Upload
examsoft
View
127
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Infusing Technology in a School of Nursing Electronic Tes-ng and iPad Student Ini-a-ve Barbara Blackwell EdD, RN-‐BC Director Holy Name Medical Center School of Nursing
Objectives Upon comple-on of this webinar, the par-cipant will: 1. Discuss the decision making process to determine which
plaKorm to use for electronic tes-ng 2. List the important elements of a electronic tes-ng plaKorm 3. Create a plan to incorporate electronic tes-ng in a school of
nursing
3
Background Technology has taken on a greater emphasis in both the academic and prac-ce arena. This presents educa-on with a new impera-ve to assist the student to become comfortable with technology while preparing them to enter the role of professional nurse. In a two part series join the journey of one school as technology becomes a part of daily teaching and student learning.
4
Part II-‐The move to Electronic Testing Electronic Tes-ng has been a part of the Na-onal Council Licensing Exam (NCLEX-‐RN) Since 1994
15
Reasons to move to Electronic Testing
• Increase student comfort with electronic tes-ng format • Increased Test Security • Ability to create Na-onal Council Licensing Examina-on test ques-on Formats (NCLEX )
• Students receive their scores instantly • Decrease use of paper • Faculty spend less -me scoring exams • Easy to adjust scoring • Ability to simulate NCLEX tes-ng environment
16
School of Nursing Priorities • Ability to create NCLEX Type Ques-ons • Detailed Item Analysis • Student Performance Analysis • Test Security • Test Blueprin-ng that provides ac-onable informa-on (Accredita-on, program)
17
Ability to create NCLEX Type Questions The Na-onal Council Licensing Exam for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-‐RN) ques-on types:
• Mul-ple Choice • Mul-ple Response • Order Response • Hot spot • Fill in the Blank • Chart/Exhibit Items • Graphic Item • Audio Item
18
Detailed Item Analysis • Mean, median, mode – Exam Difficulty • KR20-‐ Exam Reliability • PBCC-‐ (Point Biserial Correla-on Coefficient) differen-ates high performing from low performing students
• P Value – Item Difficulty
19
Student Performance Analysis • Exam Score Available at end of exam • Immediate feedback on Performance • Ability to Assess student performance on learning Outcomes • Iden-fica-on of Student Strengths and areas in need of Improvement
20
Test Security • Disabled Camera
• Browser disabled
• No Internet access during exams
• Inability to leave test environment
• Capacity to track student keystrokes while tes-ng
21
Test Blueprinting that provides actionable information (Accreditation, Program) • Objec-ves • Taxonomy • Nursing Process • Quality and Safety Educa-on in Nursing (QSEN) • NCLEX Test Plan
22
Decision Making Process Choices
• Learning Management System (LMS) PlaKorm • Scantron Based • Server Based Sohware
23
Decision Making Process LMS Platform
PRO
• No Extra Cost • Immediate scoring of Exam • Ease of rescoring Exams • Mul-ple ques-on formats • Link revised ques-ons to trace performance
• Easily add “extra -me’ when neded
• Ques-ons can be aligned with Learning Objec-ves
• Server Based
CONS
• Item Analysis likle detail • No KR20 • No Point BiSerial
• No detail on Student Analysis Student Analysis
• Limita-on on Test Blueprin-ng
24
Scantron Based
PRO • Affordable • Test can be Paper & Pen or on-‐line
• Immediate availability of results when tes-ng on-‐line
• No licensing (no limita-on)
• Detailed Item Analysis
CON • Installed on school Server
• Not out yet await launch date
• Limited student performance analysis
• Unable to analyze program Performance
25
Server Based Software
PRO
• Server Based • Detailed Student performance Analysis
CON
• Limited Ques-on Format • Limited item Analysis • Limited Program Analysis • Inability to trend data for accredita-on purposes
• Limited
26
A Change of Mind The Move to ExamSoh
Ø Recommenda-ons from other schools of Nursing
Ø Ability to give student’s detailed informa-on Ø High level of security Ø Detailed analysis (program, student, item, accredita-on)
Ø Item banking with historical informa-on Ø High level of Test Security 28
Planning for Electronic Testing • Lap Tops vs Chromebooks vs iPads
Ø Learning Curve Ø Compa-bility with applica-ons presently used Ø Price Ø U-lity
29
Hardware Considerations • Portability • U-lity • Compa-bility with other sohware used by school • Cost Effec-veness
30
Planning for Electronic Testing Faculty Tes-ng Commikee • Determine Policy
Ø Student Orienta-on Ø Faculty Orienta-on
• Exam Development & Administra-on • Standard Test Blueprint • Determine approach to Item wri-ng
Ø Ques-on approval process
32
Policies Instituted to Decrease Cheating • One Instructor proctor for every 25 students tested
• School provides Scrap paper Ø Scrap paper collected aher each exam
Ø Color of scrap paper changed for each exam
• School provides Pencil • No Calculators needed • Bathroom break during exam
• Exam Password protected • Different password to resume exam 33
References Ainsley, B., & Brown, A. (2009). The impact of informatics on nursing education: a review of the
literature. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40(5), 228-‐232. doi: 10.3928/00220124-‐20090422-‐02
Berry, J. (2009). Technology support in nursing education: clickers in the classroom. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(5), 295-‐298.
Caudle, P., et al. (2011). "IMPLEMENTING Computer-‐Based Testing in Distance Education for Advanced Practice Nurses: Lessons Learned." Nursing Education Perspectives 32(5): 328-‐332.
Diener, E., & Hobbs, N. (2012). Simulating Care: Technology-‐Mediated Learning in Twenty-‐First Century Nursing Education. Nursing Forum, 47(1), 34-‐38. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-‐6198.2011.00250.x
Grendell, R. N. (2011). Narrative pedagogy, technology, and curriculum transformation in nursing education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 65-‐67. doi: 10.1002/jls.20197
Griffin-‐Sobel, J. P., Acee, A., Sharoff, L., Cobus-‐Kuo, L., Woodstock-‐Wallace, A., & Dornbaum, M. (2010). A transdisciplinary approach to faculty development in nursing education technology. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(1), 41-‐43.
Gullo, S. R. (2014). Computerized testing of Level III associate degree nursing students versus paper and pencil testing methods. Ann Arbor, Capella University. 3616071: 57.
Jinyuan, T., et al. (2012). "Implementing Secure Laptop Based Tedting in an Undergraduate Nursing Program." Computers Informatics Nursing 30(7): 363-‐368.
Nguyen, D. N., Zierler, B., & Nguyen, H. Q. (2011). A Survey of Nursing Faculty Needs for Training in Use of New Technologies for Education and Practice. Journal of Nursing Education, 50(4), 181-‐189. doi: 10.3928/01484834-‐20101130-‐06
O'Keefe-‐McCarthy, S. (2009). Technologically-‐Mediated Nursing Care: the Impact on Moral Agency. Nursing Ethics, 16(6), 786. doi: 10.1177/0969733009343249
Okunji, P. and Hill, M. H. (2014) M. "Technology_Integration_in_Undergraduate_Traditional_Nursing_Programs_Students_Online_Testing_Experien." cjni.net.Stoner, M. (2007). Chapter 8: using technology in nursing education Nursing Education: Foundations for Practice Excellence (pp. 129-‐159). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: F. A. Davis Company.
Swan, B. A., Smith, K. A., Frisby, A., Shaffer, K., Hanson-‐Zalot, M., & Becker, J. (2013). Evaluating Tablet Technology in an Undergraduate Nursing Program. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(3), 192-‐193.
The voice of nursing informatics and the future of nursing Technology Informatics Guiding Education Reform (TIGER). (2010). ANIA-‐CARING Newsletter, 25(4), 11-‐12.
34
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master subtitle style For More Information:
Call: 1.866.429.8889
Email: [email protected]
Visit: learn.examsoft.com