Paper detail

Coupled Multiple-response vs. Free-response Conceptual assessment: An Example from upper-division Physics

Free-response research-based assessments, like the Colorado Upper-division Electrostatics Diagnostic (CUE), provide rich, fine-grained information about students' reasoning. However, because of the difficulties inherent in scoring these assessments, the majority of the large-scale conceptual assessments in physics are multiple-choice. To increase the scalability and usability of the CUE, we set out to create a new version of the assessment that preserves the insights afforded by a free-response format while exploiting the logistical advantages of a multiple-choice assessment. We used our extensive database of responses to the free-response CUE to construct distractors for a new version where students can select multiple responses and receive partial credit based on the accuracy and consistency of their selections. Here, we describe the development of this modified CUE format, which we call coupled multiple-response (CMR), and present data from direct comparisons of both versions. We find that the two formats have the same average score and perform similarly on multiple measures of validity and reliability, suggesting that the new version is a potentially viable alternative to the original CUE for the purpose of large-scale research-based assessment. We also compare the details of student responses on each of the two versions. While the CMR version does not capture the full scope of potential student responses, nearly three-quarters of our students' responses to the free-response version contained one or more elements that matched options provided on the CMR version.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.