Multiple-choice exams: An obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 294-306

  Stanger Hall, Kathrin F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; SEXISM; THINKING; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOLOGY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; GEORGIA; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; SEXISM; THINKING; UNIVERSITIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865992067     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.11-11-0100     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Allen DE, Duch BJ, Groh SE. The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory science courses. New Dir Teach Learn 1996;68:43-52.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
3. AAAS. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
4. AAAS. Vision and Change. A Call to Action. Washington, DC; 2010.
5. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, editors. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman; 2001.
6. Arum R, Roksa J. Academically Adrift. Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2011.
7. Babcock P, Marks M. The falling time costs of college: evidence from half a century of time use data. Rev Econ Stat 2011;93:468-478.
8. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 1995;57:289-300.
9. Ben-Shakhar G, Sinai Y. Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: the role of differential guessing tendencies. J Educ Meas 2005;28:23-35.
10. Biggs JB. Study behavior and performance in objective and essay formats. Australian J Educ 1973;17:157-167.
11. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Chicago: Susan Fauer; 1956.
12. Bolger N, Kellaghan T. Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic achievement. J Educ Meas 1990;27:165-174.
13. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. 1998. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for American Research Universities, Stony Brook, NY.
14. Burroughs NF, Kearney P, Plax TG. Compliance-resistance in the college classroom. Communication Educ 1989;38:214-229.
15. Caldwell J. Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007;6:9-20.
16. Carlone HB. The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: girls' access, participation, and resistance. J Res Sci Teach 2004;41:392-414.
17. Crouch CH, Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 2001;69:970-977.
18. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 2008;7:368-381.
19. DeAngelo L, Hurtado S, Pryor JH, Kelly KR, Santos JL. The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2007-2008 HERI Faculty Survey. Research Brief, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles; 2009.
20. DeMars DE. Gender differences in mathematics and science on a high school proficiency exam: the role of response format. Appl Meas Educ 1998;11:279-299.
21. Dufresne RJ, Leonard WJ, Gerace WJ. Making sense of students' answers to multiple-choice questions. Phys Teach 2002;40:174-180.
22. Eberlein T, Kampmeier J, Minderhout V, Moog RS, Platt T, Varma-Nelson P, White HB. Pedagogies of engagement in science. A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2008;36:262-273.
23. Ebert-May D, Brewer C. Innovative in large lectures. Teaching for active learning. Bioscience 1997;47:601-607.
24. Gosser DK, Jr, Roth V. The Workshop Chemistry Project: peer-led team learning. J Chem Educ 1998;75:185-187.
25. Haas PF, Keeley SM. Coping with faculty resistance to teaching critical thinking. Coll Teach 1998;46:63-67.
26. Handelsman J, et al. Scientific teaching. Science 2004;304:521-522.
27. Handelsman J, Miller S, Pfund C. Scientific Teaching. New York: W.H. Freeman; 2007.
28. Karpicke JD, Butler AC, Roediger HL. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory 2009;17:471-479.
29. Richmond VP, MacCroskey JC, Kearney P, Plax TG. Student Resistance to Control Power in the Classroom: Communication, Control and Concern. Richmond VP, MacCroskey JC, editors. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1992. p. 85-100.
30. Keeley SM, Shemberg KM, Cowell BS, Zinnbauer BJ. Coping with student resistance to critical thinking. What the psychotherapy literature can tell us. Coll Teach 1995;43:140-145.
31. Kuechler WL, Simkin MG. Why is performance on multiple-choice tests and constructed-response tests not more closely related? Theory and an empirical test. Decision Sci J Innovative Educ 2010;8:55-73.
32. Martinez ME. Cognition and the question of test item format. Educ Psychol 1999;34:207-218.
33. McKeachy WJ. Student ratings: the validity of use. Am Psychol 1997;52:1218-1225.
34. Momsen J, Long TA, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D. Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 2010;9:435-440.
35. Moog RS, Spencer JN, Moog RS, Spencer JN. POGIL: An overview. In: Moog RS, Spencer JN, editors. Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). 2008. American Chemical Society, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 994, 1-13.
36. Muller PA, Stage FK, Kinzie J. Science achievement growth trajectories: understanding factors related to gender and racial-ethnic differences in precollege science achievement. Am Educ Res J 2001;38:981-1012.
37. National Center for Education Statistics. 2009. The Nation's Report Card 2009, Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/science_2009_report (accessed 12 May 2011).
38. National Research Council. Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. www.nap.edu/catalog/10497.html (accessed 12 May 2011).
39. Nosek BA. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009;106:10593-10597.
40. Paul RW, Elder L, Bartell T. California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. Sacramento, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking; 1997.
41. Pfund C, et al. Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science 2009;324:470-471.
42. Prince M. Does active learning work? J Eng Educ 2004;93:223-231.
43. Scouller K. The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Educ 1998;35:453-472.
44. Simkin MG, Kuechler WL. Multiple choice tests and student understanding: what is the connection? Decis Sci J Innovative Educ 2005;3:73-97.
45. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adama WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 2009;323:122-124.
46. SPSS. Statistical Analysis, Version 19.0. Chicago: SPSS; 2011.
47. Stanger-Hall KF, Lang S, Maas M. Facilitating learning in large lecture classes: testing the teaching teams approach to peer learning. CBE Life Sci Educ 2010;9:489-503.
48. Stanger-Hall KF, Shockley FW, Wilson RE. Teaching students how to study: a workshop on information processing and self-testing helps students learn. CBE Life Sci Educ 2011;10:187-198.
49. Tanner K, Allen D. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers-teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biol Educ 2005;4:112-117.
50. Watters DJ, Watters JJ. Approaches to learning by students in the biological sciences: implications for teaching. Int J Sci Educ 2007;29:19-43.
51. Weimer ME. Learner-Centered Teaching. Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
52. Zeidner M. Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: the student perspective. J Educ Res 1987;80:352-358.
53. Zheng AY, Lawhorn JK, Lumley T, Freeman S. Assessment-application of Bloom's taxonomy debunks the "MCAT myth.". Science 2008;319:414-415.
54. Zimmerman DW, Williams RH. A new look at the influence of guessing on the reliability of multiple choice tests. Appl Psychol Meas 2003;27:357-371.