The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correcting Missed Exam Questions as a Learning Tool in a Physiology Course
Abstract
Students in a junior- and seniorlevel Anatomy and Physiology course have the opportunity to correct missed exam questions (“regrade”) and earn up to half of the original points missed. The three objectives of this study were to determine if (a) performance on the regrade assignment was correlated with scores on subsequent exams, (b) completing regrades improved grades on the comprehensive final exam and overall course grade, and (c) there was an optimal number of regrades that led to better student performance. Data were compiled over 7 years and original exam scores, regrade scores, final exam scores, and overall course scores were analyzed (n = 999). Performing well on regrades for an exam was found to be positively correlated to scores on the subsequent exam. Students doing at least one exam regrade had significantly greater mean final exam scores and overall course grades compared with students doing no regrades, and completing at least three regrades resulted in greater final exam and overall course grades than completing less than three regrades. From our results it appears that the exercise of reflecting on poorly understood course material with immediate instructor feedback is valuable for student comprehension and ability to apply basic concepts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Similarly, studies in Biology and Physics classrooms have shown that when students are incentivized to correct their mistakes on exams these students show statistically significant improvements in their course performance (Brown, Mason, & Singh, 2016; Rozell, Johnson, Sexten, & Rhodes, 2017).”
From Exploring Organic Chemistry I students’ responses to an exam wrapper intervention. (2020) · cites this paper as Rozell, Johnson, Sexten, & Rhodes, 2017
Citations
Cites
Accretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three Modes of Learning
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1976) · doi:10.21236/ada030406 · Cited by 609
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Ammirati, T. (1998). Targeted test revision—another approach to science testing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 117–120.
- 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010121 · DOI · Paper page
- Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitivie architecture. In S.D. Tobias & T.M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: A success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge: Issues of liminality. In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). New York, NY: Routledge.
- 10.1037/0022-0663.68.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1021/ed084p1445 · DOI
- Schroeter, C., Green, V.S., & Bess, E. (2010, June). Second time is a charm: The impact of correcting missed exam questions on student learning. NACTA Journal, 54(2), 21–29.
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind in society: The develoment of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cited by
Exploring Organic Chemistry I students’ responses to an exam wrapper intervention.
Grandoit, E., Bergdoll, R., Rosales, E., Turbeville, D., Mayer, S., & Horowitz, G. (2020) · Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24825 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Rozell, T. G., Johnson, J., Sexten, A., & Rhodes, A. E.
- Affiliations
- Kansas State University (US)
- Eastern Kentucky University (US)
- ORCID
- Johnson, Jessica
- Venue
- Journal of College Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 56-63
- ISSN
- 0047-231X (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4898
- OpenAlex
- W2618889546
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The journal of college science teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- student reflection, instructor feedback, anatomy and physiology education, student performance, course grades, final exam scores
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
