Author
Listed:
- Nicholas T Young
- Mark Mills
- Rebecca L Matz
- Eric F Bell
- Caitlin Hayward
Abstract
Introduction:: High-stakes exams significantly impact introductory physics students’ final grades and have been shown to be inequitable, often to the detriment of students identifying with groups historically marginalized in physics. Certain types of exam questions may contribute more than other types to the observed equity gaps. Objective:: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether complex multiple-choice (CMC) questions may be a potential cause of inequity. Methods:: We used four years of data from Problem Roulette, an online, not-for-credit exam preparation program, to address our objective. This data set included 951 Physics II (Electricity and Magnetism) questions, each of which we categorized as CMC or non-CMC. We then compared student performance on each question type and created a multi-level logistic regression model to control individual student and question differences. Results:: Students performed 7.9 percentage points worse on CMC questions than they did on non-CMC questions. We find minimal additional performance differences based on student performance in the course. The results from mixed-effects models suggest that CMC questions may be contributing to the observed equity gaps, especially for male and female students, though more evidence is needed. Conclusion:: We found CMC questions are more difficult for everyone. Future research should examine the source of this difficulty and whether that source is functionally related to learning and assessment. Our data does not support using CMC questions instead of non-CMC questions as a way to differentiate top-performing students from everyone else.
Suggested Citation
Nicholas T Young & Mark Mills & Rebecca L Matz & Eric F Bell & Caitlin Hayward, 2025.
"Exploring how complex multiple-choice questions could contribute to inequity in introductory physics,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-27, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0323813
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323813
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0323813. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.