Downloads

1. Biggs JB. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2011. 2. Fink LD. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An IntegratedApproach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. 3. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112. 4. Draper SW. Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. Br J Edu Technol. 2009;40(2):285-293. 5. Roediger HL III, Agarwal PK, Kang SH, Marsh EJ. Benefits of testing memory: Best practices and boundary conditions. In: Davies GM, Wright DB, eds. Current Issues in Applied Memory Research. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2010:13-49. 6. Wynter L, Burgess A, Kalman E, et al. Medical students: what educational resources are they using? BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):36. 7. Burk-Rafel J, Santen SA, Purkiss J. Study Behaviors and USMLE step 1 performance: implications of a student self-directed parallel curriculum. Acad Med. 2017;92(11S):S67-S74. 8. Kenwright D, Dai W, Osborne E, et al. Just tell me what I need to know to pass the exam!” Can active flipped learning overcome passivity. TAPS. 2017;2(1):1-6. 9. Buttery CM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(20):2109; author reply 2110. 10. Rughani G. Online question banks. BMJ. 2013;346:f3500. https://doi.org/10.1136/sbmj.f3500 11. Mann K, MacLeod A. Constructivism: learning theories and approaches to research. In: Cleland JA, Durning SJ, eds. Researching Medical Education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell; 2015:51-65. 12. Belshaw A, Mackie A, Phillips HK, et al. Comment on: creating assessments as an active learning strategy: what are students’ perceptions? A mixed methods study. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1709277. 13. Feeley M, Parris J. An assessment of the PeerWise student-contributed question system's impact on learning outcomes: evidence from a large enrollment political science course. SSRN Electron J. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2144375. 14. Denny P, Hamer J, Luxton-Reilly A, Purchase H. PeerWise: students sharing their multiple choice questions. In: Lister R, ed. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computing Machinery; 2008:51-58. 15. Luxton-Reilly A, Denny P. Constructive evaluation: a pedagogy of student-contributed assessment. Comput Sci Educ. 2010;20(2):145-167. 16. Laal M, Ghodsi SM. Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;31:486-490. 17. Adesope OO, Trevisan DA, Sundararajan N. Rethinking the use of tests: a meta-analysis of practice testing. Rev Educ Res. 2017;87(3):659-701. 18. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, et al. Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2013;14(1):4-58. 19. Karpicke JD, Roediger HL. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008;319(5865):966-968. 20. Nicol D. E-assessment by design: using multiple-choice tests to good effect. J Further Higher Educ. 2007;31(1):53-64. 21. Denny P. PeerWise. 2021. https://peerw ise.cs.auckl and.ac.nz/. Accessed April 28, 2021. 22. Denny P, Hanks B, Simon B. Peerwise: replication study of a student-collaborative self-testing web service in a US setting. In: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. March 5, 2010:421–425. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734407 23. Casey MM, Bates SP, Galloway KW, et al. Scaffolding student engagement via online peer learning. Eur J Phys. 2014;35(4):045002. 24. Hardy J, Bates SP, Casey MM, et al. Student-generated content: enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. Int J Sci Educ. 2014;36(13):2180-2194. 25. Hancock D, Hare N, Denny P, et al. Improving large class performance and engagement through student-generated question banks. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2018;46(4):306-317. 26. Khashaba AS. Evaluation of the effectiveness of online peer-based formative assessments (PeerWise) to enhance student learning in physiology: A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2020;6(4):613-https://doi.org/10.46328/ ijres.v6i4.1216. 27. Doyle E, Buckley P. The impact of co-creation:an analysis of the effectiveness of student authored multiple choice questions on achievement of learning outcomes. Interact Learn Environ. 2020;1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494 820.2020.1777166. 28. Galloway KW, Burns S. Doing it for themselves: students creating a high quality peer-learning environment. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2015;16(1):82-92. 29. Kay AE, Hardy J, Galloway RK. Student use of PeerWise: a multi-institutional, multidisciplinary evaluation. Br J Edu Technol. 2020;51(1):23-35. 30. McQueen HA, Shields C, Finnegan DJ, et al. PeerWise provides significant academic benefits to biological science students across diverse learning tasks, but with minimal instructor intervention. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2014;42(5):371-381. 31. Walsh JL, Harris BH, Denny P, Smith P. Formative student-authored question bank: perceptions, question quality and association with summative performance. Postgrad Med J. 2018;94(1108):97. 32. Kadir FA, Ansari RM, AbManan N, Abdullah MH, Nor HM. The impact of PeerWise approach on the academic performance of medical students. Malays Online J Educ Technol. 2014;2(4):37-49. 33. Harris BHL, Walsh JL, Tayyaba S, et al. A novel student-led approach to multiple-choice question generation and online database creation, with targeted clinician input. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(2):182-188. 34. Palmer E, Devitt P. Constructing multiple choice questions as a method for learning. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2006;35(9):604. 35. Tatachar A, Kominski C. Assessing a traditional case-based application exercise and a student question creation exercise on student performance and perceptions. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017;9(4):689-697. 36. Grainger R, Dai W, Osborne E, et al. Medical students create multiple-choice questions for learning in pathology education: a pilot study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):201. 37. Bottomley S, Denny P. A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2011;39(5):352-361. 38. Ritu L, Farah O, Nabil Z. Assessment as learning in medical education: feasibility and perceived impact of student-generated formative assessments. Research Square—Pre-Review. 2021. 39. Smith CD, Dai A, Kenwright D, et al. PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential. MedEdPublish. 2020;1. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000027.1. 40. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2011. 41. Schifferdecker KE, Reed VA. Using mixed methods research in medical education: basic guidelines for researchers. Med Educ. 2009;43(7):637-644. 42. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman; 2001. 43. Denny P. PeerWise. Scoring: for fun and extra credit! nd. https://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/docs/community/scori ng_for_fun_and_extra_credit/#:~:text=Once%20again%2C%20to%20get%20a,%22%20or%20%22excellent%22%20respectively. Accessed April 12, 2020. 44. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. 45. Boyatzis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998. 46. Rosenshine B, Meister C, Chapman S. Teaching students to generate questions: a review of the intervention studies. Rev Educ Res. 1996;66(2):181-221. 47. Rhind SM, Pettigrew GW. Peer generation of multiple-choice questions: student engagement and experiences. J Vet Med Educ. 2012;39(4):375-379. 48. Poot R, De Kleijn RA, Van Rijen HV, van Tartwijk J. Students generate items for an online formative assessment: is it motivating? Med Teach. 2017;39(3):315-320. 49. Bates SP, Galloway RK, Riise J, et al. Assessing the quality of astudent-generated question repository. Phys Rev Spec Top—Phys Edu Res. 2014;10(2):020105. 50. Kurtz JB, Lourie MA, Holman EE, et al. Creating assessments as an active learning strategy: what are students’ perceptions? A mixed methods study. Med Educ Online. 2019;24(1):1630239. 51. Shah MP, Lin BR, Lee M, Kahn D, Hernandez E. Student written multiple-choice questions — a practical and educational approach. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29(1):41-43. 52. Moreno R. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instr Sci. 2004;32(1):99-113. 53. Nelson MM, Schunn CD. The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instr Sci.2009;37(4):375-401. 54. Bates SP, Galloway RK, McBride KL. Student-generated content: using PeerWise to enhance engagement and outcomes in introductory physics courses. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics, 2012;1413(1):123–126. 55. Jobs A, Twesten C, Göbel A, et al. Question-writing as a learning tool for students—outcomes from curricular exams. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):89. 56. Tackett S, Raymond M, Desai R, et al. Crowdsourcing for assessment items to support adaptive learning. Med Teach. 2018;40(8):838-841. 57. Gooi ACC, Sommerfeld CS. Medical school 2.0: how we developed a student-generated question bank using small group learning. Med Teach. 2015;37(10):892-896. 58. Cho KK, Marjadi B, Langendyk V, et al. The self-regulated learning of medical students in the clinical environment—a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):112.