• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Interactive technology and smart education >Multiple choice questions: answering correctly and knowing the answer
【24h】

Multiple choice questions: answering correctly and knowing the answer

机译：选择题：正确回答并知道答案

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose - This paper aims to examine whether multiple choice questions (MCQs) can be answered correctly without knowing the answer and whether constructed response questions (CRQs) offer more reliable assessment. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a critical review of existing research on MCQs, then reports on an experimental study where two objective tests (using MCQs and CRQs) were set for an introductory undergraduate course. To maximise completion, tests were kept short; consequently, differences between individuals' scores across both tests are examined rather than overall averages and pass rates. Findings - Most students who excelled in the MCQ test did not do so in the CRQ test. Students could do well without necessarily understanding the principles being tested. Research limitations/implications - Conclusions are limited by the small number of questions in each test and by delivery of the tests at different times. This meant that statistical average data would be too coarse to use, and that some students took one test but not the other. Conclusions concerning CRQs are limited to disciplines where numerical answers or short and constrained text answers are appropriate. Practical implications - MCQs, while useful in formative assessment, are best avoided for summative assessments. Where appropriate, CRQs should be used instead. Social implications - MCQs are commonplace as summative assessments in education and training. Increasing the use of CRQs in place of MCQs should increase the reliability of tests, including those administered in safety-critical areas Originality/value - While others have recommended that MCQs should not be used (Hinchliffe 2014, Srivastava et al., 2004) because they are vulnerable to guessing, this paper presents an experimental study designed to demonstrate whether this hypothesis is correct.
机译：目的-本文旨在研究在不知道答案的情况下是否可以正确回答多项选择题（MCQ），以及构造的回答题（CRQ）是否可以提供更可靠的评估。设计/方法/方法-本文提出了对现有MCQ研究的批判性评论，然后报告了一项实验研究，其中为入门型本科课程设置了两个客观测试（使用MCQ和CRQ）。为了最大程度地完成测试，测试保持简短；因此，将检查两个测试中个人得分之间的差异，而不是总体平均水平和及格率。调查结果-大多数在MCQ考试中表现出色的学生在CRQ考试中都没有。学生可以在不必理解测试原理的情况下做得很好。研究局限性/含意-结论受到每个测试中问题数量少以及测试在不同时间交付的限制。这意味着统计平均值数据太粗糙而无法使用，并且一些学生参加了一项测试，而没有参加另一项测试。有关CRQ的结论仅限于适用数字答案或简短且受约束的文字答案的学科。实际意义-MCQ虽然在形成性评估中很有用，但最好避免进行总结性评估。在适当的地方，应使用CRQ。社会影响-MCQ作为教育和培训中的总结性评估是司空见惯的。越来越多地使用CRQ来代替MCQ应该会提高测试的可靠性，包括在安全关键区域进行的测试原创性/价值-尽管其他人建议不要使用MCQ（Hinchliffe 2014； Srivastava等人，2004），因为他们很容易猜测，因此本文提出了一项实验研究，旨在证明这一假设是否正确。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号