How question types reveal student thinking: An experimental comparison of multiple-true-false and free-response formats

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Hubbard, Joanna K ^a   Potts, Macy A ^a   Couch, Brian A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT; THINKING;

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; LEARNING; STUDENTS; THINKING;

EID: 85018335164     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-12-0339     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1289-1312.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action, Washington, DC.
3. Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Open-ended versus multiple-choice response formats—it does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 385-395.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.
5. Brame, C. J., & Biel, R. (2015). Test-enhanced learning: the potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, es4.
6. Bretz, S. L., & Linenberger, K. J. (2012). Development of the enzyme-substrate interactions concept inventory. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40, 229-233.
7. Case, S. M., & Swanson, D. B. (1993). Extended-matching items: a practical alternative to free-response questions. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 5, 107-115.
8. Couch, B. A., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2015). The molecular biology capstone assessment: a concept assessment for upper-division molecular biology students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, ar10.
9. Criswell, J. R., & Criswell, S. J. (2004). Asking essay questions: answering contemporary needs. Education, 124, 510-516.
10. Crocker, L., & Schmitt, A. (1987). Improving multiple-choice test performance for examinees with different levels of test anxiety. Journal of Experimental Education, 55, 201-205.
11. Cronbach, L. (1941). An experimental comparison of the multiple true-false and multiple multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 533-543.
12. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.
13. DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. R., & Santos, J. L. (2009). The American college teacher: National norms for 2007-2008. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California-Los Angeles.
14. Eagan, M. K., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013-2014 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California-Los Angeles.
15. Ebel, R. L. (1978). The ineffectiveness of multiple true-false test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 37-44.
16. Frey, B. B., Petersen, S., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., & Peyton, V. (2005). Item-writing rules: collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 357-364.
17. Goubeaud, K. (2010). How is science learning assessed at the postsecondary level? Assessment and grading practices in college biology, chemistry and physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 237-245.
18. Haudek, K. C., Prevost, L. B., Moscarella, R. A., Merrill, J., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2012). What are they thinking? Automated analysis of student writing about acid-base chemistry in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11, 283-293.
19. Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California-Los Angeles.
20. Kastner, M., & Stangl, B. (2011). Multiple choice and constructed response tests: do test format and scoring matter? Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 263-273.
21. Kubinger, K. D., & Gottschall, C. H. (2010). Item difficulty of multiple choice tests dependant on different item response formats—an experiment in fundamental research on psychological assessment. Psychology Science, 49, 361-374.
22. Kuechler, W. L., & Simkin, M. G. (2010). Why is performance on multiple-choice tests and constructed-response tests not more closely related? Theory and an empirical test. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8, 55-73.
23. Martinez, M. E. (1999). Cognition and the question of test item format. Educational Psychologist, 34, 207-218.
24. Meichenbaum, D. H. (1972). Cognitive modification of test anxious college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 370-380.
25. Milton, O. (1979). Improving achievement via essay exams. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Education, 6, 108-112.
26. Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Montplaisir, L., Anderson, E., & Grosz, N. (2013). Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12, 239-249.
27. National Research Council (NRC). (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
28. NRC. (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
29. Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57, 263-272.
30. Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1131-1160.
31. Newman, D. L., Snyder, C. W., Fisk, J. N., & Wright, L. K. (2016). Development of the central dogma concept inventory (CDCI) assessment tool. Cell Biology Education, 15, ar9.
32. Parker, J. M., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J., Merritt, B., Richmond, G., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2012). Exploring undergraduates’ understanding of photosynthesis using diagnostic question clusters. CBE— Life Sciences Education, 11, 47-57.
33. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology.
34. R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org/
35. Shi, J., Wood, W. B., Martin, J. M., Guild, N. A., Vicens, Q., & Knight, J. K. (2010). A diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 453-461.
36. Simkin, M. G., & Kuechler, W. L. (2005). Multiple-choice tests and student understanding: what is the connection? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3, 73-98.
37. Stanger-Hall, K. F. (2012). Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11, 294-306.
38. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2002). Students’ perception about assessment in higher education: a review. Joint Northumbria/Earli SIG Assessment and Evaluation Conference, held August 28-30, 2002, University of Northumbria at Newcastle.
39. Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2004). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: from assays to assessments—on collecting evidence in science teaching. Cell Biology Education, 3, 197-201.
40. Tozoglu, D., Tozoglu, M. D., Gurses, A., & Dogar, C. (2004). The students’ perceptions: essay versus multiple-choice type exams. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2, 52-59.
41. Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5, 1-18.
42. Urban-Lurain, M., Moscarella, R. A., Haudek, K. C., Giese, E., Merrill, J. E., & Sibley, D. F. (2010). Insight into student thinking in STEM: lessons learned from lexical analysis of student writing. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference, held March 2010 in Philadelphia, PA.
43. Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, es3.
44. Wilcox, B. R., & Pollock, S. J. (2014). Coupled multiple-response versus free-response conceptual assessment: an example from upper-division physics. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 10, 1-11.
45. Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009). Improving self-and peer assessment processes with technology. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26, 379-399.
46. Wright, T., & Hamilton, S. (2008). Assessing student understanding in the molecular life sciences using a concept inventory. ATN Assessment 8, 216-224.
47. Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: the student’s perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 352-358.