Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The end of multiple choice tests: using AI to enhance assessment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.07481 v1 pith:2DEOH5TL submitted 2024-06-11 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords studenttheychoicecorrectthinkingwronganswerconcepts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Effective teaching relies on knowing what students know-or think they know. Revealing student thinking is challenging. Often used because of their ease of grading, even the best multiple choice (MC) tests, those using research based distractors (wrong answers) are intrinsically limited in the insights they provide due to two factors. When distractors do not reflect student beliefs they can be ignored, increasing the likelihood that the correct answer will be chosen by chance. Moreover, making the correct choice does not guarantee that the student understands why it is correct. To address these limitations, we recommend asking students to explain why they chose their answer, and why "wrong" choices are wrong. Using a discipline-trained artificial intelligence-based bot it is possible to analyze their explanations, identifying the concepts and scientific principles that maybe missing or misapplied. The bot also makes suggestions for how instructors can use these data to better guide student thinking. In a small "proof of concept" study, we tested this approach using questions from the Biology Concepts Instrument (BCI). The result was rapid, informative, and provided actionable feedback on student thinking. It appears that the use of AI addresses the weaknesses of conventional MC test. It seems likely that incorporating AI-analyzed formative assessments will lead to improved overall learning outcomes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Adding Metacognitive Requirements in Support of AI Feedback in Practice Exams Transforms Student Learning Behaviors

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a 1,002-student biology course, AI feedback type did not affect midterm performance, while required confidence ratings and explanations were self-reported as the main driver of changed study behavior.

Pith tools