MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Student-generated Multiple-Choice Questions: A Java and Web-Based Tool for Students to Create Multiple Choice Tests

2024· article· en· W4403603105 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Larry Katz, Dave Carlgren, Cory Wright‐Maley, Megan Hallam, Joan Forder, Lisa Finestone

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsSt. Mary's UniversityAmbrose UniversitySAIT PolytechnicUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple choiceJavaComputer scienceMathematics educationWorld Wide WebProgramming languagePsychologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student-generated questions can be an effective study technique to improve active learning, metacognitive skills, and performance on examinations. Students have shown greater success when assessed using peer-made study questions than when studying without questions. In three semesters of a kinesiology research methods course students were taught how to write high-quality multiple-choice questions that addressed course objectives and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students were given a graded assignment to write three multiple-choice questions using Makequiz, a Java and web-based tool for helping students generate multiple choice questions. Student- generated questions that were rated as good quality (n = 169-245) were provided to the students as a study resource prior to the final exam. Of those study questions, 40 were selected each semester to be on the final exam. Students performed significantly better on student-written questions than instructor-written questions on the final exam in Class A (p < .05) and in Class C (p < .05). A majority of students felt this assignment was a worthwhile component of the course, voting to keep Makequiz in the curriculum (Class A: 52.6%, Class B: 62.3%, Class C: 58.3%) or to modify Makequiz (Class A: 25.3%, Class B: 14.5%, Class C: 18.1%). Many of the students stated it was the most valuable assignment of the course (32% Class B and Class C). Makequiz is, therefore, a recommended study tool for students. Comparisons are also made with PeerWise, an online platform for creating and sharing MCQ and feedback. Further investigation is required to measure the impact Makequiz has on learning, metacognitive skills, and anxiety levels before test-taking.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207