Abstract
Objective computer-assisted examinations (CAA) are considered a preferable option compared to constructed response (CR) ones because marking is done automatically without the intervention of the examiner. This publication compares the attitudes and perceptions of a sample of engineering students towards a specific objective examination format designed to assess the students’ proficiency to solve electronics problems. Data were collected using a 15-item questionnaire which included a free text question. Overall the students expressed a preference for the objective-type examination format. The students who self-reported to face learning difficulties (LD) were equally divided between the two examination formats. Their examination format preference was determined by the details of their learning difficulties, indicating that none of the two assessment formats effectively solves the assessment question for these students. For the rest of the respondents, examination format preference was accompanied by opposing views regarding answering by guessing, having the opportunity to express their views, selecting instead of constructing an answer, having the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, and having control of the exam answers.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bull, J., McKenna, C.: Blueprint for Computer-Assisted Assessment, 1st edn. Routledge Falmer, London (2004)
Stavroulakis, P., Photopoulos, P., Ventouras, E., Triantis, D.: Comparison of electronic examinations using adaptive multiple-choice questions and constructed-response questions. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Volume 1: CSEDU, pp. 358–365 (2020)
Photopoulos, P., Tsakiridis, O., Stavrakas, I., Triantis, D.: Weighted scoring of multiple-choice questions based exams: expert and empirical weighting factors. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Volume 1: CSEDU, pp. 382–387 (2020)
Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I., Triantis, D.: Preference for multiple choice and constructed response exams for engineering students with and without learning difficulties. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Volume 1: CSEDU, pp. 220–231 (2021)
Case, S.M., Swanson, D.B.: Extended-matching items: a practical alternative to free-response questions. Teach. Learn. Med. 5(2), 107–115 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339309539601
Fenderson, B.A., Damjanov, I., Robeson, M.R., Veloski, J.J., Rubin, E.: The virtues of extended matching and uncued tests as alternatives to multiple choice questions. Hum. Pathol. 28(5), 526–532 (1997)
Gero, A., Stav, Y., Wertheim, I., Epstein, A.: Two-tier multiple-choice questions as a means of increasing discrimination: case study of a basic electric circuits course. Glob. J. Eng. Educ. 21(2), 139–144 (2019)
Duffy, G., O’Dwyer, A.: Measurement of first year engineering students’ cognitive activities using a spatial skills test and an electrical concepts test: implications for curriculum design. In: Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Dublin, Ireland (2015)
Duffy, G., Sorby, S., Bowe, B.: An investigation of the role of spatial ability in representing and solving word problems among engineering students. J. Eng. Educ. 109, 424–442 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20349
Wasis, Kumaidi, Bastari, Mundilarto, Wi̇ntarti̇, A.: Analytical weighting scoring for physics multiple correct items to improve the accuracy of students’ ability assessment. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 18(76), 187–202 (2018)
Zeidner, M.: Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: the student’s perspective. J. Educ. Res. 80(6), 352–358 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1987.10885782
Kaipa, R.M.: Multiple choice questions and essay questions in curriculum. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 13(1), 16–32 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2020-0011
Paxton, M.: A linguistic perspective of multiple-choice questioning. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 25(2), 109–119 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/713611429
Finn, J.D., Pannozzo, G.M., Achilles, C.M.: The “Why’s” of class size: student behavior in small classes. Rev. Educ. Res. 73(3), 321–368 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073003321
Bettinger, E., Doss, C., Loeba, S., Rogers, A., Taylor, E.: The effects of class size in online college courses: experimental evidence. Econ. Educ. Rev. 58, 68–85 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.03.006
Kauppi, N.: Waiting for Godot? On some of the obstacles for developing counter-forces in higher education. Globalizations 16(5), 745–750 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1578100
Grummell, B., Lynch, K.: New managerialism: a political project in Irish education. In: Murphy, M.P., Dukelow, F. (eds.) The Irish Welfare State in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 215–235. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57138-0_10
Lynch, K.: Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education. Crit. Stud. Educ. 56(2), 190–207 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.949811
Trammell, J.: Accommodations for multiple choice tests. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 24(3), 251–254 (2011)
Niazov, Z., Hen, M., Ferrari, J.R.: Online and academic procrastination in students with learning disabilities: the impact of academic stress and self-efficacy. Psychol. Rep. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120988113
Nieminen, J.H., Pesonen, H.V.: Politicising inclusive learning environments: how to foster belonging and challenge ableism? High. Educ. Res. Dev. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1945547
Liasidou, A.: Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 41(2), 120–135 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12063
Gravett, K., Ajjawi, P.: Belonging as situated practice. Stud. High. Educ. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1894118
Benson, W., Probst, T., Jiang, L., Olson, K., Graso, M.: Insecurity in the Ivory Tower: direct and indirect effects of pay stagnation and job insecurity on faculty performance. Econ. Ind. Democr. 41(3), 693–708 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X17734297
Li, A.Y.: Dramatic declines in higher education appropriations: state conditions for budget punctuations. Res. High. Educ. 58(4), 395–429 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9432-0
Krug, K.S., Dickson, K.W., Lessiter, J.A., Vassar, J.S.: Student preference rates for predominately online, compressed, or traditionally taught university courses. Innov. High. Educ. 41(3), 255–267 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9349-0
Holley, D., Oliver, M.: Pedagogy and new power relationships. Int. J. Manag. Educ. (2000). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238721033_Pedagogy_and_New_Power_Relationships/citations
Watts, R.: Public Universities, Managerialism and the Value of Higher Education, 1st edn., p. 20, 22–23, 230–233. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2017)
Teräs, M., Suoranta, J., Teräs, H., Curcher, M.: Post-Covid-19 education and education technology ‘Solutionism’: a seller’s market. Postdigit. Sci. Educ. 2(3), 863–878 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00164-x
Mandel, A., Hörnlein, A., Ifland, M., Lüneburg, E., Deckert, J., Puppe, F.: Cost analysis for computer supported multiple-choice paper examinations. GMS Z. Med. Ausbild. 28(4), Doc.55 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000767. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51970103_Cost_analysis_for_computer_supported_multiple-choice_paper_examinations. Accessed 30 Nov 2020
Loewenberger, P., Bull, J.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of computer-based assessment. ALT-J. – Assoc. Learn. Technol. J. 11(2), 23–45 (2003)
Bull, J.: Computer-assisted assessment: impact on higher education institutions. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2(3), 123–126 (1999). https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.2.3.123
Topol, B., Olson, J., Roeber, E.: The Cost of New Higher Quality Assessments: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Potential Costs for Future State Assessments. Stanford University, Stanford, CA (2010). Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Collins, R.: Social distancing as a critical test of the micro-sociology of solidarity. Am. J. Cult. Sociol. 8, 477–497 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-020-00120-z
Rahman, A., Arifin, N., Manaf, M., Ahmad, M., Mohd Zin, N.A., Jamaludin, M.: Students’ perception in blended learning among science and technology cluster students. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1496, 012012, 1–11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1496/1/012012
Vivitsou, M.: Digitalisation in education, allusions and references. Center Educ. Stud. J. 9(3) 117–136, (2019). https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.706. Robotisation, Automatisation, the End of Work and the Future of Education
Mintzberg, H.: The Structuring of Organizations, pp. 352–354. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)
Tan, K.H.K.: How teachers understand and use power in alternative assessment. Educ. Res. Int. 11 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/382465. Article ID 382465
Simkin, M.G., Kuechler, W.L.: Multiple-choice tests and student understanding: what is the connection? Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 3, 73–98 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2005.00053.x
Scharf, E.M., Baldwin, L.P.: Assessing multiple choice question (MCQ) tests - a mathematical perspective. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 8(1), 31–47 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074009
Wong, M.-Y.: Teacher–student power relations as a reflection of multileveled intertwined interactions. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 37(2), 248–267 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.916600
Núñez-Peña, M.I., Bono, R.: Math anxiety and perfectionistic concerns in multiple-choice assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 46(6), 865–878 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1836120
Pamphlett, R., Farnill, D.: Effect of anxiety on performance in multiple choice examination. Med. Educ. 29, 297–302 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1995.tb02852.x
Tozoglu, D., Tozoglu, M. D., Gurses, A., Dogar, C.: The students’ perceptions: essay versus multiple-choice type exams. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 2(6), 52–59 (2004). http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1482420585.pdf
Gupta, C., Jain, A., D’Souza, A.S.: Essay versus multiple-choice: a perspective from the undergraduate student point of view with its implications for examination. Gazi Med. J. 27, 8–10 (2016). https://doi.org/10.12996/GMJ.2016.03
van de Watering, G., Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., van der Rijt, J.: Students’ assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationships to study results. High. Educ. 56, 645–658 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9116-6
Traub, R.E., MacRury, K.: Multiple choice vs. free response in the testing of scholastic achievement. In: Ingenkamp, K., Jager, R.S. (eds.) Tests und Trends 8: Jahrbuch der Pa ̈dagogischen Diagnostik, pp. 128–159. Weinheim und Basel, Beltz (1990)
Birenbaum, M., Feldman, R.A.: Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats. Educ. Res. 40(1), 90–97 (1998)
Parmenter, D.A.: Essay versus multiple-choice: student preferences and the underlying rationale with implications for test construction. Acad. Educ. Leadersh. 13(2), 57–71 (2009)
Scouller, K.: The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. High. Educ. 35, 453–472 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003196224280
Chan, N., Kennedy, P.E.: Are multiple-choice exams easier for economics students? A comparison of multiple-choice and “equivalent” constructed-response exam questions. South. Econ. J. 68(4), 957–971 (2002)
Heiman, T., Precel, K.: Students with learning disabilities in higher education: academic strategies profile. J. Learn. Disabil. 36(3), 248–258 (2003)
Gelbar, N., Madaus, J.: Factors related to extended time use by college students with disabilities. Remedial Spec. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520972787
Slaughter, M.H., Lindstrom, J.H., Anderson, R.: Perceptions of extended time accommodations among postsecondary students with disabilities. Exceptionality (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727339
Nieminen, J.H.: Disrupting the power relations of grading in higher education through summative self-assessment. Teach. High. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1753687
DiBattista, D., Gosse, L.: Test anxiety and the immediate feedback assessment technique. J. Exp. Educ. 74(4), 311–327 (2006)
Emeka, Ch., Zilles, C.: Student perceptions of fairness and security in a versioned programming exams. In: ICER 2020: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, pp. 25–35 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406275
Duncan, H., Purcell, C.: Consensus or contradiction? A review of the current research into the impact of granting extra time in exams to students with specific learning difficulties (SpLD). J. Furth. High. Educ. 44(4), 439–453 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1578341
Entwistle, A., Entwistle, N.: Experiences of understanding in revising for degree examinations. Learn. Instr. 2, 1–22 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(92)90002-4
Martinez, M.E.: Cognition and the question of test item format. Educ. Psychol. 34(4), 207–218 (1999)
Biggs, J.B., Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P.: The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 133–149 (2001)
Sobral, S.R.: Bloom’s taxonomy to improve teaching-learning in introduction to programming. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 11(3), 148–153 (2021)
Beichner, R.J.: Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. Am. J. Phys. 62, 750–784 (1994)
Trotskovsky, E., Sabag, N.: The problem of non-linearity: an engineering students’ misconception. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 9(6), 449–452 (2019)
Gipps, C.V.: What is the role for ICT-based assessment in universities? Stud. High. Educ. 30(2), 171–180 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043176
Lukhele, R., Thissen, D., Wainer, H.: On the relative value of multiple-choice, constructed response, and examinee selected items on two achievement tests. J. Educ. Meas. 31(3), 234–250 (1994)
Bridgeman, B.: A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats. J. Educ. Meas. 29, 253–271 (1992)
Bush, M.: A multiple choice test that rewards partial knowledge. J. Furth. High. Educ. 25(2), 157–163 (2001)
McKenna, P.: Multiple choice questions: answering correctly and knowing the answer. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. l 16(1), 59–73 (2018)
Ventouras, Ε, Triantis, D., Tsiakas, P., Stergiopoulos, C.: Comparison of oral examination and electronic examination using paired multiple-choice questions. Comput. Educ. 56(3), 616–624 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.003
Redish, E.F., Scherr, R.E., Tuminaro, J.: Reverse engineering the solution of a “simple” physics problem: why learning physics is harder than it looks. Phys. Teach. 44, 293–300 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2195401
Adeyemo, S.A.: Students’ ability level and their competence in problem-solving task in physics. Int. J. Educ. Res. Technol. 1(2), 35–47 (2010)
McBeath, R.J. (ed.): Instructing and Evaluating in Higher Education: A Guidebook for Planning Learning Outcomes. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs (1992)
Holt, A.: An analysis of negative marking in multiple-choice assessment. In: Mann, S., Bridgeman, N. (eds.) 19th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2006), Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 115–118 (2006). https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.679.2244&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Brown, E., Glover, C.: Evaluating written feedback. In: Bryan, C., Clegg, K. (eds.) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, pp. 81–91. Routledge, London (2006)
Vlachos, F., Avramidis, E., Dedousis, G., Chalmpe, M., Ntalla, I., Giannakopoulou, M.: Prevalence and gender ratio of dyslexia in Greek adolescents and its association with parental history and brain injury. Am. J. Educ. Res. 1(1), 22–25 (2013). https://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-1-5
Lehmann, D.R., Hulbert, J.: Are three-point scales always good enough? J. Mark. Res. 9(4), 444–446 (1972)
Matell, M.S., Jacoby, J.: Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study 1: reliability and validity. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 31, 657–674 (1971)
Kalka, D., Lockiewicz, M.: Happiness, life satisfaction, resiliency and social support in students with dyslexia. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 65(5), 493–508 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1411582
Leach, L., Neutze, G., Zepke, N.: Assessment and empowerment: some critical questions. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 26(4), 293–305 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120063457
McLaughlin, M.J., Speirs, K.E., Shenassa, E.D.: Reading disability and adult attained education and income. J. Learn. Disabil. 47(4), 374–386 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412458323
Thomas, L.: Developing inclusive learning to improve the engagement, belonging, retention, and success of students from diverse groups. In: Shah, M., Bennett, A., Southgate, E. (eds.) Widening Higher Education Participation, pp. 135–159. Elsevier (2016)
Elsalem, L., Al-Azzam, N., Jum’ah, A.A., Obeidat, N., Sindiani, A.M., Kheirallah, K.A.: Stress and behavioral changes with remote E-exams during the Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study among undergraduates of medical sciences. Ann. Med. Surg. 60, 271–279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.10.058
Clark, T.M., Callam, C.S., Paul, N.M., Stoltzfus, M.W., Turner, D.: Testing in the time of COVID-19: a sudden transition to unproctored online exams. J. Chem. Educ. 97(9), 3413–3417 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00546
Munoz, A., Mackay, J.: An online testing design choice typology towards cheating threat minimisation. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 16(3) (2019). Article 5. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol16/iss3/5. Accessed 15 June 2020
OECD: Remote online exams in higher education during the COVID-19 crisis (2020). oecd.org/education/remote-online-exams-in-higher-education-during-the-covid-19-crisis-f53e2177-en.htm
Ladyshewsky, R.K.: Post-graduate student performance in supervised in-class vs. unsupervised online multiple-choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 40(7), 883–897 (2015)
Schultz, M., Schultz, J., Round, G.: Online non-proctored testing and its affect on final course grades. Bus. Rev. Cambr. 9, 11–16 (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I., Triantis, D. (2022). Problem-Based Multiple Response Exams for Students with and Without Learning Difficulties. In: Csapó, B., Uhomoibhi, J. (eds) Computer Supported Education. CSEDU 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1624. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14756-2_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14756-2_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14755-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14756-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)