Article: A comparison of MCQ assessment delivery methods for student engagement and interaction used as an in-class formative assessment
| Title | A comparison of MCQ assessment delivery methods for student engagement and interaction used as an in-class formative assessment |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chan, CKY1 Tam, VWL1 Li, CYV1 |
| Keywords | Classroom response system Clickers Formative assessment Interaction Learning management system |
| Issue Date | 2011 |
| Publisher | Manchester University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/cgi-bin/scribe?showinfo=ip023 |
| Citation | International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 2011, v. 48 n. 3, p. 323-337 [How to Cite?] |
| Abstract | 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. © 2011. |
| ISSN | 0020-7209 2011 Impact Factor: 0.119 2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.027 |
| dc.contributor.author | Chan, CKY |
|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Tam, VWL |
| dc.contributor.author | Li, CYV |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-08-26T14:43:01Z |
| dc.date.available | 2011-08-26T14:43:01Z |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. © 2011. |
| dc.description.nature | Link_to_subscribed_fulltext |
| dc.identifier.citation | International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 2011, v. 48 n. 3, p. 323-337 [How to Cite?] |
| dc.identifier.epage | 337 |
| dc.identifier.hkuros | 189316 |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0020-7209 2011 Impact Factor: 0.119 2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.027 |
| dc.identifier.issue | 3 |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84055190700 |
| dc.identifier.spage | 323 |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/138202 |
| dc.identifier.volume | 48 |
| dc.language | eng |
| dc.publisher | Manchester University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/cgi-bin/scribe?showinfo=ip023 |
| dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom |
| dc.relation.ispartof | International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education |
| dc.subject | Classroom response system |
| dc.subject | Clickers |
| dc.subject | Formative assessment |
| dc.subject | Interaction |
| dc.subject | Learning management system |
| dc.title | A comparison of MCQ assessment delivery methods for student engagement and interaction used as an in-class formative assessment |
| dc.type | Article |
Author Affiliations
- The University of Hong Kong

