scholarly journals Step by Step: Biology Undergraduates’ Problem-Solving Procedures during Multiple-Choice Assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. ar71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luanna B. Prevost ◽  
Paula P. Lemons
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Specific Problem ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Hybrid Procedures ◽  
General Domain ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Written Descriptions ◽  
Categorization Scheme

This study uses the theoretical framework of domain-specific problem solving to explore the procedures students use to solve multiple-choice problems about biology concepts. We designed several multiple-choice problems and administered them on four exams. We trained students to produce written descriptions of how they solved the problem, and this allowed us to systematically investigate their problem-solving procedures. We identified a range of procedures and organized them as domain general, domain specific, or hybrid. We also identified domain-general and domain-specific errors made by students during problem solving. We found that students use domain-general and hybrid procedures more frequently when solving lower-order problems than higher-order problems, while they use domain-specific procedures more frequently when solving higher-order problems. Additionally, the more domain-specific procedures students used, the higher the likelihood that they would answer the problem correctly, up to five procedures. However, if students used just one domain-general procedure, they were as likely to answer the problem correctly as if they had used two to five domain-general procedures. Our findings provide a categorization scheme and framework for additional research on biology problem solving and suggest several important implications for researchers and instructors.

scholarly journals The computer-based assessment of domain-specific problem-solving competence—A three-step scoring procedure

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1719571
Author(s):  
Jürgen Seifried ◽  
Steffen Brandt ◽  
Kristina Kögler ◽  
Andreas Rausch
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Specific Problem ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Computer Based

Scientific Problem Solving in a Virtual Laboratory: A Comparison Between Individuals and Pairs

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolanda A. Métrailler ◽  
Ester Reijnen ◽  
Cornelia Kneser ◽  
Klaus Opwis
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Scientific Problem ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Scientific Problem Solving ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Verbal Data ◽  
Psychological Knowledge ◽  
Problem Solving Task

This study compared individuals with pairs in a scientific problem-solving task. Participants interacted with a virtual psychological laboratory called Virtue to reason about a visual search theory. To this end, they created hypotheses, designed experiments, and analyzed and interpreted the results of their experiments in order to discover which of five possible factors affected the visual search process. Before and after their interaction with Virtue, participants took a test measuring theoretical and methodological knowledge. In addition, process data reflecting participants’ experimental activities and verbal data were collected. The results showed a significant but equal increase in knowledge for both groups. We found differences between individuals and pairs in the evaluation of hypotheses in the process data, and in descriptive and explanatory statements in the verbal data. Interacting with Virtue helped all students improve their domain-specific and domain-general psychological knowledge.

scholarly journals 7 Specific problem solving skills

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-64
Author(s):  
Mette Brekke ◽  
Bernard Gay ◽  
Givi Javashvili ◽  
Janko Kersnik ◽  
Razvan Miftode ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Specific Problem ◽  
Problem Solving Skills

scholarly journals Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Stringer ◽  
Sally A. Santen ◽  
Eun Lee ◽  
Meagan Rawls ◽  
Jean Bailey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Order ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Bloom's Taxonomy ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Analytic Thinking ◽  
Bloom’S Taxonomy ◽  
Degree Of Confidence ◽  
Clinical Reasoning Skills

Abstract Background Analytic thinking skills are important to the development of physicians. Therefore, educators and licensing boards utilize multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess these knowledge and skills. MCQs are written under two assumptions: that they can be written as higher or lower order according to Bloom’s taxonomy, and students will perceive questions to be the same taxonomical level as intended. This study seeks to understand the students’ approach to questions by analyzing differences in students’ perception of the Bloom’s level of MCQs in relation to their knowledge and confidence. Methods A total of 137 students responded to practice endocrine MCQs. Participants indicated the answer to the question, their interpretation of it as higher or lower order, and the degree of confidence in their response to the question. Results Although there was no significant association between students’ average performance on the content and their question classification (higher or lower), individual students who were less confident in their answer were more than five times as likely (OR = 5.49) to identify a question as higher order than their more confident peers. Students who responded incorrectly to the MCQ were 4 times as likely to identify a question as higher order than their peers who responded correctly. Conclusions The results suggest that higher performing, more confident students rely on identifying patterns (even if the question was intended to be higher order). In contrast, less confident students engage in higher-order, analytic thinking even if the question is intended to be lower order. Better understanding of the processes through which students interpret MCQs will help us to better understand the development of clinical reasoning skills.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document