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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC medical education 2020-11, Vol.20 (1), p.450-450, Article 450
Main Authors: Gondhalekar, Anjali R, Rees, Eliot L, Ntuiabane, Daniel, Janjua, Osman, Choa, George, Eboreime, Oziegbe, Sturrock, Alison
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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