3.8 Proceedings Paper

Problem-Based Multiple Response Exams for Students with and Without Learning Difficulties

Journal

COMPUTER SUPPORTED EDUCATION, CSEDU 2021
Volume 1624, Issue -, Pages 359-377

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-14756-2_18

Keywords

Multiple choice; Constructed response; Learning disabilities; Power relations; Managerialism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective computer-assisted examinations are preferred over constructed response ones because they can be automatically marked. A study comparing the attitudes of engineering students towards a specific objective examination format found that most students expressed a preference for this format.
Objective computer-assisted examinations (CAA) are considered a preferable option compared to constructed response (CR) ones because marking is done automatically without the intervention of the examiner. This publication compares the attitudes and perceptions of a sample of engineering students towards a specific objective examination format designed to assess the students' proficiency to solve electronics problems. Data were collected using a 15-item questionnaire which included a free text question. Overall the students expressed a preference for the objective-type examination format. The students who self-reported to face learning difficulties (LD) were equally divided between the two examination formats. Their examination format preference was determined by the details of their learning difficulties, indicating that none of the two assessment formats effectively solves the assessment question for these students. For the rest of the respondents, examination format preference was accompanied by opposing views regarding answering by guessing, having the opportunity to express their views, selecting instead of constructing an answer, having the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, and having control of the exam answers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available