1Office of Medical Education, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 2Medical Information Technology Service Center, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 3Department of Medical Education, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 4Department of Paediatrics, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 5Department of Urology, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 6Department of Obstetrics, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 7Department of Medical Information, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 8Department of Otolaryngology- Head & Neck Surgery, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 9Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to understand student recognition of CBT as well as its strengths and weaknesses, and to explore the improvement methodologies for the effective development and implementation of CBT. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted twice (before and after implementation of CBT) with a total of 17 multiple-choice and 2 essay-type questions. The multiple-choice questions were analyzed by frequency analysis and the essay-type questions were coded by content analysis. RESULTS: The results are as follows. First, the overall satisfaction with CBT was shown to be high. Second, students listed the merits of CBT as follows: simple correction of answers (before: 89.4%; after: 80.8%), presentation of realistic materials (before: 72.9%; after: 84.7%), prompt feedback on grades (before: 60.3%; after: 71.1%), shortened exam time and effective time scheduling (before: 86.5%; after: 66.4%), accurate estimation of abilities (before: 70.2%; after: 36.6%), and assistance in academic improvement (before: 70.9%; after: 22.1%). Drawbacks of CBT were: inconvenience of review (before: 70.9%; after: 22.1%), inconvenient screen organizations (before: 0%; after: 48.1%), possibility of cheating (before: 73.9%; after: 31.8%), and equality issue of test (before: 47.3%; after: 17.3%). CONCLUSION: Assessment paradigms are currently shifting from summative evaluation to formative evaluation, from one-off assessment to continuous assessment, and from output assessment to process assessment. Therefore, CBT must be expanded to move from result-oriented summative evaluation to formative evaluation continuously monitoring the student learning process.
PDF Links
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
