Abstract
Objective: Our master's program in biostatistics requires a qualifying examination (QE). A curriculum review led us to question whether to replace a closed-book format with an open-book one. Our goal was to improve the QE. Methods: This is a case study and commentary, where we describe the evolution of the QE, both in its goals and its content. The result was a week-long, open-book, collaborative, take-home examination structured around the analysis of two types of studies commonly encountered in biostatistical practice. Our evaluation of the revised format includes its fairness, student performance, and student feedback. Results: The new format has a number of advantages: (1) it has a specific educational goal; (2) it provides sufficient time for students to produce their best work; (3) it encourages students to review elements of the first-year curriculum as needed; and (4) it can be administered remotely, even during a pandemic. Potential concerns pertaining to cheating and rigor can be adequately addressed. The results of our evaluation of the examination have been encouraging. The QE is intended to be a "fair" examination that covers important material which is beneficial to students, and does so in a way that is transparent and puts everyone in a position to perform their best work. Conclusions: An examination using this format has much to recommend it. When designing an examination, it is important to (a) match its format with clearly specified educational goals; and (b) distinguish between the distinct constructs of difficulty and rigor.
Highlights
A meeting of the teaching faculty is taking place, and the topic is the results of the qualifying examination allowing students to continue in the doctoral program
: that, despite pretending to be unable to do so, The Professor could fix the boat and leave the island any time he likes, but prefers not to do so. Is he enjoying a paid vacation, and perhaps doing a bit of field research for a manuscript on cultural anthropology, but he is escaping from tedious meetings of the teaching faculty. This reverie is interrupted by a question from one faculty member to another: “So, when you were writing your dissertation did you ever lock yourself in your office, hide all the books, and take the five hours to write?”
"Well, you are proposing to drop a student from our doctoral program, who we all enthusiastically recruited, who we all determined was well prepared, and who passed her first-year courses, because she failed an intentionally difficult 5-hour closed-book examination on those same courses, and the rationale that you offer is that her exam results demonstrate that she probably won’t be able to successfully write a doctoral thesis
Summary
This is a case study and commentary, where we describe the evolution of the QE, both in its goals and its content. Our evaluation of the revised format includes its fairness, student performance, and student feedback
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
