Damien Hutchinson, Jason Wells

Show more
School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Show less

Abstract: In anticipation of helping students mature from passive to more active learners while engaging with the issues and concepts surrounding computer security, a student generated Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) learning strategy was designed and deployed as a replacement for an assessment task that was previously based on students providing solutions to a series of short-answer questions. To determine whether there was any educational value in students generating their own MCQs students were required to design MCQs. Prior to undertaking this assessment activity each participant completed a pre-test which consisted of 45 MCQs based on the topics of the assessment. Following the assessment activity the participants completed a post-test which consisted of the same MCQs as the pre-test. The pre and post test results as well as the post test and assessment activity results were tested for statistical significance. The results indicated that having students generate their own MCQs as a method of assessment did not have a negative effect on the learning experience. By providing a framework to the students based on the literature to support their engagement with the learning material, we believe the creation of well-structured MCQs resulted in a more advanced understanding of the relationships between the concepts of the learning material as compared with plainly answering a series of short-answer questions from a textbook. Further study is required to determine to what degree this learning strategy encouraged a deeper approach to learning.

Keywords: Assessment; Multiple-Choice Questions; Student Generated Content; Computer Security; Information Technology

Cite this paper: Hutchinson, D. & Wells, J. (2013). An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Student Generated MCQs as a Method of Assessment to Improve Teaching and Learning. Creative Education, 4, 117-125. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2014.

References

[1]   ACVIM (1997). Question-writing guidelines. American College of Ve terinary Internal Medicine. http://www.acvim.org/uploadedFiles/Candidates/exam/ABIMQuestionWritingGuidelines.pdf

[2]   Blackboard (2007). Blackboard homepage, Blackboard Inc. http://www.blackboard.com/us/index.Bb

[3]   Brown, S., Rust, C., & Gibbs, G. (1994) Strategies for diversifying assessment in higher education. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff De velopment.

[4]   Burton, S. J., Sudweeks, R. R., Merrill, P. F., & Wood, B. (1991). How to prepare better multiple-choice test items: Guidelines for university faculty. Bringham Young University Testing Services and the De partment of Instructional Science. http://testing.byu.edu/info/handbooks/betteritems.pdf

[5]   Censeo (2007). Guidelines for writing effective tests: A practical “short course” for test authors. Censeo Corporation. http://www.censeocorp.com/downloads/whitepapers/guidelines-for-writing-effective-tests.asp

[6]   Elton, L., & Johnston, B. (2002) “Setting the scene”, assessment in universities: A critical review of research. London: Generic Centre Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/59244/1/59244.pdf

[7]   English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and in formal context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 83-106. doi:10.2307/749719

[8]   James, R., McInnes, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing learning in Australian universities. Canberra: Australian Universities Teaching Committee.

[9]   King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using ques tioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13-17. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2201_5

[10]   Leung, S. S., & Wu, R. X. (1999). Problem posing with middle grades mathematics: Two real classroom examples. Mathematics teaching in the middle school. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

[11]   Yu, F., & Liu, Y. (2004a). Perceived potential value of student multi ple-choice question-construction in the introductory physics labora tory. Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Edu cation ICEE-2004, Gainesville.

[12]   Yu, F., & Liu, Y. (2004b). Active learning through student generated question in physics experimentation classrooms. Proceedings of In ternational Conference on Engineering Education ICEE-2004, Gai nesville.

[13]   Lublin, J. (2000). Guidelines for good practice in assessment. Univer sity of Western Sydney, Campbelltown: Centre for Enhancement of Learning and Teaching.

[14]   Miller, A. H. (1987). Course design for university lecturers. New York: Nichols Publishing Company.

[15]   Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2006). Constructing multiple choice questions as a method for learning. Singapore: Annals Academy of Medicine. http://www.annals.edu.sg/PDF/35VolNo9Sep2006/V35N9p604.pdf

[16]   Parker, L. (2004). Intersecting sets: Carrick, assessment and evaluation. Key Note Address Presented at the Evaluations and Assessment Con ference. Melbourne: RMIT.

[17]   Parry, S. (2004). Student assessment. Key Note Address Presented at the Evaluations and Assessment Conference. Melbourne: RMIT.

[18]   Phye, G. D. (1997). Handbook of academic learning—Construction of knowledge. California: Academic Press.

[19]   Ramsden, P. (1988). Improving learning—New perspectives. London: Kogan Page.

[20]   Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge Falmer.

[21]   Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learn ing of Mathematics, 14, 19-28.

[22]   Singer, H. (1978). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. Reading Teacher, 31, 901-908.

[23]   Sircar, S. S., & Tandon, O. P. (1999). Involving students in question writing: A unique feedback with fringe benefits. Advances in Physi ology Education, 22, 84-92.

[24]   Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. Bucking ham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

[25]   Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A re view. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227-268. doi:10.3102/00346543055002227