PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019, Vol. 14(1) 61-74

Reconsidering the Assessment Policy: Practical Use of Liberal Multiple-choice Tests (SAC Method)

Kürşat Cesur

pp. 61 - 74   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.186.4   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1901-25-0001.R1

Published online: March 22, 2019  |   Number of Views: 428  |  Number of Download: 553


Abstract

Examinees’ performances are assessed using a wide variety of different techniques. Multiple-choice (MC) tests are among the most frequently used ones. Nearly, all standardized achievement tests make use of MC test items and there is a variety of ways to score these tests. The study compares number right and liberal scoring (SAC) methods. Mixed methods sequential explanatory research design was used which consists of both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data. A test with ten questions was conducted to 73 prospective English teachers who were selected purposively and they were asked why they had chosen more than one option in the second part of the test. Priority was on the quantitative data obtained from the test results. Qualitative data were collected using participants’ explanations for their answers. The analysis of the qualitative findings was used to explain the findings of the quantitative results. The results reveal that liberal scoring method rewards partial knowledge and penalizes blind guessing. It is superior to the conventional scoring methods as it eliminates their disadvantages. Though it eliminates the disadvantages of other scoring methods, liberal scoring method is difficult to be used practically in the classroom. Without a technological help, teachers may find liberal scoring method really difficult. The study also provides teachers with a Microsoft Excel document for practical use of liberal MC tests. With the help of this document, teachers can easily conduct liberal MC tests in their exams. Suggestions to the test designers and policymakers at both national and international levels about the use of liberal scoring method were provided at the end of the study. 

Keywords: Scoring Methods for Multiple-choice Tests, Liberal Multiple-choice tests, Partial Knowledge, Blind Guessing


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Cesur, K. (2019). Reconsidering the Assessment Policy: Practical Use of Liberal Multiple-choice Tests (SAC Method) . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(1), 61-74. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2019.186.4

Harvard
Cesur, K. (2019). Reconsidering the Assessment Policy: Practical Use of Liberal Multiple-choice Tests (SAC Method) . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(1), pp. 61-74.

Chicago 16th edition
Cesur, Kursat (2019). "Reconsidering the Assessment Policy: Practical Use of Liberal Multiple-choice Tests (SAC Method) ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 14 (1):61-74. doi:10.29329/epasr.2019.186.4.

References
  1. Ben-Simon, A., Budescu, D. V., & Nevo, N. (1997). A comparative study of measures of partial knowledge in multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 65–88. [Google Scholar]
  2. Betts, L. R., Elder, T. J., Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (2009). Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple-choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradbard, D. A., Parker, D. F., & Stone, G. L. (2004). An alternate multiple-choice scoring procedure in a macroeconomics course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2(1), 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bush, M. (2001). A multiple choice test that rewards partial knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(2), 157–163. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cesur K. (2009, May). An alternative way of testing and scoring: Multiple-answer multiple-choice questions for classroom use. Paper presented at the First International Congress of Educational Research, Çanakkale, Turkey, 1-10.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Coombs, C. H., Miholland, J. E., & Womer, F. B. (1956). The assessment of partial knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 13–37. [Google Scholar]
  7. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London, UK: Sage [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fourth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(2), 124-130. [Google Scholar]
  10. Farthing, D. W., Jones, D. M., & McPhee, D. (1998). Permutational multiple-choice questions: An objective and efficient alternative to essay-type examination questions, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(3), 81-85. [Google Scholar]
  11. Frary, R. B. (1989). Partial-credit scoring methods for multiple-choice tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gardner-Medwin, A. R. (1995). Confidence assessment in the teaching of basic science. Research in Learning Technology, 3(1), 80–85.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. (2006).  Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design:  From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jennings, S., & Bush, M. (2006). A Comparison of conventional and liberal (free-choice) multiple-choice tests. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 11(8). 1-5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurz, T.B. (1999). A review of scoring algorithms for multiple-choice tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Education Research Association. San Antonio, TX. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428076.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  17. Lesage, E., Valcke, M. & Sabbe, E. (2013). Scoring methods for multiple choice assessment in higher education - Is it still a matter of number right scoring or negative marking? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 118-193.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Madsen, S. H. (1983). Techniques in testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ng, A., & Chan, A. (2009). Different methods of multiple-choice test: Implications and design for further research. Proceeding of International MultiConference of engineers and computer scientists, Vol.II, IMEC 2009, March 18-20, Hong Kong. Retrieved 21 January 2019 from http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2009/IMECS2009_pp1958-1963.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  20. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 77–108. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  21. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  22. Warwick, J., Bush, M., & Jennings, S. (2010). Analysis and evaluation of liberal (free-choice) multiple-choice tests, Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 9(2), 1-12.  [Google Scholar]