To Use Constructed-Response Questions, Or Not To Use Constructed-Response Questions? That Is The Question
Advocates of Constructed Response (CR) questions argue that CR questions provide a different assessment of student knowledge than is available from Multiple Choice (MC) questions. If that is the case, and if the benefit in terms of improved assessment is substantial, then it follows that grade outcomes using CR questions should be different from those using MC questions. We investigate this using a large dataset composed of individual assessment results from thousands of students in introductory economics classes at a large public university. Empirical analysis of our large sample of students indicates that a switch to an all-MC format would result in grade changes that are in the “small” to moderate range when compared to grade changes that occur between assessments. This evidence suggests that CR questions could be abandoned at relatively little cost in grading accuracy. However, there are other arguments in favour of keeping CR questions. In particular, it has been suggested that students perceive a mix of CR and MC as “fairer” than an assessment composed exclusively of one or the other question type. Further, some instructors believe that CR questions encourage students to study harder. We provide survey evidence that supports both arguments.
|Date of creation:||19 Oct 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 64 3 369 3123 (Administrator)
Fax: 64 3 364 2635
Web page: http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stephen Hickson & W. Robert Reed, 2009. "Do Constructed-Response and Multiple-Choice Questions Measure the Same Thing?," Working Papers in Economics 09/08, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:10/69. 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: (Albert Yee)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.