17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      How Question Types Reveal Student Thinking: An Experimental Comparison of Multiple-True-False and Free-Response Formats

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A comparison of questions posed in multiple true–false and free-response formats reveals how the question type affects diagnosis of the degree to which students hold correct and incorrect understandings.

          Abstract

          Assessments represent an important component of undergraduate courses because they affect how students interact with course content and gauge student achievement of course objectives. To make decisions on assessment design, instructors must understand the affordances and limitations of available question formats. Here, we use a crossover experimental design to identify differences in how multiple-true-false (MTF) and free-response (FR) exam questions reveal student thinking regarding specific conceptions. We report that correct response rates correlate across the two formats but that a higher percentage of students provide correct responses for MTF questions. We find that MTF questions reveal a high prevalence of students with mixed (correct and incorrect) conceptions, while FR questions reveal a high prevalence of students with partial (correct and unclear) conceptions. These results suggest that MTF question prompts can direct students to address specific conceptions but obscure nuances in student thinking and may overestimate the frequency of particular conceptions. Conversely, FR questions provide a more authentic portrait of student thinking but may face limitations in their ability to diagnose specific, particularly incorrect, conceptions. We further discuss an intrinsic tension between question structure and diagnostic capacity and how instructors might use multiple formats or hybrid formats to overcome these obstacles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Developing the theory of formative assessment

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            R: Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

            (2016)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Monitoring Editor
                Journal
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE Life Sciences Education
                American Society for Cell Biology
                1931-7913
                Summer 2017
                : 16
                : 2
                : ar26
                Affiliations
                [1]School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588
                Author notes
                *Address correspondence to: Brian A. Couch ( bcouch2@ 123456unl.edu ).
                Article
                CBE.16-12-0339
                10.1187/cbe.16-12-0339
                5459244
                28450446
                41c66fd0-5a05-4166-9e01-06dcb53eb6e6
                © 2017 J. K. Hubbard et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2017 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

                “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.

                History
                : 05 December 2016
                : 01 February 2017
                : 27 February 2017
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                June 1, 2017

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article