IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v68y2002i4p957-971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Nixon Chan
  • Peter E. Kennedy

Abstract

Many economics students believe that multiple‐choice (MC) exams are easier than constructed‐response (CR) exams. If true understanding of economics is reflected by performance on CR exams, then easier MC exams would give rise to misleading measures of student understanding of economics, creating a false sense of complacency among both instructors and students. This article investigates this issue by comparing student scores on MC and “equivalent” CR questions. Our results show that, for certain types of MC questions, students do indeed score better, even after correcting for guessing, and on other types of questions, they produce similar scores. These results are unaffected by comparing males versus females or “good” versus “poor” students.

Suggested Citation

  • Nixon Chan & Peter E. Kennedy, 2002. "Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 957-971, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:68:y:2002:i:4:p:957-971
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William E. Becker & Michael Watts, 2001. "Teaching Economics at the Start of the 21st Century: Still Chalk-and-Talk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 446-451, May.
    2. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    3. Becker, William E & Johnston, Carol, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 348-357, December.
    4. Siegfried, John J & Kennedy, Peter E, 1995. "Does Pedagogy Vary with Class Size in Introductory Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 347-351, May.
    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. 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.
    2. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    3. Christine Jonick & Jennifer Schneider & Daniel Boylan, 2017. "The effect of accounting question response formats on student performance," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 291-315, July.
    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. Neal Arthur & Patricia Everaert, 2012. "Gender and Performance in Accounting Examinations: Exploring the Impact of Examination Format," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 471-487, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.
    8. Karolina Macháčková & Jiří Zelený & Dana Kolářová & Zbyněk Vinš, 2021. "Nature Ideas Exchange: Education of Sustainable Business Principles Based on Parallels with Forest Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Tang, Tommy, 2023. "Approach to learning for assessment in economics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 571-584.
    10. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Robert Mathieu & Alex Thevaranjan, 2003. "An economic analysis of the use of student evaluations: implications for universities," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 1-13.
    11. Thompson, Alexi S. & Jager, Abigail L. & Burton, Robert O., Jr., 2012. "Do Men and Women Perform Differently on Different Types of Test Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119771, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. 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.
    13. Mallik, Girijasankar & Shankar, Sriram, 2016. "Does prior knowledge of economics and higher level mathematics improve student learning in principles of economics?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 66-73.
    14. J.R. Clark & Joshua C. Hall & Ashley S. Harrison, 2017. "The Relative Value of AER P&P Economic Education Papers," Working Papers 17-23, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    15. Cynthia Harter & Georg Schaur & Michael Watts, 2015. "School, department, and instructor determinants of teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(4), pages 1169-1188, April.
    16. P. Everaert & N. Arthur, 2012. "Constructed-response versus multiple choice: the impact on performance in combination with gender," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/777, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    17. Wayne Geerling, 2012. "Bringing the 'Dismal Science' to Life: Teaching Economics Through Multimedia," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 11(2), pages 81-90.
    18. Bedard, Kelly & Kuhn, Peter, 2008. "Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 253-265, June.
    19. Matthew C. Rousu, 2018. "Using Show Tunes to Teach about Free (and Not-So-Free) Markets," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 33(Winter 20), pages 111-128.
    20. David Zetland & Carlo Russo & Navin Yavapolkul, 2010. "Teaching Economic Principles: Algebra, Graph or Both?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 55(1), pages 123-131, May.

    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:wly:soecon:v:68:y:2002:i:4:p:957-971. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.