Prospective Implementation of Correction for Guessing in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Multiple-Choice Examinations: Did Student Performance Improve?

2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 1149-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Prihoda ◽  
R. Neal Pinckard ◽  
C. Alex McMahan ◽  
John H. Littlefield ◽  
Anne Cale Jones
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne Massoudi ◽  
SzeKee Koh ◽  
Phillip J. Hancock ◽  
Lucia Fung

ABSTRACT In this paper we investigate the effectiveness of an online learning resource for introductory financial accounting students using a suite of online multiple choice questions (MCQ) for summative and formative purposes. We found that the availability and use of an online resource resulted in improved examination performance for those students who actively used the online learning resource. Further, we found a positive relationship between formative MCQ and unit content related to challenging financial accounting concepts. However, better examination performance was also linked to other factors, such as prior academic performance, tutorial participation, and demographics, including gender and attending university as an international student. JEL Classifications: I20; M41.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Paz Espinosa ◽  
Javier Gardeazabal

AbstractThis paper analyzes gender differences in student performance in Multiple-Choice Tests (MCT). We report evidence from a field experiment suggesting that, when MCT use a correction for guessing formula to obtain test scores, on average women tend to omit more items, get less correct answers and lower grades than men. We find that the gender difference in average test scores is concentrated at the upper tail of the distribution of scores. In addition, gender differences strongly depend on the framing of the scoring rule.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. ar7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoying Xu ◽  
Jennifer E. Lewis ◽  
Jennifer Loertscher ◽  
Vicky Minderhout ◽  
Heather L. Tienson

Multiple-choice assessments provide a straightforward way for instructors of large classes to collect data related to student understanding of key concepts at the beginning and end of a course. By tracking student performance over time, instructors receive formative feedback about their teaching and can assess the impact of instructional changes. The evidence of instructional effectiveness can in turn inform future instruction, and vice versa. In this study, we analyzed student responses on an optimized pretest and posttest administered during four different quarters in a large-enrollment biochemistry course. Student performance and the effect of instructional interventions related to three fundamental concepts—hydrogen bonding, bond energy, and pKa—were analyzed. After instructional interventions, a larger proportion of students demonstrated knowledge of these concepts compared with data collected before instructional interventions. Student responses trended from inconsistent to consistent and from incorrect to correct. The instructional effect was particularly remarkable for the later three quarters related to hydrogen bonding and bond energy. This study supports the use of multiple-choice instruments to assess the effectiveness of instructional interventions, especially in large classes, by providing instructors with quick and reliable feedback on student knowledge of each specific fundamental concept.


2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. Pelaez

The aim of this study was to determine whether problem-based writing with peer review (PW-PR) improves undergraduate student performance on physiology exams. Didactic lectures were replaced with assignments to give students practice explaining their reasoning while solving qualitative problems, thus transferring the responsibility for abstraction and generalization to the students. Performance on exam items about concepts taught using PW-PR was compared with performance on concepts taught using didactic lectures followed by group work. Calibrated Peer Review™, a Web-delivered program, was used to collect student essays and to manage anonymous peer review after students “passed” three calibration peer reviews. Results show that the students had difficulty relating concepts. Relationship errors were categorized as 1) problems recognizing levels of organization, 2) problems with cause/effect, and 3) overgeneralizations. For example, some described cells as molecules; others thought that vesicles transport materials through the extracellular fluid. With PW-PR, class discussion was used to confront and resolve such difficulties. Both multiple-choice and essay exam results were better with PW-PR instead of lecture.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
César Ávila ◽  
Rafael Torrubia

The relation between personality and type of error made in multiple‐choice examinations when correction for guessing is applied was investigated across two studies. Our general hypothesis was that disinhibited subjects (those scoring high on the Sensitivity to Reward (SR) scale and/or low on the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) scale) would make more incorrect responses and fewer omission errors (blanks) than inhibited subjects (those with high SP and/or low SR scores). The meta‐analyses of 19 examinations in study 1 confirmed our hypotheses for SP, SR, and extraversion. Regression analyses on effect sizes revealed that SP differences were obtained in examinations with low marks, whereas SR differences were obtained in examinations with more responses and fewer questions. Study 2 showed that a low‐mark expectation increased omissions in high‐SP subjects, whereas a high‐mark expectation increased incorrect responses in high‐SR subjects. These results suggest two different mechanisms mediating inhibition/disinhibition: one associated with aversive motivation, and the other with appetitive motivation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


1975 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. A. Hansen ◽  
F. L. Schmidt ◽  
J. C. Hansen

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon M. Franklin ◽  
Lin Xiang ◽  
Jason A. Collett ◽  
Megan K. Rhoads ◽  
Jeffrey L. Osborn

Student populations are diverse such that different types of learners struggle with traditional didactic instruction. Problem-based learning has existed for several decades, but there is still controversy regarding the optimal mode of instruction to ensure success at all levels of students' past achievement. The present study addressed this problem by dividing students into the following three instructional groups for an upper-level course in animal physiology: traditional lecture-style instruction (LI), guided problem-based instruction (GPBI), and open problem-based instruction (OPBI). Student performance was measured by three summative assessments consisting of 50% multiple-choice questions and 50% short-answer questions as well as a final overall course assessment. The present study also examined how students of different academic achievement histories performed under each instructional method. When student achievement levels were not considered, the effects of instructional methods on student outcomes were modest; OPBI students performed moderately better on short-answer exam questions than both LI and GPBI groups. High-achieving students showed no difference in performance for any of the instructional methods on any metric examined. In students with low-achieving academic histories, OPBI students largely outperformed LI students on all metrics (short-answer exam: P < 0.05, d = 1.865; multiple-choice question exam: P < 0.05, d = 1.166; and final score: P < 0.05, d = 1.265). They also outperformed GPBI students on short-answer exam questions ( P < 0.05, d = 1.109) but not multiple-choice exam questions ( P = 0.071, d = 0.716) or final course outcome ( P = 0.328, d = 0.513). These findings strongly suggest that typically low-achieving students perform at a higher level under OPBI as long as the proper support systems (formative assessment and scaffolding) are provided to encourage student success.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document