Student interaction and formative assessment are two agendas which hold equal importance in guiding the student approach to learning in engineering and in many disciplines. With MCQs being a familiar assessment tool for most teachers, it would be ideal if there were a combined approach which involved using MCQ to assess formatively and at the same time, to encourage student engagement and in-class interaction. In this paper, we investigate a number of MCQ delivery methods which may be able to step up to both concerns.
BiggsJ. B., ‘Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching’, Higher Education Research and Development, 8 (1989), 7–25.
2.
FreemanM.McKenzieJ., ‘Aligning peers assessment with peer learning for large classes: The case for an online self and peer assessment system’, in BoudD.CohenR.SampsonJ. (Eds), Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with each other (Kogan Page, London, 2001).
3.
BurnsR. A., ‘Information impact and factors affecting recall’, Paper presented at Annual National Conference on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin TX (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258 639) (1985).
4.
ElliotC., ‘Using a personal response system in economics teaching’, Int. Rev. Econ. Educ.1(1) (2003), 80–86.
5.
NicolD., ‘E-assessment by design: Using multiple-choice tests to good effect’, J. Further and Higher Education, 31(1) (2007), 53–64.
6.
ScoullerK., ‘The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay’, Higher Education, 35(4) (1998), 453–472.
7.
DraperS. W., ‘Catalytic assessment: Understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning’, Br. J. Educ. Technol., 40(2) (2009), 285–293.
8.
GovindasamyT., ‘Successful implementation of e-learning: Pedagogical considerations’, The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3–4) (2001), 287–299.
9.
BullJ.DansonM., Blueprint for Computer-assisted Assessment (Routledge, London, 2004).
10.
SztipanovitsJ.BiswasG.FramptonK.GokhaleA.HowardL.KarsaiG.KooT. J.KoutsoukosX.SchmidtD. C., ‘Introducing embedded software and systems education and advanced learning technology in an engineering curriculum’, ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., 4(3) (2005), 549–568.
11.
WeiY.JohnesJ., ‘Internet tools in teaching quantitative economics: Why gaps between potential and reality?’, J. Further and Higher Education, 29(2) (2005), 125–141.
12.
CrossgroveK.CurranK. L., ‘Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material’, CBE Life Sci. Educ., 7(1) (2008), 146–154.
13.
McFarlinB. K., ‘Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in an undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university’, Adv. Physiol. Educ., 32 (2008), 86–91.
14.
HaqI.DacreJ., ‘Computer-assisted learning in undergraduate and postgraduate rheumatology education’, Rheumatology, 42(2) (2003), 367–370.
15.
AescheD. W.ParslowG. R., ‘Use of questions from the medical biochemistry question bank with the “q” instruction package’, Biochem. Educ., 16(1) (1988), 24–28.
16.
Buckley-SharpM. D.HarrisF. T. C., ‘The banking of multiple-choice questions’, Med. Educ., 4(1) (1970), 42–52.
17.
IssacB.JacobS. M., ‘Effects of online MCQ tests on student learning, in: IskanderM.KapilaV.KarimM. A. (Eds), Technological Developments in Education and Automation (Springer, Dordrecht, 2010), pp. 403–408.
18.
SandersK.HillJ.MeyerJ.FyfeG.FyfeS.ZimanM.KoehlerN., ‘Gender and engagement in automated online test feedback in first year human biology’, in Proc. ASCILITE, ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning, Singapore, 2007, available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/sanders-poster.pdf.
19.
MayerR. E.StullA.DeleeuwK.AlmerothK.BimberB.ChunD.BulgerM.CampbellJ.KnightA.ZhangH., ‘Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes’, Contemporary Educ. Psychol., 34(1) (2009), 51–57.
20.
BerryJ., ‘Technology support in nursing education: Clickers in the classroom’, Nursing Educ. Perspectives, 30(5) (2009), 295.
21.
GauciS.DantasA.WilliamsD.KemmR., ‘Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system’, Adv. Physiol. Educ., 33(1) (2009), 60–71.
22.
MacgeorgeE.HomanS.DunningJ.ElmoreD.BodieG.EvansE.KhichadiaS.LichtiS.FengB.GeddesB., ‘Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes’, Educ. Technol. Research and Development, 56(2) (2008), 125–145.
23.
RashadA. M.YoussifA. A.Abdel-GhafarR. A.LabibA. E., ‘E-assessment tool: A course assessment tool integrated into knowledge assessment’, in IskanderM. (Ed.), Innovative Techniques in Instruction Technology, e-Learning, e-Assessment, and Education (Springer, Dordrecht, 2008), pp. 7–12.
24.
WoelkK., ‘Optimizing the use of personal response devices (clickers) in large-enrolment introductory courses’, J. Chem. Educ., 85(10) (2008), 1400.
25.
AlexanderC. J.CresciniW. M.JuskewitchJ. E.LachmanN.PawlinaW., ‘Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences’, Anatomical Sci. Educ., 2(4) (2009), 160–166.
26.
MartynM., ‘Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach’, Educause Quarterly, 30(2) (2007), 71–74.
27.
JoostenT.McCallisterM.StoneT.ZvacekS. M., ‘Managing the adoption of clickers: Experiences of several universities’, Educause, Dallas, TX, 9–12 October, 2006.
28.
KaletaR.JoostenT., ‘Student reponse system: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers’, ECAR Res. Bull., 10 (2007), 1–12.
KingS. O.RobinsonC. L., ‘“Pretty lights” and maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems’, Comput. Educ., 53(1) (2009), 189–199.
31.
PetrD., ‘Experience with a multiple-choice audience response system in an engineering classroom’, in Proc. 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 19–22 October, 2005, Indianapolis, IN (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2005).
32.
PaschalC. B., ‘Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system’, Adv. Physiology Educ., 26(4) (2002), pp. 299–308.
33.
YourstoneS. A.KrayeH. S.Albaum, ‘Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning?’, Decision Sci. J. Innovative Educ., 6(1) (2008), 75–88.
34.
KohL. C., ‘Academic staff perspectives of formative assessment in nurse education’, Nurse Education in Practice, 10 (2010), 205–209.
35.
TreesA. R.JacksonM. H., ‘The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems’, Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1) (2007), 21–40.
36.
DugganP.PalmerE.DevittP., ‘Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomised trial’, BMC Medical Education, 7(1) (2007), 25.
37.
SmithK. A., ‘Continuing to build engineering education research capabilities’, IEEE Trans. Educ., 49(1) (2006), 1–3.
