IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ibrjnl/v10y2017i6p46-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Suitability of Multiple-choice Questions in Evaluating the Objectives of Academic Educational Process of Accounting Specialization

Author

Listed:
  • Naser Yousef ALzoubi
  • Asma Shafe Assaf

Abstract

This study attempt to investigate and explore the use of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) at Jordanian public and private universities, from the point view of faculty member who are teaching accounting specialization and use MCQs in examinations of accountancy subjects. The study seeks to identify the extent MCQs can achieve regarding level of knowledge among students, assess the deep understanding and In-depth learning to measure and evaluate the range of learning in subjects of accounting specialization. To achieve the objectives of the study, a questionnaire designed according to the requirements of Ministry of Education in Jordan and the International Accounting Education Standard Board (IAESB).Based on analyzing responses and examining hypotheses, results clarify that MCQs are not enough tools to achieve the educational objectives concerning accounting subjects, in both theoretically and practically aspects. It was clear that there are no significant differences between the opinions of faculty members, neither public nor private universities. The study recommends that there is a need to re-consider the use of MCQs as a tool to evaluate the students’ abilities and skills in subjects of accounting specialization.

Suggested Citation

  • Naser Yousef ALzoubi & Asma Shafe Assaf, 2017. "Suitability of Multiple-choice Questions in Evaluating the Objectives of Academic Educational Process of Accounting Specialization," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(6), pages 46-61, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:6:p:46-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/67384/36938
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/67384
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Buckles & John J. Siegfried, 2006. "Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 48-57, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    2. Ambrose & Cheryl A. Kier, 2017. "On Students’ Perception of a Multi-Scheme Assessment Method," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 17(1), pages 40-52, Spring.
    3. Diego Mendez-Carbajo, 2023. "The Effectiveness of Logical Distractors in an Online Module," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 15-30, January.
    4. Justine Burns & Simon Halliday & Malcolm Keswell, 2012. "Gender and Risk Taking in the Classroom," SALDRU Working Papers 87, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    5. Carlos Asarta & Ken Rebeck, 2011. "Measurement Techniques of Student Performance and Literacy: College and High School," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 29, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Steven B. Caudill & Franklin G. Mixon, 2023. "Guess for Success? Application of a Mixture Model to Test-Wiseness on Multiple-Choice Exams," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-6, June.
    7. Oskar Harmon & James Lambrinos & Judy Buffolino, 2008. "Is the Cheating Risk Always Higher in Online Instruction Compared to Face-to-Face Instruction?," Working papers 2008-14, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2010.
    8. Martin P. Shanahan & Gigi Foster & Jan H. F. Meyer, 2006. "Operationalising a Threshold Concept in Economics: A Pilot Study Using Multiple Choice Questions on Opportunity Cost," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 5(2), pages 29-57.
    9. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Allgood, Sam & Bayer, Amanda, 2016. "Measuring College Learning in Economics," MPRA Paper 85104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Melanie A. Fennell & Irene R. Foster, 2021. "Test Format and Calculator Use in the Testing of Basic Math Skills for Principles of Economics: Experimental Evidence," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 66(1), pages 29-45, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    multiple-choice questions; accounting education; accounting exams;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:10:y:2017:i:6:p:46-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.