Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics

Contents:

Author Info

  • Stephen Buckles
  • John J. Siegfried

Abstract

Abstract: Multiple-choice questions are the basis of a significant portion of assessment in introductory economics courses. However, these questions, as found in course assessments, test banks, and textbooks, often fail to evaluate students' abilities to use and apply economic analysis. The authors conclude that multiple-choice questions can be used to measure some but not all elements of indepth understanding of economics. The authors interpret in-depth understanding as ability to reason through logical steps when those steps and the relevant economic concepts are not explicitly stated. They present examples of multiplechoice questions that do and do not measure in-depth understanding.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3200/JECE.37.1.48-57
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal The Journal of Economic Education.

Volume (Year): 37 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 48-57

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:37:y:2006:i:1:p:48-57

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/VECE20

Order Information:
Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/VECE20

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:37:y:2006:i:1:p:48-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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