1,349
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Assertion‐reason multiple‐choice testing as a tool for deep learning: a qualitative analysis

Pages 287-301 | Published online: 18 Jan 2007
 

Abstract

This paper reflects on the ongoing debate surrounding the usefulness (or otherwise) of multiple‐choice questions (MCQ) as an assessment instrument. The context is a graduate school of business in Australia where an experiment was conducted to investigate the use of assertion‐reason questions (ARQ), a sophisticated form of MCQ that aims to encourage higher‐order thinking on the part of the student. It builds on the work of Connelly (Citation2004) which produced a quantitative analysis of the use of ARQ testing in two economics course units in a flexibly‐delivered Master of Business Administration (MBA) program. Connelly's main findings were that ARQ tests were good substitutes for the more conventional type of multiple‐choice/short‐answer type questions and, perhaps more significantly, ARQ test performance was a good predictor of student performance in essays—the assessment instrument most widely favoured as an indicator of deeper learning. The main focus of this paper is the validity of the second of these findings, analysis of questionnaire data casting some doubt over whether student performance in ARQ tests can, indeed, be looked upon as a sound indicator of deeper learning—student reactions and opinions suggesting instead that performance might have more to do with one's proficiency in the English language.

Acknowledgments

The project on which this paper reports was made possible through a Small Teaching and Learning Grant provided by Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of co‐collaborator, Dr Luke Connelly, and the assistance of Elizabeth Heathcote from the Software, Multimedia and Internet Learning Environments (SMILE) section within Teaching and Learning Support Services (TALSS) at QUT. The author also gratefully acknowledges the comments of two anonymous referees on an earlier draft of this paper. Any remaining errors or inaccuracies are the responsibility of the author, and the author alone.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 830.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.