Multiple-true-false questions reveal more thoroughly the complexity of student thinking than multiple-choice questions: a Bayesian item response model comparison
Multiple-true-false questions reveal more thoroughly the complexity of student thinking than multiple-choice questions: a Bayesian item response model comparison
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40594-019-0169-0
复制
发表时间：
2019-05-10
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Couch, Brian A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brassil, Chad E.;Couch, Brian A.
背景：在本科科学课程中，教师经常使用封闭式问题格式评估学生的思维，例如多项选择 (MC) 和多项真假 (MTF)，学生根据预定的回答选项提供答案。虽然 MC 和 MTF 问题都由一个问题主干和一系列选项组成，但 MC 问题要求学生仅选择一个答案，而 MTF 问题使学生能够评估每个选项的正确或错误。我们采用了一种实验设计，其中以两种格式向学生提出相同的问题，并使用贝叶斯项目响应模型来了解每种格式的响应与推断的学生对不同选项的思考的比较。结果：我们的数据支持一个定量模型，其中学生以不同程度的理解来处理每个问题，我们将其标记为掌握、部分掌握和知情推理，而不是统一的随机猜测。 MTF 响应更准确地估计了推断完全掌握所有答案选项的学生比例，并更准确地识别持有错误概念的学生。 MTF 问题引出的指导信息的深度通过 MTF 结果预测 MC 结果的能力来证明，但反之则不然。我们进一步讨论教师如何处理和解释 MTF 回答。结论：这项研究支持这样的假设：学生以不同的理解水平处理 MC 和 MTF 问题，并证明 MTF 格式具有更大的能力来描述学生对各种回答选项的思考。
Background: Within undergraduate science courses, instructors often assess student thinking using closed-ended question formats, such as multiple-choice (MC) and multiple-true-false (MTF), where students provide answers with respect to predetermined response options. While MC and MTF questions both consist of a question stem followed by a series of options, MC questions require students to select just one answer, whereas MTF questions enable students to evaluate each option as either true or false. We employed an experimental design in which identical questions were posed to students in either format and used Bayesian item response modeling to understand how responses in each format compared to inferred student thinking regarding the different options.Results: Our data support a quantitative model in which students approach each question with varying degrees of comprehension, which we label as mastery, partial mastery, and informed reasoning, rather than uniform random guessing. MTF responses more closely estimate the proportion of students inferred to have complete mastery of all the answer options as well as more accurately identify students holding misconceptions. The depth of instructional information elicited by MTF questions is demonstrated by the ability of MTF results to predict the MC results, but not vice-versa. We further discuss how MTF responses can be processed and interpreted by instructors.Conclusions: This research supports the hypothesis that students approach MC and MTF questions with varying levels of understanding and demonstrates that the MTF format has a greater capacity to characterize student thinking regarding the various response options.