¿Innovar en el examen tipo test? La prueba objetiva inversa para mejorar la evaluación sumativa en educación superior

  1. Martínez-Abad, Fernando 1
  2. Hernández-Ramos, Juan Pablo 1
  3. Sánchez-Prieto, José Carlos 1
  4. Izquierdo-Álvarez, Vanessa 1
  5. del Moral-Marcos, María Teresa 1
  6. Rivetta, María Serena 1
  7. Ortiz-López, Alberto 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Journal:
REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria

ISSN: 1696-1412,  1887-4592

Year of publication: 2024

Volume: 22

Issue: 2

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4995/REDU.2024.21752 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria

Abstract

Given its significant advantages over other strategies, the objective test is a commonly used assessment tool in university summative assessment, although it has also been associated with some limitations such as rote memorization, the promotion of stagnant and compartmentalized knowledge, or the development of lower-order thinking processes. This research aims to present and evaluate the effectiveness of the reverse objective test as a mode of summative assessment that enhances the performance of conventional objective tests. A quasi-experimental design with post-test only and non-equivalent control group is applied to a group of 204 university students majoring in Education Sciences. While the control group receives the conventional objective test as the assessment instrument, the experimental group completes the same test in reverse mode. The results show that students in the experimental group achieve higher levels of academic performance than those in the control group, while also demonstrating higher levels of satisfaction and overall assessment of the test. While both groups perceive high levels of higher-order reasoning, the experimental group appears to achieve significantly higher levels, with students with higher grades in the experimental group perceiving even higher levels. Both groups report similar levels of academic anxiety. It is evident that the reverse objective test is an alternative that allows for the improvement of summative assessment processes, promoting higher levels of quality in university teaching.

Bibliographic References

  • Adair, D., & Jaeger, M. (2013). A probabilistic scoring method in multiple-choice testing incorporating partial knowledge. En R. White (Ed.), Curriculum Development, Innovation and Reform (pp. 109-124). Nova Science Pub. Inc.
  • Akyol, P., Key, J., & Krishna, K. (2022). Hit or miss? Test taking behavior in multiple choice exams. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 147, 3-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/48684785
  • Almalki, M. S. (2023). Multiple Choice Test-Taking Strategies, Test Anxiety, and EFL Students‟ Achievement. World Journal of English Language, 13(2), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n2p248
  • Arnold, J. C., & Arnold, P. L. (1970). On Scoring Multiple Choice Exams Allowing for Partial Knowledge. The Journal of Experimental Education, 39(1), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1970.11011223
  • Bond, A. E., Bodger, O., Skibinski, D. O. F., Jones, D. H., Restall, C. J., Dudley, E., & van Keulen, G. (2013). Negatively-Marked MCQ Assessments That Reward Partial Knowledge Do Not Introduce Gender Bias Yet Increase Student Performance and Satisfaction and Reduce Anxiety. PLoS ONE, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055956
  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Wadsworth Publishing.
  • Chang, S.-H., Lin, P.-C., & Lin, Z.-C. (2007). Measures of partial knowledge and unexpected responses in multiple-choice tests. Educational Technology and Society, 10(4), 95-109.
  • Collet, L. S. (1971). Elimination Scoring: An Empirical Evaluation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(3), 209-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00927.x
  • Gottlieb, M., Bailitz, J., Fix, M., Shappell, E., & Wagner, M. J. (2023). Educator’s blueprint: A how-to guide for developing high-quality multiple-choice questions. AEM Education and Training, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10836
  • Greving, S., & Richter, T. (2022). Practicing retrieval in university teaching: Short-answer questions are beneficial, whereas multiple-choice questions are not. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2085281
  • Haataja, E. S. H., Tolvanen, A., Vilppu, H., Kallio, M., Peltonen, J., & Metsäpelto, R.-L. (2023). Measuring higher-order cognitive skills with multiple choice questions –potentials and pitfalls of Finnish teacher education entrance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103943
  • Kissi, P., Baidoo-Anu, D., Anane, E., & Annan-Brew, R. K. (2023). Teachers’ test construction competencies in examination-oriented educational system: Exploring teachers’ multiple-choice test construction competence. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1154592
  • Martínez Abad, F., & Hernández Ramos, J. P. (2017). Flipped Classroom con píldoras audiovisuales en prácticas de análisis de datos para la docencia universitaria: Percepción de los estudiantes sobre su eficacia. En S. Pérez Aldeguer, G. Castellano Pérez, & A. Pina Calafi (Eds.), Propuestas de Innovación Educativa en la Sociedad de la Información (pp. 92-105). Adaya Press. https://doi.org/10.58909/ad17267178
  • Maulita, S. R., Sukarmin, & Marzuki, A. (2019). The Content Validity: Two-Tier Multiple Choices Instrument to Measure Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1155(1), 012042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012042
  • Mitra, A. K. (2022). The Art of Designing a Quality Multiple Choice Question in Chemistry. Resonance, 27(6), 1017-1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-022-1394-2
  • Ng, A. W. Y., & Chan, A. H. S. (2009). The testing methods and gender differences in multiple-choice assessment. 1174, 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3256252
  • Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Bono, R. (2021). Math anxiety and perfectionistic concerns in multiple-choice assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 865-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1836120
  • Olmos Migueláñez, S., Martínez Abad, F., Torrecilla Sánchez, E. M., & Mena Marcos, J. J. (2014). Análisis psicométrico de una escala de percepción sobre la utilidad de Moodle en la universidad. RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 20(2), preprint 1. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4221
  • Polat, M. (2020). Analysis of Multiple-Choice versus Open-Ended Questions in Language Tests According to Different Cognitive Domain Levels. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 14(2), 76-96.
  • Scully, D. (2017). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 22(4), 1-13.
  • Shaha, S. H. (1984). Matching-Tests: Reduced Anxiety and Increased Test Effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(4), 869-881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164484444009
  • Singh, A., Bhadauria, V., Jain, A., & Gurung, A. (2013). Role of gender, self-efficacy, anxiety and testing formats in learning spreadsheets. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 739-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.009
  • Sıbıç, O., Akçay, B., & Arik, M. (2020). Review of Two-tier Tests in the Studies: Creating a New Pathway for Development of Two-tier Tests. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.747981
  • Stringer, J. K., Santen, S. A., Lee, E., Rawls, M., Bailey, J., Richards, A., Perera, R. A., & Biskobing, D. (2021). Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions. Medical Science Educator, 31(4), 1311-1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y
  • Tractenberg, R. E., Gushta, M. M., Mulroney, S. E., & Weissinger, P. A. (2013). Multiple choice questions can be designed or revised to challenge learners’ critical thinking. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(5), 945-961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9434-4
  • Vanderoost, J., Janssen, R., Eggermont, J., Callens, R., & De Laet, T. (2018). Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiplechoice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking. PLoS ONE, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203931
  • Vigil-Colet, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Condon, L. (2008). Development and validation of the Statistical Anxiety Scale. Psicothema, 20(1), 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/t62688-000
  • Wahyuni, L. D., Citraini, R., Hutomo, B. A., & Rakhman, G. G. F. (2021). Anxiety and Test Form: The Differences of Test Anxiety Levels in Terms of Test Form. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 10(2), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v10i2.17974
  • Wu, Q., De Laet, T., & Janssen, R. (2018). Elimination Scoring Versus Correction for Guessing: A Simulation Study. En M. Wiberg, S. Culpepper, R. Janssen, J. González, & D. Molenaar (Eds.), Quantitative Psychology (pp. 183-193). Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77249-3_16
Data source: Dialnet