Multiple-Choice Exams: An Obstacle for Higher-Level Thinking in Introductory Science Classes

Learning science requires higher-level (critical) thinking skills that need to be practiced in science classes. This study tested the effect of exam format on critical-thinking skills. Multiple-choice (MC) testing is common in introductory science courses, and students in these classes tend to associate memorization with MC questions and may not see the need to modify their study strategies for critical thinking, because the MC exam format has not changed. To test the effect of exam format, I used two sections of an introductory biology class. One section was assessed with exams in the traditional MC format, the other section was assessed with both MC and constructed-response (CR) questions. The mixed exam format was correlated with significantly more cognitively active study behaviors and a significantly better performance on the cumulative final exam (after accounting for grade point average and gender). There was also less gender-bias in the CR answers. This suggests that the MC-only exam format indeed hinders critical thinking in introductory science classes. Introducing CR questions encouraged students to learn more and to be better critical thinkers and reduced gender bias. However, student resistance increased as students adjusted their perceptions of their own critical-thinking abilities.

[1]  Linda J. Sax,et al.  The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2001-2002 HERI Faculty Survey. , 2002 .

[2]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  Power in the Classroom : Communication, Control, and Concern , 2012 .

[3]  Robert J. Dufresne,et al.  Marking sense of students' answers to multiple-choice questions , 2002 .

[4]  Vicki Roth,et al.  The Workshop Chemistry Project: Peer-Led Team Learning , 1998 .

[5]  Christine E. DeMars.  Gender Differences in Mathematics and Science on a High School Proficiency Exam: The Role of Response Format , 1998 .

[6]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[7]  Scott Freeman,et al.  Application of Bloom's Taxonomy Debunks the "MCAT Myth" , 2008, Science.

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

[9]  Deborah Allen,et al.  Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers--teaching toward conceptual change. , 2005, Cell biology education.

[10]  J. B. Biggs.  Study Behaviour and Performance in Objective and Essay Formats , 1973 .

[11]  Tammy M. Long,et al.  Just the Facts? Introductory Undergraduate Biology Courses Focus on Low-Level Cognitive Skills , 2010, CBE life sciences education.

[12]  Maryellen Weimer,et al.  LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING , 2022, International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science.

[13]  Philip S. Babcock,et al.  The Falling Time Cost of College: Evidence from Half a Century of Time Use Data , 2010, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[14]  James J. Watters,et al.  Approaches to Learning by Students in the Biological Sciences: Implications for teaching , 2007 .

[15]  Richard S. Moog,et al.  Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) , 2008 .

[16]  Maryellen Weimer,et al.  Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice , 2013 .

[17]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[18]  Diane Ebert-May,et al.  Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning , 1997 .

[19]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? , 2009, Memory.

[20]  Christoforos Anagnostopoulos,et al.  When Does Active Learning Work? , 2013, IDA.

[21]  Heidi B. Carlone,et al.  The Cultural Production of Science in Reform-based Physics: Girls’ Access, Participation, and Resistance , 2004 .

[22]  S. Keeley,et al.  Coping with Faculty Resistance to Teaching Critical Thinking , 1998 .

[23]  Richard S. Moog,et al.  POGIL : An Overview , 2008 .

[24]  Skee Smith,et al.  The U.S. Department of Education. , 1979 .

[25]  K. Stanger-Hall,et al.  Facilitating Learning in Large Lecture Classes: Testing the “Teaching Team” Approach to Peer Learning , 2010, CBE life sciences education.

[26]  Mark G. Simkin,et al.  Multiple-Choice Tests and Student Understanding: What Is the Connection? , 2005 .

[27]  Frances K. Stage,et al.  Science Achievement Growth Trajectories: Understanding Factors Related to Gender and Racial–Ethnic Differences in Precollege Science Achievement , 2001 .

[28]  Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall,et al.  Teaching Students How to Study: A Workshop on Information Processing and Self-Testing Helps Students Learn , 2011, CBE life sciences education.

[29]  A. Ahlgren,et al.  Science for all Americans , 1990 .

[30]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[31]  M. Zeidner.  Essay Versus Multiple-Choice Type Classroom Exams: The Student's Perspective. , 1987 .

[32]  Jane E Caldwell,et al.  Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[33]  D. W. Zimmerman,et al.  A New Look at the Influence of Guessing on the Reliability of Multiple-Choice Tests , 2003 .

[34]  Stuart M. Keeley,et al.  Coping with Student Resistance to Critical Thinking: What the Psychotherapy Literature Can Tell Us. , 1995 .

[35]  Patricia Kearney,et al.  Compliance‐resistance in the college classroom , 1989 .

[36]  Gershon Ben-Shakhar,et al.  Gender Differences in Multiple‐Choice Tests: The Role of Differential Guessing Tendencies , 1991 .

[37]  Michael E. Martinez.  Cognition and the question of test item format , 1999 .

[38]  Mark G. Simkin,et al.  Why Is Performance on Multiple‐Choice Tests and Constructed‐Response Tests Not More Closely Related? Theory and an Empirical Test* , 2010 .

[39]  W. McKeachie.  Student ratings: The validity of use. , 1997 .

[40]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research , 2004 .

[41]  C. Hansel.  Scientific Teaching , 1972, Nature.

[42]  Niall Bolger,et al.  Method of Measurement and Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement , 1990 .

[43]  D. Murphey,et al.  Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses , 2011 .

[44]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions , 2009, Science.

[45]  Diane Ebert-May,et al.  Summer Institute to Improve University Science Teaching , 2009, Science.

[46]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[48]  Richard Arum,et al.  Limited Learning on College Campuses , 2011 .

[49]  Diane Ebert-May,et al.  Scientific Teaching , 2004, Science.

[50]  Alison Crowe,et al.  Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. , 2008, CBE life sciences education.

[51]  D. Allen,et al.  The power of problem‐based learning in teaching introductory science courses , 1996 .

[52]  Division on Earth.  BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists , 2003 .

[53]  Mieke Brekelmans,et al.  Teaching for Active Learning , 2000 .

[54]  Pratibha Varma-Nelson,et al.  Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL , 2008, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[55]  Richard Paul,et al.  California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. , 1997 .

[56]  W. McComas.  Benchmarks for Science Literacy , 2014 .

[57]  渋江 靖弘,et al.  Science for All Americans , 1990 .