IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orited/v25y2024i1p23-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

That’s Incorrect and Let Me Tell You Why: A Scalable Assessment to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking Skills

Author

Listed:
  • Kyle D. S. Maclean

    (Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario N6G 0N1, Canada)

  • Tiffany Bayley

    (Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario N6G 0N1, Canada)

Abstract

We introduce a novel type of assessment that allows for efficient grading of higher order thinking skills. In this assessment, a student reviews and corrects a technical memo that has errors in its formulation or process. To overcome the grading challenges imposed by essay-type responses in large undergraduate courses, we provide a Visual Basic for Applications Excel tool for instructors, ensuring efficient grading of student submissions. We report our experience using this type of assessment in a multisection introductory business analytics course over several years and present survey-based evidence indicating that students perceive it to be clear and beneficial for learning. Supplemental Material: Data is available at https://www.informs.org/Publications/Subscribe/Access-Restricted-Materials

Suggested Citation

  • Kyle D. S. Maclean & Tiffany Bayley, 2024. "That’s Incorrect and Let Me Tell You Why: A Scalable Assessment to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking Skills," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 23-34, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orited:v:25:y:2024:i:1:p:23-34
    DOI: 10.1287/ited.2023.0020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ited.2023.0020
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/ited.2023.0020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Miltenburg, 2019. "Online Teaching in a Large, Required, Undergraduate Management Science Course," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 89-104, January.
    2. Julie Ann Stuart Williams & Maxwell Rankin & Kristine Gallamore & Randall Reid, 2016. "Beyond Model Formulation: Assessment of Novices Graphing, Interpreting, and Writing About Their Model and Solution," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 13-19, September.
    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. Scott P. Stevens & Susan W. Palocsay, 2017. "Teaching Use of Binary Variables in Integer Linear Programs: Formulating Logical Conditions," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 28-36, September.
    2. Julie Ann Stuart Williams & Randall Reid & Kristine Gallamore & Maxwell Rankin, 2018. "Introducing Troubleshooting for Model Formulation, Spreadsheet Development, and Memo Communication with Feedforward," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 102-115, January.
    3. Kristen M. Getchell & Dessislava A. Pachamanova, 2022. "Writing to Learn: A Framework for Structuring Writing Assignments to Support Analytics Course Learning Goals," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 103-120, January.
    4. Catherine Cleophas & Christoph Hönnige & Frank Meisel & Philipp Meyer, 2023. "Who’s Cheating? Mining Patterns of Collusion from Text and Events in Online Exams," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 84-94, January.
    5. Julie Ann Stuart Williams & Randall Reid & Philip E. Billings & Natalie C. Belford, 2023. "Engaging Students in Optimization Modeling: Gaining Business Disruption Insights," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 85-94, September.
    6. Scott P. Stevens & Susan W. Palocsay & Luis J. Novoa, 2023. "Practical Guidance for Writing Multiple-Choice Test Questions in Introductory Analytics Courses," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 51-69, September.

    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:inm:orited:v:25:y:2024:i:1:p:23-34. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.