IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbt/econwp/21-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Closed or Open Book for Invigilated Tests – Does It Make a Difference?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

COVID-19 has had many impacts on economics education including assessment. One such impact has been the shift to more open book rather than closed book testing in order to retain flexibility to shift online at short notice. In this study, I compare the scores of students in a first year macroeconomics course at a New Zealand university from two different years. Both groups of students answered identical multiple-choice questions (that neither group of students had seen before) where the only difference in the assessment was closed vs open book. I compare both test formats at the total level and then compare scores across the two formats with questions grouped according to Bloom’s taxonomy. I examine the difference in scores of groups of students, viz.: (1) gender; (2) international vs domestic; and (3) GPA grouping. Among other results, I find that students score better in open book tests in lower Bloom’s taxonomy level questions but worse in higher. However, this effect does differ across different types of students, notably when comparing females and males and students with a higher or lower overall GPA.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Hickson, 2021. "Closed or Open Book for Invigilated Tests – Does It Make a Difference?," Working Papers in Economics 21/05, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
  • Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:21/05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.canterbury.ac.nz/cbt/econwp/2105.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Principles of Economics Assessment; Multiple Choice; open book; closed book;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate

    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:cbt:econwp:21/05. 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: Albert Yee (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decannz.html .

    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.