E‐assessment by design: using multiple‐choice tests to good effect

Over the last decade, larger student numbers, reduced resources and increasing use of new technologies have led to the increased use of multiple‐choice questions (MCQs) as a method of assessment in higher education courses. This paper identifies some limitations associated with MCQs from a pedagogical standpoint. It then provides an assessment framework and a set of feedback principles that, if implemented, would support the development of learner self‐regulation. The different uses of MCQs are then mapped out in relation to this framework using case studies of assessment practice drawn from published research. This analysis shows the different ways in which MCQs can be used to support the development of learner self‐regulation. The framework and principles are offered as a way of helping teachers design the use of MCQs in their courses and of evaluating their effectiveness in supporting the development of learner autonomy. A key message from this analysis is that the power of MCQs (to enhance learning) is not increased merely by better test construction. Power is also achieved by manipulating the context within which these tests are used.

[1]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[2]  K. Cox.  How did you guess? Or, what do multiple-choice questions measure? , 1976, The Medical journal of Australia.

[3]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[4]  Joanna Bull,et al.  The Mass Implementation and Evaluation of Computer‐based Assessments , 1998 .

[5]  K. Scouller.  The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay , 1998 .

[6]  Andrew Gavrin,et al.  Just-in-Time Teaching , 2011 .

[7]  Andrew Gavrin,et al.  Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology , 1999 .

[8]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual , 1999 .

[9]  D. Boud.  Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society , 2000 .

[10]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  FIXED RESPONSE: WHAT ARE WE TESTING? , 2000 .

[11]  Alan Skelton,et al.  Getting the Message Across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback , 2001 .

[12]  Mantz Yorke.  Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice , 2003 .

[13]  Joanna Bull,et al.  A Blueprint for Computer-Assisted Assessment , 2003 .

[14]  Chris Rust,et al.  Improving Students' Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes , 2003 .

[15]  James Boyle,et al.  Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings , 2003 .

[16]  D. Nicol,et al.  Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom , 2003 .

[17]  Martin R. Fellenz.  Using assessment to support higher level learning: the multiple choice item development assignment , 2004 .

[18]  D. Nicol,et al.  Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice , 2006 .

[19]  David A. Banks,et al.  Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases. , 2006 .

[20]  Ar Gardner-Medwin,et al.  Confidence-Based Marking - towards deeper learning and better exams , 2006 .

[21]  David Nicol,et al.  Increasing success in first year courses: assessment re-design, self-regulation and learning technologies , 2006 .

[22]  L. Mueller-Joseph,et al.  Classroom Assessment , 1998 .