In my Honours seminar/practicum course on Applied Research in Higher Education, this year I tried a new activity. I assigned students readings on how to design MCQ, along
with a set of MC questions and the item analysis data based on a large data set from our Intro PSYC course. As individual prep work which was handed in for marks, they had to identify the weak MCQ, say why they were weak, and 'fix' them or provide an alternative
question. They then did this task again as a team of 5 (kind of like the IRAT, GRAT process) and came to consensus about which questions need fixing and how best to fix them.
We then compared team results which were posted simultaneously. Note that now it's morphed into something of an application activity, with a significant problem*, same problem
(question set), simultaneous report, but not a single answer (I do try, Larry). Despite this lack of orthodoxy, students still found enough material for a back and forth about which items were the best and why, as they compared their question sets posted
on the wall. Ironically, this small seminar wasn't designed as a TBL course though I can see that it is kind of sliding in that direction perhaps because I teach another strictly TBL course to a larger group and love it!
This was a first attempt and I would need to modify it if I wanted to follow TBL principles. They could do a traditional IRAT/GRAT using the IF-ATs and then do the exercise
designed to produce a single answer however I like the idea of them practicing generating the MC fixes and not just having to identify the most egregious weakness or which fix is best and why, etc. from a slate of alternatives that I provide. With only 21
students and two hours, comparing these more complex answers seems do-able in my small seminar.
*Significance - the best part is that they are doing this using our old Intro PSYC test bank, and this intro course is the one in which they each serve as a lab facilitator
(and upper year mentor) to two groups of 25 first year students weekly for a year. This facilitation makes up part of the practicum portion of their Higher Education course and they seem quite invested in the exercise because they once took this MC test
when they were in first year and they want the test to be fair and of high quality for the students with whom they meet each week and get to know. Knowing that they are working to create great quality MCQ for their students seems to make this an authentic
task.
(We also solicit their input on the short answer and essay questions that we use in the intro course, but in a less structured way.)
jill
Jill L. Atkinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Chair of Undergraduate Studies
Dept. of Psychology, Queen's University
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6
Ph: 613-533-6018 Fax: 613-533-2499
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Burns
Sent: June-21-13 2:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: phase 3 teams creating MCQ
I agree with Elisabeth that creating MCQs is mainly an individual/pair effort. There could certainly be a follow up where teams put forward their best example and all teams select the best
as an application exercise with the 4Ss.
Outside of TBL, I also asked students to submit questions as part of a practical exam with two incentives. 1) They got a few points if they mainly followed NBME style, linked the question
to a course learning objective, and provided an explanation. 2) I told the class that a couple examples would appear on exams. Overall they did an excellent job.
With my blessing, they also shared the questions they wrote with one another... my students went through over 100 practice questions in preparation for their exam. Excellent way to learn!
Chris Burns
Associate Professor of Medical Microbiology
University of Illinois COM
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:04:02 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: phase 3 teams creating MCQ
To: [log in to unmask]
I am new to TBL so I don’t have any experience to build on but I have used this assignment as an individual task in my lectures with very good results. Students
are pretty good at creating MCQ (individually), particularly when they know that some of them might show up on the actual exam. You really don’t need a team for this.
I would think that it is still OK for dyads/pairs but not for a team of 5-9 people because it is too easy to get disengaged.
Elisabeth
Dr. Elisabeth Brauner
Professor
Department of Psychology
Brooklyn College
2900 Bedford Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11210
718-951-5000 x6034
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Sandra Schonwetter
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: phase 3 teams creating MCQ
Has anyone used phase 3 as a time for teams to create MCQ? This is a higher order thinking skill and a form of application of the content, but is it something
that would be successful produced as a 'team assignment'? Would individuals work to accomplish the task?
Sandra Schönwetter
Educational Specialist
Department of Medical Education
S204F, Medical Services Building
University of Manitoba
750 Bannatyne Avenue
phone:
(204) 272-3172
fax:
(204) 480-1372