Loading…
Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials
'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMC medical education 2020-11, Vol.20 (1), p.450-450, Article 450 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3 |
container_end_page | 450 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 450 |
container_title | BMC medical education |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Gondhalekar, Anjali R Rees, Eliot L Ntuiabane, Daniel Janjua, Osman Choa, George Eboreime, Oziegbe Sturrock, Alison |
description | 'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage. Secondly, the distribution of these recalled questions poses a threat to the validity and defensibility of assessments. To address the first of these problems, we developed an amnesty enabling students to submit assessment material to an on-line site. This study sought to explore which factors influence students' contributions to an amnesty of assessment material.
We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants from all years of our undergraduate medical programme. The focus groups were facilitated by a medical student peer to reduce the power imbalance and encourage participants to discuss candidly. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed all transcripts using thematic analysis and the research team met regularly to discuss emergent findings. Nvivo was used to assist with thematic analysis of the transcripts.
Twenty-six individuals participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified through the analysis, which were categorised into motivating factors and de-motivating factors. Motivating factors were a perception that this would overcome inequity, a fear of repercussions, and the perceived usefulness of resources. Factors that prevented students contributing were a culture of competition, a lack of incentives, and mistrust of the medical school.
The establishment of an amnesty was acceptable to students and they were motivated to contribute materials. The competitive nature of medical careers and the stakes of summative assessments meant that students felt that some peers might still not contribute their materials. Students felt that the school were listening to their concerns and this led to a better dialogue between students and faculty. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12909-020-02320-0 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7681947</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A650662806</galeid><sourcerecordid>A650662806</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUstu1DAUjRCIlsIPsECWWMAmxa_YMQukqqKANBIbWFuOcz11ldiD7Yw0f4_DlD4Q8uP6cc6x79VpmtcEnxPSiw-ZUIVViymug63zk-aUcElboSh--mB90rzI-QZjIntGnjcnjFHaKY5PG7eBPUyTD1tUrgHtJnNY187DNH5EuSwjhJLfoTkWvzfFx5BRicjGUJIflgLrzgRk5gC5HFB0yOQMOc-Vh2ZTIHkz5ZfNM1cDvLqNZ83Pq88_Lr-2m-9fvl1ebFrLlSztQB0XgwGCB0ftOPYKADgHCtYN1oExgvdOOtV1jNmuohUluO96ITvgeGBnzaej7m4ZZhht_UQyk94lP5t00NF4_fgm-Gu9jXstRU8Ul1Xg_a1Air-WmpKefba1QiZAXLKmXDCBJWOkQt_-A72JSwo1vYqShKyd36O2ZgLtg4v1XbuK6gvRYSFoj0VFnf8HVdsIs6_FBufr-SMCPRJsijkncHc5EqxXd-ijO3R1h_7jDo0r6c3D6txR_tqB_QbH9LaZ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2471171174</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials</title><source>PubMed Central Free</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Education Collection</source><creator>Gondhalekar, Anjali R ; Rees, Eliot L ; Ntuiabane, Daniel ; Janjua, Osman ; Choa, George ; Eboreime, Oziegbe ; Sturrock, Alison</creator><creatorcontrib>Gondhalekar, Anjali R ; Rees, Eliot L ; Ntuiabane, Daniel ; Janjua, Osman ; Choa, George ; Eboreime, Oziegbe ; Sturrock, Alison</creatorcontrib><description>'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage. Secondly, the distribution of these recalled questions poses a threat to the validity and defensibility of assessments. To address the first of these problems, we developed an amnesty enabling students to submit assessment material to an on-line site. This study sought to explore which factors influence students' contributions to an amnesty of assessment material.
We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants from all years of our undergraduate medical programme. The focus groups were facilitated by a medical student peer to reduce the power imbalance and encourage participants to discuss candidly. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed all transcripts using thematic analysis and the research team met regularly to discuss emergent findings. Nvivo was used to assist with thematic analysis of the transcripts.
Twenty-six individuals participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified through the analysis, which were categorised into motivating factors and de-motivating factors. Motivating factors were a perception that this would overcome inequity, a fear of repercussions, and the perceived usefulness of resources. Factors that prevented students contributing were a culture of competition, a lack of incentives, and mistrust of the medical school.
The establishment of an amnesty was acceptable to students and they were motivated to contribute materials. The competitive nature of medical careers and the stakes of summative assessments meant that students felt that some peers might still not contribute their materials. Students felt that the school were listening to their concerns and this led to a better dialogue between students and faculty.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6920</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02320-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33225940</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Amnesties ; Analysis ; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes ; Black markets ; Cheating ; Cheating (Education) ; Clubs ; Coding ; College Students ; Data Analysis ; Data collection ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate ; Educational tests and measurements ; Evaluation ; Examinations ; Focus Groups ; Forecasts and trends ; Formative Evaluation ; Humans ; Medical education ; Medical schools ; Medical students ; Motivation ; Motivation in education ; Psychometrics ; Public opinion ; Qualitative Research ; Researchers ; School Buildings ; Schools, Medical ; Sports & recreation clubs ; Statistical Data ; Student Attitudes ; Students, Medical ; Summative Evaluation ; Teaching Methods ; Transcripts (Written Records) ; University colleges</subject><ispartof>BMC medical education, 2020-11, Vol.20 (1), p.450-450, Article 450</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2020. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3531-159X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7681947/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2471171174?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,21378,21394,25753,27924,27925,33611,33612,33877,33878,37012,37013,43733,43880,44590,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33225940$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gondhalekar, Anjali R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rees, Eliot L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ntuiabane, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janjua, Osman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choa, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eboreime, Oziegbe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sturrock, Alison</creatorcontrib><title>Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials</title><title>BMC medical education</title><addtitle>BMC Med Educ</addtitle><description>'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage. Secondly, the distribution of these recalled questions poses a threat to the validity and defensibility of assessments. To address the first of these problems, we developed an amnesty enabling students to submit assessment material to an on-line site. This study sought to explore which factors influence students' contributions to an amnesty of assessment material.
We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants from all years of our undergraduate medical programme. The focus groups were facilitated by a medical student peer to reduce the power imbalance and encourage participants to discuss candidly. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed all transcripts using thematic analysis and the research team met regularly to discuss emergent findings. Nvivo was used to assist with thematic analysis of the transcripts.
Twenty-six individuals participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified through the analysis, which were categorised into motivating factors and de-motivating factors. Motivating factors were a perception that this would overcome inequity, a fear of repercussions, and the perceived usefulness of resources. Factors that prevented students contributing were a culture of competition, a lack of incentives, and mistrust of the medical school.
The establishment of an amnesty was acceptable to students and they were motivated to contribute materials. The competitive nature of medical careers and the stakes of summative assessments meant that students felt that some peers might still not contribute their materials. Students felt that the school were listening to their concerns and this led to a better dialogue between students and faculty.</description><subject>Amnesties</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</subject><subject>Black markets</subject><subject>Cheating</subject><subject>Cheating (Education)</subject><subject>Clubs</subject><subject>Coding</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Data Analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate</subject><subject>Educational tests and measurements</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Examinations</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Formative Evaluation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical education</subject><subject>Medical schools</subject><subject>Medical students</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Motivation in education</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>School Buildings</subject><subject>Schools, Medical</subject><subject>Sports & recreation clubs</subject><subject>Statistical Data</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Students, Medical</subject><subject>Summative Evaluation</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Transcripts (Written Records)</subject><subject>University colleges</subject><issn>1472-6920</issn><issn>1472-6920</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNptUstu1DAUjRCIlsIPsECWWMAmxa_YMQukqqKANBIbWFuOcz11ldiD7Yw0f4_DlD4Q8uP6cc6x79VpmtcEnxPSiw-ZUIVViymug63zk-aUcElboSh--mB90rzI-QZjIntGnjcnjFHaKY5PG7eBPUyTD1tUrgHtJnNY187DNH5EuSwjhJLfoTkWvzfFx5BRicjGUJIflgLrzgRk5gC5HFB0yOQMOc-Vh2ZTIHkz5ZfNM1cDvLqNZ83Pq88_Lr-2m-9fvl1ebFrLlSztQB0XgwGCB0ftOPYKADgHCtYN1oExgvdOOtV1jNmuohUluO96ITvgeGBnzaej7m4ZZhht_UQyk94lP5t00NF4_fgm-Gu9jXstRU8Ul1Xg_a1Air-WmpKefba1QiZAXLKmXDCBJWOkQt_-A72JSwo1vYqShKyd36O2ZgLtg4v1XbuK6gvRYSFoj0VFnf8HVdsIs6_FBufr-SMCPRJsijkncHc5EqxXd-ijO3R1h_7jDo0r6c3D6txR_tqB_QbH9LaZ</recordid><startdate>20201123</startdate><enddate>20201123</enddate><creator>Gondhalekar, Anjali R</creator><creator>Rees, Eliot L</creator><creator>Ntuiabane, Daniel</creator><creator>Janjua, Osman</creator><creator>Choa, George</creator><creator>Eboreime, Oziegbe</creator><creator>Sturrock, Alison</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3531-159X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201123</creationdate><title>Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials</title><author>Gondhalekar, Anjali R ; Rees, Eliot L ; Ntuiabane, Daniel ; Janjua, Osman ; Choa, George ; Eboreime, Oziegbe ; Sturrock, Alison</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Amnesties</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</topic><topic>Black markets</topic><topic>Cheating</topic><topic>Cheating (Education)</topic><topic>Clubs</topic><topic>Coding</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Data Analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate</topic><topic>Educational tests and measurements</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Examinations</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Formative Evaluation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical education</topic><topic>Medical schools</topic><topic>Medical students</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Motivation in education</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>School Buildings</topic><topic>Schools, Medical</topic><topic>Sports & recreation clubs</topic><topic>Statistical Data</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Students, Medical</topic><topic>Summative Evaluation</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Transcripts (Written Records)</topic><topic>University colleges</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gondhalekar, Anjali R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rees, Eliot L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ntuiabane, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janjua, Osman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choa, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eboreime, Oziegbe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sturrock, Alison</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Entrepreneurship Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gondhalekar, Anjali R</au><au>Rees, Eliot L</au><au>Ntuiabane, Daniel</au><au>Janjua, Osman</au><au>Choa, George</au><au>Eboreime, Oziegbe</au><au>Sturrock, Alison</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials</atitle><jtitle>BMC medical education</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Med Educ</addtitle><date>2020-11-23</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>450</spage><epage>450</epage><pages>450-450</pages><artnum>450</artnum><issn>1472-6920</issn><eissn>1472-6920</eissn><abstract>'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage. Secondly, the distribution of these recalled questions poses a threat to the validity and defensibility of assessments. To address the first of these problems, we developed an amnesty enabling students to submit assessment material to an on-line site. This study sought to explore which factors influence students' contributions to an amnesty of assessment material.
We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants from all years of our undergraduate medical programme. The focus groups were facilitated by a medical student peer to reduce the power imbalance and encourage participants to discuss candidly. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed all transcripts using thematic analysis and the research team met regularly to discuss emergent findings. Nvivo was used to assist with thematic analysis of the transcripts.
Twenty-six individuals participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified through the analysis, which were categorised into motivating factors and de-motivating factors. Motivating factors were a perception that this would overcome inequity, a fear of repercussions, and the perceived usefulness of resources. Factors that prevented students contributing were a culture of competition, a lack of incentives, and mistrust of the medical school.
The establishment of an amnesty was acceptable to students and they were motivated to contribute materials. The competitive nature of medical careers and the stakes of summative assessments meant that students felt that some peers might still not contribute their materials. Students felt that the school were listening to their concerns and this led to a better dialogue between students and faculty.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>33225940</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12909-020-02320-0</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3531-159X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1472-6920 |
ispartof | BMC medical education, 2020-11, Vol.20 (1), p.450-450, Article 450 |
issn | 1472-6920 1472-6920 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7681947 |
source | PubMed Central Free; Publicly Available Content Database; Social Science Premium Collection; Education Collection |
subjects | Amnesties Analysis Beliefs, opinions and attitudes Black markets Cheating Cheating (Education) Clubs Coding College Students Data Analysis Data collection Education, Medical, Undergraduate Educational tests and measurements Evaluation Examinations Focus Groups Forecasts and trends Formative Evaluation Humans Medical education Medical schools Medical students Motivation Motivation in education Psychometrics Public opinion Qualitative Research Researchers School Buildings Schools, Medical Sports & recreation clubs Statistical Data Student Attitudes Students, Medical Summative Evaluation Teaching Methods Transcripts (Written Records) University colleges |
title | Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T07%3A18%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Levelling%20the%20playing%20field:%20students'%20motivations%20to%20contribute%20to%20an%20amnesty%20of%20assessment%20materials&rft.jtitle=BMC%20medical%20education&rft.au=Gondhalekar,%20Anjali%20R&rft.date=2020-11-23&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=450&rft.epage=450&rft.pages=450-450&rft.artnum=450&rft.issn=1472-6920&rft.eissn=1472-6920&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12909-020-02320-0&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA650662806%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-b2f46bae10bf2cdd89eee44e2ecfbcfeaa648f7f95533c52f49210858675e40b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2471171174&rft_id=info:pmid/33225940&rft_galeid=A650662806&rfr_iscdi=true |