Evaluation of three multiple-choice assessment methods in a human factors engineering course

Abstract

This study investigated students’ objective performance and subjective preference for the conventional, liberal, and confidence marking multiple-choice methods. Eighty-one university students answered multiple-choice quiz questions on human factors engineering using each of the three methods and then provided feedback on each method. Relative to the conventional method, the liberal and confidence marking methods were useful for extracting information about partial knowledge and increased the variance of performance scores. The different multiple-choice methods could cause students to change their response criterion in performing the assessment, whereas the ability to discriminate correct answers from distracters did not vary across the multiple-choice methods. Regarding subjective preferences, the conventional method was the most preferred followed by the liberal method and then the confidence marking method. The findings of this study would be useful for the selection of effective multiple-choice methods for academic assessments.

這項研究調查學生對傳統的(conventional) ， 自由的(liberal)及信心標記的(confidence marking)多項選擇題作答方法的客觀表現及主觀喜好。 81位大學生透過上述的三種作答方法來回答有關人因工程的多項選擇問答題 ， 然後對每種作答方法提供反饋。 相對於傳統的作答方法 ， 自由的及信心標記的作答方法有助於了解學生所擁有的部分知識及提高作業分數方差。 不同的多項選擇題作答方法會導致學生改變他們作答的反應條件 ， 然而區分正確答案的能力沒有隨著不同的作答方法而改變。 關於主觀喜好 ， 傳統的作答方法是最受歡迎 ， 隨後是自由的作答方法 ， 然後是信心標記的作答方法。 這項研究的結果有助選擇有效的多項選擇題作答方法作學術評估之用。

(*聯絡人: [email protected])

Keywords:

• assessment
• multiple-choice method
• signal detection theory
• human factors

Keywords:

• 關鍵詞 ： 評估;多項選擇題作答方法;信號檢測論;人因工程

Notes

(*聯絡人: [email protected])