The use of multiple choice tests for assessment of students knowledge and progress is a subject of ongoing debate among educators and psychologists. The supporters of this method claim that this is the most objective and effective form of evaluation while the opponents argue that its results cannot be regarded as conclusive (Liu & Parker, 2002). Moreover, they say that in the vast majority of cases such approach is hardly justifiable. Therefore, there is growing necessity to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of multiple choice tests especially in comparison with other types of examinations. Although there is no agreement among scholars concerning this question, the popularity of standardized tests does not diminish and this is by far the most widespread technique currently employed in schools and colleges.
There are several theories explaining why so many educators give preference to this approach. First, it practically eliminates the possibility of prejudice and subjectivity especially in contrast with viva voice or written exams. In part, this is the reason why students support its use. The second aspect which is very interesting is time-efficiency, because we are living in the age of mass education and classes may range from thirty to fifty people. Naturally, under some circumstances the process of grading may take a considerable amount of time, consequently teachers are often forced to employ this type of evaluation (Hoffmann, 1962).
However, objectivity and time-efficiency are not the only advantages of multiple-choice items. In addition to that, they enable to cover a wide scope of material. With a help of a well-designed standardized test educators can assess students understanding of various topics or subtopics. Secondly, thorough analysis of common mistakes made by learners will outline the directions for remedial work (Popham, 2003). This goal can be achieved if items are presented clearly and there is no ambiguity. This diagnosis is usually made at preliminary or intermediate stages; it helps educators to ascertain the level of students readiness for a particular course.
According to a widely-held opinion, multiple choice examinations can evaluate only mere knowledge of facts (Hoffmann, 1962). To some extent, this statement is quite grounded because very often teachers seek to gauge only memorizing of dates, events, numbers, or personalities without focusing on analysis, application of this information. Yet, this statement is grounded only in those cases, when instructors are unwilling or unable to construct more sophisticated items. This method offers good opportunity to study different cognitive skills. Possible drawbacks are mostly due to the inability to devise standardized tests. There are six levels of cognition: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Bloom as cited in Woodford and Bancroft, 2005). Provided that they are effectively tailored, multiple choice items can measure all of these levels. The questions can address understanding of information, ability to apply it in various situations, critical thinking etc. But this requires appropriate phrasing and sequence of items.
Judging from the above discussion, we can mark out the following merits of multiple choice tests: 1) time-efficiency; 2) relative objectivity; 3) ability to cover a vast scope of material; 4) potential for diagnosis of commons errors among learners; 5) applicability of this method to different cognitive skills. These are the reasons why this technique of examination has been recognized by many scholars and educators. But no one can argue that it is always flawless. Several research works have been dedicated to the alleged impartiality of multiple choice tests. For instance, Parker and Liu (2002) claim that they cannot accurately grade even knowledge of facts, let alone other cognitive levels. The authors point out that learners can guess the correct answer by 1) elimination or removing distracters that are clearly wrong; 2) guesswork: 3) carelessness or even coincidence: 4) rich background knowledge (Liu & Parker, 2002). Besides, instructors can unintentionally provide tips in the question, itself or in distracters that frequently sound very obvious to an experienced student. Hence, the correct answer can be easily deduced from the item. There is a different scenario when the key and distracters overlap and bear strong resemblance to one another (Haladyna, 1999). As a result, even knowledgeable learners will have to fight against insuperable odds while solving such puzzle of a test. This controversy casts doubt on the validity of the exam and the scores.
As it had been noted before, multiple choice questions are frequently labeled as an equalizer, which means that they offer equal chances to those who are fluent in written or oral expression and those who are not. On the one hand, this is very advantageous because some learners can know the material well though they cannot shape their thoughts into words. For them this is probably the most suitable option. Nonetheless, eloquence, clarity of expression and fluency are also obligatory for any educated person. Due to the predominance of multiple choice exams teachers tend to overlook these aspects of learning (Hoffmann; 1962). The main problem is that this technique is frequently regarded as the only form of assessment while others are put aside.
Still, even despite these imperfections this method has a great potential in the sphere of learning because of its versatility, the variety of application. As a matter of fact, its alleged drawbacks can be ascribed to inappropriate usage or poor design. Many of defects can be addressed: first, the validity of the scores can be verified by short viva voice or written exam, especially when the number of students in a class does not exceed twenty (Liu & Parker, 2002). Additionally, extra attention should be given to the design of the test, structure, wording, distracters and so forth. In this way teachers can evaluate six levels of cognition not only mere knowledge of facts. Educators may also find it very helpful to combine various strategies of assessment because multiple choice tests must not be considered as the only alternative. Of course, some instructors choose it because it is very convenient but this only makes them more limited. Thus, we can conclude that the disadvantages of multiple choice examination can be explained by inadequate application. This is just a tool and its effectiveness depends on the person who handles it.
There is virtually doubt that the role and impact of standardized (including multiple choice) tests will increase in the near future as education will become more massive. This sets high standards for those who intend to design these tasks. They must stimulate different mental processes instead of just memorizing. On the one hand, the items should be made both understandable, yet they should not be oversimplified. Instructors should be able keep this balance. Finally, they must not be viewed as panacea that substitutes other methods of assessment. It is very much advisable that teachers alternate several techniques. This may hypothetically improve the quality of learning, measuring and scoring.
Bibliography
- Haladyna. T. M (1999). Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items. Mahwah. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Hoffmann. B (1962). The Tyranny of Testing. New York. Crowell-Collier Press.
- Liu. P. Parker. R. Lara. R (2002). Using Standardized Test Unconventionally: An Adapted Reading Assessment. Reading Improvement (38), 1, p 27.
- Popham. W.J (2003). Test better, teach better: the instructional role of assessment. ASCD.
- Wang. J (1995). Critical Values of Guessing on True-False and Multiple-Choice Tests. Education. (116), 1, p 153.
- Woodford. K. Bancroft. P (2005). Multiple Choice Questions Not Considered Harmful. Australian Computer Society. Web.