Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open AccessOriginalarbeit

Studentische Bewertung und Präferenz von Hochschulprüfungen mit Aufgaben im offenen und geschlossenen Antwortformat

Published Online:April 08, 2019https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000229

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Multiple-Choice-Aufgaben (MCA) werden gegenüber Freitextaufgaben (Constructed-Response-Aufgaben [CRA]) in Hochschulprüfungen zunehmend eingesetzt. Diese Studie betrachtet formatspezifische Einstellungen und Präferenzen von Studierenden, die relevant für selbstreguliertes Lernverhalten sein könnten (vgl. Assessment Drives Learning). Dreihundertfünfzig Studierende bewerteten MCA und CRA auf verschiedenen Dimensionen separat, aber mit identischen Frageformulierungen. Wie angenommen finden sich signifikante (p ≤ .001) Bewertungsunterschiede: Die Erwartung eines (geringeren) Lernaufwandes (d = 1.22), die Erfolgserwartung von Testbearbeitungsstrategien (d = 0.70) sowie die wahrgenommene Bewertungsobjektivität (d = 1.47) und Fairness (d = 0.27) fielen höher für MCA gegenüber CRA aus. CRA schnitten dagegen hinsichtlich des wahrgenommenen Potenzials Leistung zu zeigen deutlich stärker ab (d = –2.53). Allgemein zeigten sich eher individuelle Präferenzen zugunsten eines der Formate, die teilweise durch die Formatbewertungen erklärbar waren. Implikationen für die Prüfungspraxis an Hochschulen werden diskutiert.


Students' appraisal of open and closed response formats in university exams

Abstract. Compared to constructed response (CR) items, multiple-choice (MC) items play an increasing role in university exams. This study investigates format-specific expectations and preferences of students which may influence their self-regulated learning behavior (assessment drives learning). Three-hundred-fifty students rated MC and CR exams on multiple dimensions. As hypothesized, there were significant (p ≤ .001) differences: Students expected a lower workload (d = 1.22), higher success of test-wiseness strategies (d = 0.70), a higher objectivity of test results (d = 1.47) and more fairness (d = 0.27) in MC exams, whereas they perceived a greater potential to showcase their knowledge in CR exams (d = –2.53). We found no overarching global preference, but individual preferences for each format; these could be partially explained by format-specific expectations. Implications for higher education exams are discussed.

Literatur

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. doi:10.1007/BF00138871 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Birenbaum, M. & Feldman, R. A. (1998). Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats. Educational Research, 40, 90–98. doi:10.1080/0013188980400109 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dodeen, H. (2008). Assessing test-taking strategies of university students: Developing a scale and estimating its psychometric indices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 409–419. doi:10.1080/02602930701562874 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B. & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170–177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.170 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q. & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 87, 1082–1116. doi:10.3102/0034654317726529 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M. & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309–333. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haladyna, T. M. & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Huber, L. (2008). „Kompetenzen“ prüfen? In S. DanyB. SzczybraJ. WildtHrsg., Prüfungen auf die Agenda. Hochschuldidaktische Perspektiven auf Reformen im Prüfungswesen (S.12−26). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kastner, M. & Stangl, B. (2011). Multiple choice and constructed response tests: Do test format and scoring matter? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 263–273. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.035 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kellas, G. & Butterfield, E. C. (1971). Effect of response requirement and type of material on acquisition and retention performance in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 50–56. doi:10.1037/h0030663 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kubinger, K. D. (2009). Psychologische Diagnostik: Theorie und Praxis psychologischen Diagnostizierens (2. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage). Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kubinger, K. D. (2014). Gutachten zur Erstellung 2gerichtsfester" Multiple-Choice-Prüfungsaufgaben. Psychologische Rundschau, 65, 169–178. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000218 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Landmann, M., Perels, F., Otto, B., Schnick-Vollmer, K. & Schmitz, B. (2015). Selbstregulation und selbstreguliertes Lernen. In J. MöllerE. Wild (Hrsg.), Pädagogische Psychologie (2., vollständig überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage, S.45–66). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41291-2_3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lindner, M. A., Strobel, B. & Köller, O. (2015). Multiple-Choice-Prüfungen an Hochschulen? Ein Literaturüberblick und Plädoyer für mehr praxisorientierte Forschung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 29, 133–149. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000156 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S. & Linn, M. C. (2011). An investigation of explanation multiple-choice items in science assessment. Educational Assessment, 16, 164–184. doi:10.1080/10627197.2011.611702 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lukas, J., Melzer, A. & Much, S., unter Mitarbeit von S. Eisentraut (2017). Auswertung von Klausuren im Antwort-Wahl-Format. Zugriff am 26.12.2017 http://wiki.llz.uni-halle.de/images/3/38/Handbuch_-_PDF.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lukhele, R., Thissen, D. & Wainer, H. (1994). On the relative value of multiple-choice, constructed response, and examinee-selected items on two achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 234–250. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1994.tb00445.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Martinez, M. E. (1999). Cognition and the question of test item format. Educational Psychologist, 34, 207–218. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3404_2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McCoubrie, P. (2004). Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: A literature review. Medical Teacher, 26, 709–712. doi:10.1080/01421590400013495 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McDaniel, M. A., Blischak, D. M. & Challis, B. (1994). The effects of test expectancy on processing and memory of prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 230–248. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1019 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Millman, J., Bishop, C. H. & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis of test-wiseness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 707–726. doi:10.1177/001316446502500304 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Müller, A. & Schmidt, B. (2009). Prüfungen als Lernchance: Sinn, Ziele und Formen von Hochschulprüfungen. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 4, 23–45. doi:10.3217/zfhe-4-01/03 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pfister, H.-R., Jungermann, H. & Fischer, K. (2017). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung (4. Auflage). Berlin: Springer. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Construct equivalence of multiple-choice and constructed-response items: A random effects synthesis of correlations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 163–184. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01102.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schult, J. & Sparfeldt, J. R. (2018). Reliability and validity of PIRLS and TIMSS. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34, 258–269. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000338 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Scouller, K. M. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472. doi:10.1023/A:1003196224280 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Scouller, K. M. & Prosser, M. (1994). Students' experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267–279. doi:10.1080/03075079412331381870 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sparfeldt, J. R., Kimmel, R., Löwenkamp, L., Steingräber, A. & Rost, D. H. (2012). Not read, but nevertheless solved? Three experiments on PIRLS multiple choice reading comprehension test items. Educational Assessment, 17, 214–232. doi:10.1080/10627197.2012.735921 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F. & Janssens, S. (2005). Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 331–347. doi:10.1080/02602930500099102 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thiede, K. W. (1996). The relative importance of anticipated test format and anticipated test difficulty on performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 901–918. doi:10.1080/713755673 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wan, L. & Henly, G. A. (2012). Measurement properties of two innovative item formats in a computer-based test. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 58–78. doi:10.1080/08957347. 2012.635507 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Waugh, C. K. & Gronlund, N. E. (2013). Assessment of student achievement (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Winkel, O. (2010). Higher education reform in Germany: How the aims of the bologna process can be simultaneously supported and missed. International Journal of Educational Management, 24, 303–313. doi:10.1108/09513541011045245 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: The student's perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 352–358. doi:10.1080/00220671.1987.10885782 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar