Traditional and Modern MCQ Methods as In-class Formative Assessment

  • Cecilia K.Y. Chan
  • Vincent W.L. Tam
  • Wilton T.T. Fok
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 151)


This study was designed to compare three different Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) delivery methods namely clickers, pen and paper MCQs and online elearning MCQs on the effectiveness of student engagement used as an in-class formative assessment. The results were also compared without the use of any formative assessment. Overall, the majority of students appreciates and recommends in-class formative assessment particularly clickers and online elearning to be used in other courses. In the presentation, the results of these assessment delivery methods will be discussed as well as issues and concerns found by the observer using these delivery methods.


  1. 1.
    Bull J, Danson M (2004) Blueprint for computer-assisted assessment. RoutledgeFalmer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cotner S, Fall B, Wick S, Walker J, Baepler P (2008) Rapid feedback assessment methods: Can we improve engagement and preparation for exams in large-enrollment courses? J Sci Educ Technol 17(5):437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Draper SW (2009) Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. British J Educ Technol 40(2):285–293 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gauci S, Dantas A, Williams D, Kemm R (2009) Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ 33(1):60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Govindasamy T (2001) Successful implementation of E-learning: pedagogical consideration. Elsevier Science Inc. PII: S1096-7516(01)00071-9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    King SO, Robinson CL (2009) `Pretty lights’ and maths! increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Comput Educ 53(1):189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kirsten C and Kristen LC (2008) CBE-Life Sci Educ 7:146–154Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macgeorge E, Homan S, Dunning J, Elmore D, Bodie G, Evans E, Khichadia S, Lichti S, Feng B, Geddes B (2008) Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educ Technol Res Dev 56(2):125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nicol D (2007) E-assessment by design: using multiple-choice tests to good effect. J Furth High Educ 31(1):53–64MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patterson B, Kilpatrick J, Woebkenberg E (2010) Evidence for teaching practice: the impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Educ Today In Press, Corrected proofGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petr D (2005) Experience with a multiple-choice audience response system in an engineering classroom. In: 35th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference S3G-1, Indianapolis, 19-22 Oct 2005Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scouller K (1998) The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. High Educ 35(4):453–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sztipanovits J, Biswas G, Frampton K, Gokhale A, Howard L, Karsai G, Koo TJ, Koutsoukos X, Schmidt DC (2005) Introducing embedded software and systems education and advanced learning technology in an engineering curriculum. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 4(3):549–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wei Y, Johnes J (2005) Internet tools in teaching quantitative economics: why gaps between potential and reality? J Furth High Educ 29(2):125–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia K.Y. Chan
    • 1
  • Vincent W.L. Tam
    • 2
  • Wilton T.T. Fok
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and LearningThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.Electrical and Electronic EngineeringThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations