IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jeduce/v37y2006i1p48-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:37:y:2006:i:1:p:48-57
    DOI: 10.3200/JECE.37.1.48-57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3200/JECE.37.1.48-57
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3200/JECE.37.1.48-57?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Allgood, Sam & Bayer, Amanda, 2016. "Measuring College Learning in Economics," MPRA Paper 85104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jeduce:v:37:y:2006:i:1:p:48-57. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/VECE20 .

    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.