具有挑战性的多项选择题,参与批判性思维

D. Kerkman, Andrew T. Johnson
{"title":"具有挑战性的多项选择题,参与批判性思维","authors":"D. Kerkman, Andrew T. Johnson","doi":"10.46504/09201408ke","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines a technique for engaging critical thinking on multiple-choice exams. University students were encouraged to “challenge” the validity of any exam question they believed to be unfair (e.g., more than one equally correct answer, ambiguous wording, etc.). The number of valid challenges a student wrote was a better predictor of exam scores than the number of invalid challenges or GPA. The technique also allows instructors to gain insight into the sources of students’ errors that may be useful in improving instruction.","PeriodicalId":30055,"journal":{"name":"InSight A Journal of Scholarly Teaching","volume":"93 1","pages":"92-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging Multiple-Choice Questions to Engage Critical Thinking\",\"authors\":\"D. Kerkman, Andrew T. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.46504/09201408ke\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines a technique for engaging critical thinking on multiple-choice exams. University students were encouraged to “challenge” the validity of any exam question they believed to be unfair (e.g., more than one equally correct answer, ambiguous wording, etc.). The number of valid challenges a student wrote was a better predictor of exam scores than the number of invalid challenges or GPA. The technique also allows instructors to gain insight into the sources of students’ errors that may be useful in improving instruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"InSight A Journal of Scholarly Teaching\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"92-97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"InSight A Journal of Scholarly Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46504/09201408ke\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"InSight A Journal of Scholarly Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46504/09201408ke","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

这篇文章探讨了在多项选择题考试中进行批判性思考的技巧。他们鼓励大学生“挑战”任何他们认为不公平的考题的有效性(例如,多个同样正确的答案,模棱两可的措辞等)。学生写的有效挑战的数量比无效挑战的数量或GPA更能预测考试成绩。该技术还允许教师深入了解学生错误的来源,这可能有助于改进教学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging Multiple-Choice Questions to Engage Critical Thinking
This article examines a technique for engaging critical thinking on multiple-choice exams. University students were encouraged to “challenge” the validity of any exam question they believed to be unfair (e.g., more than one equally correct answer, ambiguous wording, etc.). The number of valid challenges a student wrote was a better predictor of exam scores than the number of invalid challenges or GPA. The technique also allows instructors to gain insight into the sources of students’ errors that may be useful in improving instruction.
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
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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