Premium
Designating “hot” items in multiple‐choice questions—A strategy for reviewing course materials
Author(s) -
Hsia YenTeh,
Jong BinShyan,
Lin TsongWuu,
Liao JiYang
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of computer assisted learning
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.583
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2729
pISSN - 0266-4909
DOI - 10.1111/jcal.12320
Subject(s) - multiple choice , test (biology) , mathematics education , psychology , style (visual arts) , course (navigation) , significant difference , medical education , medicine , engineering , mathematics , statistics , paleontology , history , archaeology , biology , aerospace engineering
Suppose learners use their free time to go online to review course materials, and they do so by taking optional tests that consist of multiple‐choice questions (MCQs). What will happen if, for every practice question, there is always a choice (out of four possible choices) that is marked as “the (current) hot choice?” Will this make any difference in learning effects? To answer this question, an educational experiment was conducted. It was found that “hot designations” helped the experimental group perform significantly better in both the immediate post‐test exam and a delayed post‐test exam and that learners with higher levels of initial knowledge benefited more from this review strategy. From the results of a follow‐up questionnaire and one‐on‐one interviews, it was found that the proposed review strategy promoted a more thorough thinking style in subjects of the experimental group.