IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v68y2002i4p957-971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Nixon Chan
  • Peter E. Kennedy

Abstract

Many economics students believe that multiple‐choice (MC) exams are easier than constructed‐response (CR) exams. If true understanding of economics is reflected by performance on CR exams, then easier MC exams would give rise to misleading measures of student understanding of economics, creating a false sense of complacency among both instructors and students. This article investigates this issue by comparing student scores on MC and “equivalent” CR questions. Our results show that, for certain types of MC questions, students do indeed score better, even after correcting for guessing, and on other types of questions, they produce similar scores. These results are unaffected by comparing males versus females or “good” versus “poor” students.

Suggested Citation

  • Nixon Chan & Peter E. Kennedy, 2002. "Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 957-971, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:68:y:2002:i:4:p:957-971
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x?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. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    2. repec:bla:ecorec:v:75:y:1999:i:231:p:348-57 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Siegfried, John J & Kennedy, Peter E, 1995. "Does Pedagogy Vary with Class Size in Introductory Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 347-351, May.
    4. William E. Becker & Michael Watts, 2001. "Teaching Economics at the Start of the 21st Century: Still Chalk-and-Talk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 446-451, May.
    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. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Robert Mathieu & Alex Thevaranjan, 2003. "An economic analysis of the use of student evaluations: implications for universities," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 1-13.
    2. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. J.R. Clark & Joshua C. Hall & Ashley S. Harrison, 2017. "The Relative Value of AER P&P Economic Education Papers," Working Papers 17-23, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    4. David Zetland & Carlo Russo & Navin Yavapolkul, 2010. "Teaching Economic Principles: Algebra, Graph or Both?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 55(1), pages 123-131, May.
    5. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    6. Amanda Mandzik, 2023. "All I Want for Christmas is an A on My Econ Final: A Holiday-Themed Review Class," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 8(2), pages 72-86, May.
    7. Lester Hadsell & Raymond MacDermott, 2012. "Faculty Perceptions of Grades: Results from a National Survey of Economics Faculty," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 11(1), pages 16-35.
    8. Paul Dalziel, 2011. "Schumpeter's 'Vision' and the Teaching of Principles of Economics to Resource Students," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 63-74.
    9. Becker, William E. & Powers, John R., 2001. "Student performance, attrition, and class size given missing student data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 377-388, August.
    10. Victor J. Valcarcel, 2013. "Instituting a Monetary Economy in a Semester-Long Macroeconomics Course," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 129-141, June.
    11. Martin Kniepert, 2014. "Die (Neue) Institutionenökonomik als Ansatz für einen erweiterten, offeneren Zugang zur Volkswirtschaftslehre," Working Papers 552014, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    12. Roger B. Butters & Carlos J. Asarta & Tammie J. Fischer, 2011. "Human Capital in The Classroom: The Role of Teacher Knowledge in Economic Literacy," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(2), pages 47-57, November.
    13. Klein, Alina F. & Klein, Rudolf F., 2023. "Principles of Economics, the Survivor Edition," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 5(2), March.
    14. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    15. Ahlstrom, Laura J. & Harter, Cynthia & Asarta, Carlos J., 2023. "Teaching methods and materials in undergraduate economics courses: School, instructor, and department effects," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    16. Coates, Dennis & Humphreys, Brad R. & Kane, John & Vachris, Michelle A., 2004. ""No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 533-546, October.
    17. repec:zbw:inwedp:552014 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. KimMarie McGoldrick, 2010. "Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Economics," Chapters, in: Michael K. Salemi & William B. Walstad (ed.), Teaching Innovations in Economics, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.
    20. Jeffrey Parker, 2010. "An Empirical Examination of the Roles of Ability and Gender in Collaborative Homework Assignments," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 15-30, January.
    21. Ninos P. Malek & Joshua C. Hall & Collin Hodges, 2014. "A Review and Analysis of the Effectiveness of Alternative Teaching Methods on Student Learning in Economics," Working Papers 14-27, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:soecon:v:68:y:2002:i:4:p:957-971. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.