Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Ben on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Samir Chopra on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Chris Berry on Who Gets to Keep Trover?
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Explanation Option on Multiple Choice Exams

posted by Lawrence Cunningham

Teaching Hours Burden Post.jpgLaw professors may struggle to determine optimal exam format, especially between essays and multiple-choice questions or a combination. Student appetite varies. But many students prefer essay exams. They may express concern that multiple choice questions limit ability to identify and explain ambiguities.

Teachers may find a multiple-choice format optimal for many reasons, including psychometric evaluation, the nature of substantive material to test (e.g., statutory versus common law), or simple time budgeting to grade exams (e.g., a professor teaching both Contracts and Corporations in a single term to large enrollments simply cannot grade 200+ written exams within deadline).

One way to offer multiple-choice exams while meeting that student concern is to give students a limited option to address perceived ambiguities. This can be done for a limited number of questions on a separate attachment to the multiple choice exam. I’ve done this for years, using an approach passed on to me by Bernie Black years ago when he was at Columbia and I taught a course there.

The mechanism is easiest to explain by excerpting below the related instruction that appears on the general instructions page to my exam; it is followed by the form of explanations page I attach to the exam booklet. I always circulate the instruction and sample form of explanations page in the weeks before the end of the term and explain the method in the beginning of the term when summarizing the course evaluation method.


From Instruction Page

6. While there is no obligation to do so, you may, if you think a question is ambiguous, explain why on the “explanations page” at the end of this exam. Then make whatever assumptions you need to resolve the ambiguity and answer the question. If there is a real ambiguity, your assumptions are reasonable, and your analysis is correct given your assumptions, you will receive credit even if your answer is not the one sought. But don’t look too hard for alternative explanations of what a question is asking for, or you may perceive ambiguity that isn’t really there. You can also lose credit if, though you selected the correct answer, your explanation convinces me that you did so for the wrong reasons. You can exercise this option to provide explanations for up to [_____] questions. [NB: I usually make this about 10-15% of the questions.]

From Explanations Form Pages

OPTIONAL: Explanation of Ambiguous Questions (Maximum of _______)

For each Question No. you believe is ambiguous, please write down:

(1) The answer you select (“Student Answer”)

(2) The answer you think I intended or may have intended (“Sought Answer”)

(3) The ambiguity and the assumptions you made in your selection

[Do not exceed space limits indicated by the lines below and please write neatly]

Question No. _______

Student Answer _______

Sought Answer _______

Explanation:


 November 16, 2008 at 6:27 pm   Posted in: Education   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (10)

  1. snitty - November 16, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Do you find that a large number of students pick the same questions to explain? Or did they when you first started?

    In other words, do you find this helps you write better multiple choice questions?

  2. Howard Wasserman - November 16, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    I have used multiple-choice-with-explanation by making each question worth 3 points–1 point for getting the right answer and 0-2 points for the explanation. The trick is that a wrong answer with an explanation that shows some comprehension gets some credit; a right answer with an explanation that is totally off gets zero points (a bad explanation means the student guessed).

    But I like what you do here and think there may be a way to utilize both.

  3. Lawrence Cunningham - November 16, 2008 at 7:57 pm

    Snitty,

    Yes, yes and yes: The device can be useful to highlight problems with given questions, in a way that is often more helpful than statistical review of results alone. Of course, the best multiple choice questions are those that have been used many times and are improved with usage. But given changes in law, coverage, current events and emphasis from year to year, new questions or revisions of old questions seem inevitable. So this feedback continues to have potential value even for questions that are well-designed. And, yes, as one’s inventory of questions grows and experience with administration expands, fewer instances occur requiring such refinements.

  4. suijuris - November 16, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    (e.g., a professor teaching both Contracts and Corporations in a single term to large enrollments simply cannot grade 200+ written exams within deadline).

    Ah, was that why Corporations is smaller this spring than last year? Was sorry to get bumped from your section. Hope to rejoin next year.

    I like the idea of the explanation section as you’ve described it. It seems like it would lower stress for students while not completely ruining the benefits to the professor of multiple choice (statistical analysis, etc).

  5. Lawrence Cunningham - November 16, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Howard,

    Your method is very interesting too. My impression is that yours is more of a hybrid between multiple-choice and essays that offers considerable value but both requires students to make the contributions and professors to evaluate them. The approach I describe is optional and narrowly limited.

  6. Lawrence Cunningham - November 16, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    suijuris,

    Good inference.

  7. TRE - November 17, 2008 at 1:13 am

    One of my profs does the same thing but will consider voiding the question for everyone based on a response. They still maintain the threat of punishment. I’m curious why you would have the punishment aspect. Aren’t you better off guessing? Also is it fair to keep the question if it is ambiguous?

  8. A.W. - November 17, 2008 at 9:03 am

    i would say that multiple choice should have very little use in the law. the fact is my professor’s ability to weed out all the ambiguities are limited. Some “smartass” student can always point out most questions are not as clear cut as the teacher hoped. but that smartassiness (is that a word?) is a good trait for a lawyer to have.

    Bluntly, in law school, a multiple choice exam is as much a test of one’s ability to take a test as that of the student’s knowledge. And we should be beyond that.

    Now, as far as all of tha overwhelming you, then really the school needs to give you high-quality help. and if they don’t, then you have to pick a least worst option, which might be multiple choice.

  9. recentgrad - November 17, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    “the best multiple choice questions are those that have been used many times and are improved with usage”

    Isn’t there some risk that savvy students will find copies of old exams, and thus have the questions in advance?

  10. Lawrence Cunningham - November 17, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    recentgrad,

    MC exams must be restricted, meaning all booklets must be returned to get credit for the course.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress