Multiple-Choice and Short-Answer Exam Performance in a College Classroom

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven C. Funk ◽  
K. Laurie Dickson
2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen B. McDermott ◽  
Pooja K. Agarwal ◽  
Laura D'Antonio ◽  
Henry L. Roediger ◽  
Mark A. McDaniel

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Kelley ◽  
Elizabeth K. Chapman-Orr ◽  
Susanna Calkins ◽  
Robert J. Lemke

The present study explored the generation and retrieval practice effects within a college classroom using a free, online tool called PeerWise (PW). PW allows students to create their own multiple-choice questions, share them with peers, and answer the shared questions written by their peers. Forty students from two sections of an upper level cognitive psychology course authored and answered multiple-choice questions as part of a semester-long assignment. Analyses showed reliable generation and retrieval practice effects following PW usage, along with a significant improvement in exam performance.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zainal Abidin

National Examination and Cambridge Checkpoint are the instrument for evaluating the standard competence ofstudent which organized in Secondary Level. National Examination’s questions based on the National Curriculum ofIndonesia but Cambridge Checkpoint’s questions taken based on Cambridge Curriculum. The aims of this researchis analyzing the type of each question and distribution of each strands in the National Mathematics Examination 2015and Mathematics of Cambridge Checkpoint for Secondary Level 2015. This type of research is a descriptive studywith a qualitative approach. National Mathematics Examination 2015 has one paper only but Mathematics ofCambridge Checkpoint for Secondary Level 2015 has 2 papers for the test. It can be concluded that all question’stype of the National Mathematics Examination for Secondary Level 2015 are multiple choice questions. OnMathematics of Cambridge Checkpoint for Secondary Level 2015, there are various types of questions which consistof 11,43% short-answer question; 68,57% analysis question; 8,57% completing question; and 11,43% match questionfor paper 1, but 22,22% short-answer question; 58,33% analysis question; 11,11% completing question; 2,78% matchquestion; 2,78% multiple choice question; and 2,78% yes/no question for paper 2. Based on strands analyzing result,It can be determined that National Mathematics Examination for Secondary Level 2015 contain of 22,25% number;27,5 algebra; 40% geometry and measurement; 10% statistic and probability. On Mathematics of CambridgeCheckpoint for Secondary Level 2015, It can be explained that 45,72% number; 20% algebra; 17,14% geometry andmeasurement; and 17,14% statistic and probability for paper 1, and 33,33% number; 19,45% algebra; 25% geometryand measurement; and 22,22% statistic and probability for paper 2.


Author(s):  
Robert Lado

Discussions of the testing of proficiency to write a foreign language are usually limited to techniques; and without a rationale or set criteria of what is to be tested, the result is confusion. Partly as a consequence of the lack of a rationale we are faced with a dearth of techniques in use. Essentially we find only two: objective short answer tests, which are distrusted, and composition tests, which are frustrating because of problems of scoring and the time involved.Superficial clichés are freely applied to these two techniques. Judgments are made on outward appearances — face validity — without reference to linguistic content or to empirically tested validity. On the basis of appearance, objective tests are criticized because presumably (1) they do not force the student to think, (2) they do not require that the student organize and present information, (3) they are only recognition, multiple choice tests, (4) they are considered elementary in comparison with the business of writing a free composition in the foreign language.


SAGE Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824401455662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen T. Paul ◽  
Samantha Monda ◽  
S. Maria Olausson ◽  
Brenna Reed-Daley

1990 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pressley ◽  
Elizabeth S. Ghatala ◽  
Vera Woloshyn ◽  
Jennifer Pirie

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