Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Do Students Believe that Multiple Choice and Cued Recall Practice Questions Have Different Utility?

Badali, Sabrina
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1719935395843358

Abstract Details

2024, PHD, Kent State University, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Psychological Sciences.
Both multiple-choice (MC) and cued-recall (CR) practice questions are beneficial for learning, but how do students choose to use each format of practice question? Will students’ learning choices indicate they believe each format has non-redundant utility? Across three experiments, I proposed and evaluated two hypotheses regarding how students might regulate their use of MC and CR practice questions when they have access to both formats for the same material. Briefly, students might think the two formats are redundant, think the two formats are non-redundant in that both are uniquely beneficial, or think the two formats are non-redundant but that one is better than the other. To assess support for these hypotheses, some student participants had access to both MC and CR optional practice questions and could complete either or both formats as many times as they wanted. I found support for the non-redundant utility hypothesis. Specifically, most participants preferred completing MC questions and used only this format until they got each question correct about one time. However, about one-third of participants used both MC and CR questions for most material, and continued practice until they got each question correct more than one time with each format. In Experiment 3, I found that participants’ learning plans indicated they entered the learning task with pre-existing beliefs about the differences in utility of each format of practice question. Thus, participants’ learning choices and learning plans indicated that participants believe multiple-choice and cued-recall practice questions have unique utility and provided support for the non-redundant utility hypothesis.
Katherine Rawson (Committee Chair)
Clarissa Thompson (Committee Co-Chair)
John Dunlosky (Committee Member)
Jeffrey Ciesla (Committee Member)
Bradley Morris (Committee Member)
77 p.
Psychology
practice testing; self-regulated learning; testing effect; multiple choice questions; cued recall questions

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Badali, S. (2024). Do Students Believe that Multiple Choice and Cued Recall Practice Questions Have Different Utility? [Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1719935395843358

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Badali, Sabrina. Do Students Believe that Multiple Choice and Cued Recall Practice Questions Have Different Utility? 2024. Kent State University, Doctoral dissertation. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1719935395843358.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Badali, Sabrina. "Do Students Believe that Multiple Choice and Cued Recall Practice Questions Have Different Utility?" Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 2024. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1719935395843358

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

kent1719935395843358
107
© 2024, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by Kent State University and OhioLINK.