"Multiple-Choice Exams: An Obstacle for Higher-Level Thinking in
Introductory Science Classes" by Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall suggests that
indeed students study differently for MCQ exams than ones they have to
write something for. No huge surprise, but nice to see research behind it.
- Bill
Paul said:
> Sandy and colleagues: Since it's impossible to reproduce the TBL experience in these situations, we at Boonshoft have been resigned to using a comprehensive assessment that examines the learner's knowledge of the entire course, typically a 2-3 hour exam. While our exam has consisted entirely of MCQs, I personally feel a combination of MCQs, short essays, and perhaps an oral examination would be a better assessment for remediating a student who has failed. /Paul
>
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Sandy Cook wrote:
>
> > Here is a general question for you. While the general TBL framework is designed to actually identify students at risk early and prevent failures - there are still going to be times, more for professionalism issues in our setting (like cheating), that one may still need to fail a student. In some programs, it may be easy to just have the student take another course under a different instructor, or in a similar topic, if it is not a core requirement. But if it is core, this is the only course available, and it is run as TBL - Without re-doing every single RAT & Application, how does a student repeat/remediate a failure? The student can't really sit in on the GRATs and Applications because the student probably has all the notes and knows the answers = and will rob the other team members the opportunity to learn from the thinking process. Student can't just take RATs and then sit by themselves during the discussions. Kind of defeats the team process. Thoughts, experienc
> es?
> >
> > Sandy
>
--
Bill Goffe
Senior Lecturer
Department of Economics
Penn State University
304 Kern Building
University Park, PA 16802
814-867-3299
[log in to unmask]
http://cook.rfe.org
|
