I'm thinking it depends upon what kind of multiple choice question one
writes. If it is just recall, I agree -- there wouldn't be much "effortful
processing" and the benefits that Roediger and Butler describe would be
lost. But, if the question is higher up Bloom's Taxonomy, which should
require "effortful processing," then a multiple choice question should
have these benefits. It seems to take more thought to write such
questions.
- Bill
P.S. In the last few years, a number of interesting and very readable
books about cognitive science have been published. I've found them
very helpful and have really enriched my teaching. Here's a set of
links:
Make It Stick
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674729018
Why Students Don't Like School
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047059196X.html
How Learning Works
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470484101.html
Mind Online
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368248
Peak
http://www.hmhco.com/shop/books/Peak/9780544456235
If you're looking for paper-length introductions, see:
The Science of Learning
http://www.deansforimpact.org/the_science_of_learning.html
Applying Psychological Science to Higher Education: Key Findings and Open Questions
http://hilt.harvard.edu/files/hilt/files/moulton_2014_applying_psychological_science_to_higher_education_april16.pdf
Jo said:
> I found the Roediger and Butler article fascinating! While I'm not a
> cognitive scientist (or any kind of scientist!), I am fascinated by the
> implications of cognitive science. Having said that, I'm curious about
> their report that "practicing retrieval [or testing] is beneficial when it
> requires effortful processing (e.g. production rather
> than recognition tests)" pg. 25. This seems to undermine multiple choice
> tests - a mainstay of TBL. What do you think? Blessings, Jo
>
>
> Jo Clemmons EdD, Director
> *Center for Teaching & Learning*
> *Point Loma Nazarene University*
> *619-849-296*5
>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sweet, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > An interesting distinction to be drawn is whether the study is done in a
> > lab or an actual classroom. Looks like the “delayed feedback” effect
> > described here is a lab study (Butler & Reedier, 2008).
> >
> > Though it's a little long in the tooth now, Kulik & Kulik’s (1988)
> > meta-analysis showed that delayed feedback had been shown to be more
> > effective in lab experiments but immediate feedback better in classroom
> > studies. Some later studies have also followed this pattern.
> >
> > “Ecological validity”--it’s a thing!
> >
> > That said, it’s been a while since 1988--I wonder what a meta-analysis
> > would show today.
> >
> > If anyone is interested, the Kulik & Kulik ref is:
> > Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal
> > learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/18/16, 12:49 PM, "Team-Based Learning on behalf of Michael Kramer" <
> > [log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > >In the paper, linked below, Roediger and Butler state that
> > "[c]onventional wisdom and studies in behavioral psychology indicate that
> > providing feedback immediately after a test is best. However, experimental
> > results show that delayed feedback might be even more powerful" (23). They
> > then show the results from an experiment where students who received
> > immediate feedback after each question had better recall one week later
> > than students who received the correct answers only after the entire exam
> > was completed. They hypothesize that "[t]he benefits of delayed feedback
> > might represent a type of spacing effect: the phenomenon whereby two
> > presentations of material given with spacing between them generally leads
> > to better retention than massed (back-to-back) presentations."
> > >
> > >
> > http://psych.wustl.edu/memory/Roddy%20article%20PDF's/Roediger%20&%20Butler%20(2011)_TCS.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > >Of course we don't know if the same results would occur in group
> > environments. Since most of us only use immediate feedback in the team
> > readiness assessments, that would be a useful thing to know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Michael Kramer
> > >Department of History and Philosophy
> > >York College (CUNY)
> > >94-20 Guy R. Brewer Blvd.
> > >Jamaica, NY 11451
> > >########################################################################
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following
> > link:
> > >https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
> > >
> > >Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on
> > the UBC IT website.
> >
> > ########################################################################
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following
> > link:
> > https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
> >
> > Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on
> > the UBC IT website.
> >
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:
> https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
>
> Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.
--
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/
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:
https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.
|
