Using Test-Taking Strategies to Maximize Multiple-Choice Test Scores

1986 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 619-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Dolly ◽  
Kathy S. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
Test Taking ◽  
Test Taking Strategies

Classroom Learning as a Function of Method of Presenting Instructional Materials

1966 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 971-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Vaughn Gulo ◽  
M. R. Nigro
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Television Instruction ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
Classroom Learning

In two experiments the efficiencies of programmed, television, and conventional textbook instruction were compared. Ss were randomly assigned to a group which worked through a standard programmed text; one which read the same material in conventional textbook form; one which listened to and saw a verbatim video-taped lecture of the programmed material. A 30-item multiple-choice test was administered immediately following instruction (Exps. I and II; Ns = 160, 134) or 1 wk. later (Exp. II). The results indicate that Ss who simply read the material in conventional textbook format only tended to have higher criterion test scores than Ss in either the programmed or television instruction groups. The results were, therefore, interpreted as consistent with the contention often made that differences in effectiveness of various methods of instruction are negligible, or at best, slight.

The Effect of Repetition on Multiple Choice Test Scores.

1945 ◽  
pp. 190-194
Author(s):  
M. R. Harrower-Erickson ◽  
M. E. Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Test

Effects of Specific Cueing on Multiple-Choice Test Performance

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1051-1054
Author(s):  
Bruce R. Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Multiple Choice Test ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Class Presentation ◽  
Related Test

Past research has shown that grouping related multiple-choice test items together does not increase students' performance on power tests, even when those groupings are sequenced in the order of class presentation. The present research examined the hypothesis, derived from the cue-dependent forgetting hypothesis, that grouping of related test items does not improve test performance because grouping per se is not a sufficiently powerful retrieval cue. Two experiments were conducted to determine whether specific cueing (placing author headings and subheadings above related blocks of test items) increased students' test scores. Results for both were negative; specific cueing did not significantly increase mean test scores. The ecological validity of the cue-dependent hypothesis was questioned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document