测试形式、学习信心和对教学效果的看法

Pub Date : 2024-01-22 DOI:10.1177/00986283231226187
G. Boysen, Peyton N. Osgood
{"title":"测试形式、学习信心和对教学效果的看法","authors":"G. Boysen, Peyton N. Osgood","doi":"10.1177/00986283231226187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both multiple-choice and short-answer tests can be beneficial to learning in the classroom. However, fact-based multiple-choice questions, because they include the correct answer as a response option, could lead to inflated estimates of learning and higher evaluations of teaching effectiveness. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of test format on perceptions of learning and teaching. Undergraduate students ( N = 123) completed either a multiple-choice or short-answer test based on a brief psychology lesson. Then, they predicted their performance on later tests of knowledge and evaluated the quality of the lesson. Taking a multiple-choice test led to predictions about future performance that were 10% higher than those taking a short-answer test. No consistent differences emerged in participants’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness between the two test formats. These results suggest that test format may significantly influence students’ confidence in their ability to produce answers on future tests. Teachers who want to take advantage of testing as a metacognitive learning tool should adopt question formats that utilize recall of information from memory without retrieval cues.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test Format, Learning Confidence, and Perceptions of Teaching Effectiveness\",\"authors\":\"G. Boysen, Peyton N. Osgood\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00986283231226187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both multiple-choice and short-answer tests can be beneficial to learning in the classroom. However, fact-based multiple-choice questions, because they include the correct answer as a response option, could lead to inflated estimates of learning and higher evaluations of teaching effectiveness. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of test format on perceptions of learning and teaching. Undergraduate students ( N = 123) completed either a multiple-choice or short-answer test based on a brief psychology lesson. Then, they predicted their performance on later tests of knowledge and evaluated the quality of the lesson. Taking a multiple-choice test led to predictions about future performance that were 10% higher than those taking a short-answer test. No consistent differences emerged in participants’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness between the two test formats. These results suggest that test format may significantly influence students’ confidence in their ability to produce answers on future tests. Teachers who want to take advantage of testing as a metacognitive learning tool should adopt question formats that utilize recall of information from memory without retrieval cues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283231226187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283231226187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

选择题和简答题都有利于课堂学习。然而,基于事实的多项选择题由于将正确答案作为一个回答选项,可能会导致对学习效果的夸大估计和对教学效果的更高评价。本研究的目的是考察测试形式对学习和教学感知的影响。本科生(人数 = 123)根据一节简短的心理学课程完成了选择题或简答题测试。然后,他们预测了自己在之后的知识测试中的表现,并对课程质量进行了评价。参加多项选择测试的学员对未来成绩的预测比参加简答测试的学员高出 10%。两种测试形式的参与者对教学效果的评价没有出现一致的差异。这些结果表明,考试形式可能会极大地影响学生对自己在未来考试中答题能力的信心。教师如果想利用测试作为元认知学习的工具,就应该采用无需检索线索就能从记忆中回忆信息的问题形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Test Format, Learning Confidence, and Perceptions of Teaching Effectiveness
Both multiple-choice and short-answer tests can be beneficial to learning in the classroom. However, fact-based multiple-choice questions, because they include the correct answer as a response option, could lead to inflated estimates of learning and higher evaluations of teaching effectiveness. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of test format on perceptions of learning and teaching. Undergraduate students ( N = 123) completed either a multiple-choice or short-answer test based on a brief psychology lesson. Then, they predicted their performance on later tests of knowledge and evaluated the quality of the lesson. Taking a multiple-choice test led to predictions about future performance that were 10% higher than those taking a short-answer test. No consistent differences emerged in participants’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness between the two test formats. These results suggest that test format may significantly influence students’ confidence in their ability to produce answers on future tests. Teachers who want to take advantage of testing as a metacognitive learning tool should adopt question formats that utilize recall of information from memory without retrieval cues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信