Cargando…
Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions
BACKGROUND: Analytic thinking skills are important to the development of physicians. Therefore, educators and licensing boards utilize multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess these knowledge and skills. MCQs are written under two assumptions: that they can be written as higher or lower order acco...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8368900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34457973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y |
_version_ | 1783739191278960640 |
---|---|
author | Stringer, J. K. Santen, Sally A. Lee, Eun Rawls, Meagan Bailey, Jean Richards, Alicia Perera, Robert A. Biskobing, Diane |
author_facet | Stringer, J. K. Santen, Sally A. Lee, Eun Rawls, Meagan Bailey, Jean Richards, Alicia Perera, Robert A. Biskobing, Diane |
author_sort | Stringer, J. K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Analytic thinking skills are important to the development of physicians. Therefore, educators and licensing boards utilize multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess these knowledge and skills. MCQs are written under two assumptions: that they can be written as higher or lower order according to Bloom’s taxonomy, and students will perceive questions to be the same taxonomical level as intended. This study seeks to understand the students’ approach to questions by analyzing differences in students’ perception of the Bloom’s level of MCQs in relation to their knowledge and confidence. METHODS: A total of 137 students responded to practice endocrine MCQs. Participants indicated the answer to the question, their interpretation of it as higher or lower order, and the degree of confidence in their response to the question. RESULTS: Although there was no significant association between students’ average performance on the content and their question classification (higher or lower), individual students who were less confident in their answer were more than five times as likely (OR = 5.49) to identify a question as higher order than their more confident peers. Students who responded incorrectly to the MCQ were 4 times as likely to identify a question as higher order than their peers who responded correctly. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that higher performing, more confident students rely on identifying patterns (even if the question was intended to be higher order). In contrast, less confident students engage in higher-order, analytic thinking even if the question is intended to be lower order. Better understanding of the processes through which students interpret MCQs will help us to better understand the development of clinical reasoning skills. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8368900 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83689002021-08-26 Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions Stringer, J. K. Santen, Sally A. Lee, Eun Rawls, Meagan Bailey, Jean Richards, Alicia Perera, Robert A. Biskobing, Diane Med Sci Educ Original Research BACKGROUND: Analytic thinking skills are important to the development of physicians. Therefore, educators and licensing boards utilize multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess these knowledge and skills. MCQs are written under two assumptions: that they can be written as higher or lower order according to Bloom’s taxonomy, and students will perceive questions to be the same taxonomical level as intended. This study seeks to understand the students’ approach to questions by analyzing differences in students’ perception of the Bloom’s level of MCQs in relation to their knowledge and confidence. METHODS: A total of 137 students responded to practice endocrine MCQs. Participants indicated the answer to the question, their interpretation of it as higher or lower order, and the degree of confidence in their response to the question. RESULTS: Although there was no significant association between students’ average performance on the content and their question classification (higher or lower), individual students who were less confident in their answer were more than five times as likely (OR = 5.49) to identify a question as higher order than their more confident peers. Students who responded incorrectly to the MCQ were 4 times as likely to identify a question as higher order than their peers who responded correctly. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that higher performing, more confident students rely on identifying patterns (even if the question was intended to be higher order). In contrast, less confident students engage in higher-order, analytic thinking even if the question is intended to be lower order. Better understanding of the processes through which students interpret MCQs will help us to better understand the development of clinical reasoning skills. Springer US 2021-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8368900/ /pubmed/34457973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Stringer, J. K. Santen, Sally A. Lee, Eun Rawls, Meagan Bailey, Jean Richards, Alicia Perera, Robert A. Biskobing, Diane Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions |
title | Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions |
title_full | Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions |
title_fullStr | Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions |
title_full_unstemmed | Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions |
title_short | Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions |
title_sort | examining bloom’s taxonomy in multiple choice questions: students’ approach to questions |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8368900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34457973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stringerjk examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT santensallya examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT leeeun examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT rawlsmeagan examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT baileyjean examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT richardsalicia examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT pereraroberta examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions AT biskobingdiane examiningbloomstaxonomyinmultiplechoicequestionsstudentsapproachtoquestions |