IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v6y2023i3p46-739d1179867.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guess for Success? Application of a Mixture Model to Test-Wiseness on Multiple-Choice Exams

Author

Listed:
  • Steven B. Caudill

    (Department of Economics, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA)

  • Franklin G. Mixon

    (Center for Economic Education, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA 31907, USA)

Abstract

The use of large lecture halls in business and economic education often dictates the use of multiple-choice exams to measure student learning. This study asserts that student performance on these types of exams can be viewed as the result of the process of elimination of incorrect answers, rather than the selection of the correct answer. More specifically, how students respond on a multiple-choice test can be broken down into the fractions of questions where no wrong answers can be eliminated (i.e., random guessing), one wrong answer can be eliminated, two wrong answers can be eliminated, and all wrong answers can be eliminated. The results from an empirical model, representing a mixture of binomials in which the probability of a correct choice depends on the number of incorrect choices eliminated, we find, using student performance data from a final exam in principles of microeconomics consisting of 100 multiple choice questions, that the responses to all of the questions on the exam can be characterized by some form of guessing, with more than 26 percent of questions being completed using purely random guessing.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven B. Caudill & Franklin G. Mixon, 2023. "Guess for Success? Application of a Mixture Model to Test-Wiseness on Multiple-Choice Exams," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-6, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:6:y:2023:i:3:p:46-739:d:1179867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/6/3/46/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/6/3/46/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Buckles & John J. Siegfried, 2006. "Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 48-57, January.
    2. Mark Dickie, 2006. "Do Classroom Experiments Increase Learning in Introductory Microeconomics?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 267-288, July.
    3. Paul Kagundu & Glenwood Ross, 2015. "The Impact of Question Order on Multiple Choice Exams on Student Performance in an Unconventional Introductory Economics Course," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 15(1), pages 19-36, Fall.
    4. Craig, J. Dean & Savage, Scott J., 2014. "Instructor attire and student performance: Evidence from an undergraduate industrial organization experiment," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 55-65.
    5. Diego Mendez-Carbajo & Franklin G. Mixon, 2021. "Obstacles as Building Blocks: Font Disfluency and Performance on Economics Exams," International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), IGI Global, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, October.
    6. Yvonne Durham & Thomas Mckinnon & Craig Schulman, 2007. "Classroom Experiments: Not Just Fun And Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 162-178, January.
    7. Tisha L. N. Emerson & Linda K. English, 2016. "Classroom experiments: Teaching specific topics or promoting the economic way of thinking?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 288-299, October.
    8. Edward Cartwright & Anna Stepanova, 2012. "What do Students Learn from a Classroom Experiment: Not much, Unless they Write a Report on it," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 48-57, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sam Allgood & William B. Walstad & John J. Siegfried, 2015. "Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 285-325, June.
    2. Humberto Llavador & Marcus Giamattei, 2017. "Teaching microeconomic principles with smartphones – lessons from classroom experiments with classEx," Economics Working Papers 1584, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. Stefan Ruediger & Tatiana Batova, 2020. "The Candy Price Index and the Gumball Domestic Product," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Farolfi, Stefano & Erdlenbruch, Katrin, 2020. "A classroom experimental game to improve the understanding of asymmetric common-pool resource dilemmas in irrigation water management," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    5. Mateu, Guillermo, 2021. "Innovative education management: an empirical study," TEC Empresarial, School of Business, Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR), vol. 15(3), pages 2-17.
    6. Odell, Kathleen E., 2018. "Team-based learning and student performance: Preliminary evidence from a principles of macroeconomics classroom," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 44-58.
    7. Bartels, Lara & Falk, Thomas & Duche, Vishwambhar & Vollan, Björn, 2022. "Experimental games in transdisciplinary research: The potential importance of individual payments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Janssen, Marco A. & Kandikuppa, Sandeep & Chaturvedi, Rahul & Rao, Kaushalendra & Theis, Sophie, 2018. "Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 40-53.
    9. Jonathan Guest, 2015. "Reflections on ten years of using economics games and experiments in teaching," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1115619-111, December.
    10. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    11. Bosley, Stacie, 2016. "Student-crafted experiments “from the ground up”," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 1-7.
    12. Tisha Emerson & Denise Hazlett, 2011. "Classroom Experiments," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Hart Hodges & Yvonne Durham & Steve Henson, 2018. "Economic Education Production Functions for the Principles of Macroeconomics and the Principles of Microeconomics: Is There a Difference?," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 18(2), pages 22-41, Fall.
    14. McMahon, Michael, 2011. "Classroom Games in Economics: A Quantitative Assessment of the ‘Beer Game’," Economic Research Papers 270760, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    15. Lin, Tin-Chun, 2024. "Can instruction in consumer choice theory in introduction to microeconomics benefit student learning in upper-level economics courses? The example of public finance," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    16. Hilde Patron & William J. Smith, 2016. "The Short-Term and Long-Term Trade-Offs of Sustainable Entrepreneurship," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 16(1), pages 36-48, Fall.
    17. Lin, Yu-Hsuan, 2021. "A classroom experiment on the specific factors model," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    18. Carlos Asarta & Ken Rebeck, 2011. "Measurement Techniques of Student Performance and Literacy: College and High School," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 29, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Tisha L. N. Emerson & Linda English, 2016. "Classroom Experiments: Is More More?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 363-367, May.
    20. Beth A. Freeborn & Jason P. Hulbert, 2011. "Persuasive and Informative Advertising: A Classroom Experiment," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 51-59, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:6:y:2023:i:3:p:46-739:d:1179867. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.