University of Minnesota (thus these questions were not written by the author). "Questions on other material" refer to questions on material not covered by the study questions; these questions were chosen by a different faculty member.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1223v1/supp-2

Total numbers of questions answered in preparation for exams 1 and 2 in 2012-2013

The total numbers of questions (study questions plus quiz questions) answered by each student in preparation for exams 1 and 2 in 2012 and 2013 are indicated. The average number of questions answered per lecture for each student in preparation for exams 1 and 2 are also shown. The questions in preparation for exam 1 covered material from eight lectures and the questions in preparation for exam 2 covered material from six lectures.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1223v1/supp-3

Number of questions answered versus scores on different groups of exam 2 questions

In 2012 through 2014, questions for exam 2 were drawn from three sources. 13 to 15 questions were chosen by the author from the online study questions, 11 to 13 questions that covered the same course material covered by the online study questions were chosen by the author from questions in the exam question database maintained by the Biology Program at the University of Minnesota (= “Questions on same material”) and 13 to 16 questions were chosen by another faculty member and covered material taught by that faculty member that was not covered by the online study questions (= “Questions on other material”). The number of questions answered by each student in preparation for exam 2 and the scores obtained by that student on the three groups of exam 2 questions and exam 2 overall are indicated.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1223v1/supp-4

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The author serves as an Academic Editor for PeerJ, but has no other competing interests.

Author Contributions

Susan I Gibson conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

All data analyzed in this study was obtained as a result of normal course activities. In other words, no students participated in any activities specifically designed for gathering data for the purposes of this study. In addition, due to the fact that all the course sections from which data were collected had over 200 students, and that all identifying information has been removed, it is not possible to identify information for any individual students from materials presented here.

Funding

The author received no funding for this work.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies