» Articles » PMID: 34457973

Examining Bloom's Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students' Approach to Questions

Overview
Journal Med Sci Educ
Publisher Springer
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2021 Aug 30
PMID 34457973
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Analytic thinking skills are important to the development of physicians. Therefore, educators and licensing boards utilize multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess these knowledge and skills. MCQs are written under two assumptions: that they can be written as higher or lower order according to Bloom's taxonomy, and students will perceive questions to be the same taxonomical level as intended. This study seeks to understand the students' approach to questions by analyzing differences in students' perception of the Bloom's level of MCQs in relation to their knowledge and confidence.

Methods: A total of 137 students responded to practice endocrine MCQs. Participants indicated the answer to the question, their interpretation of it as higher or lower order, and the degree of confidence in their response to the question.

Results: Although there was no significant association between students' average performance on the content and their question classification (higher or lower), individual students who were less confident in their answer were more than five times as likely (OR = 5.49) to identify a question as higher order than their more confident peers. Students who responded incorrectly to the MCQ were 4 times as likely to identify a question as higher order than their peers who responded correctly.

Conclusions: The results suggest that higher performing, more confident students rely on identifying patterns (even if the question was intended to be higher order). In contrast, less confident students engage in higher-order, analytic thinking even if the question is intended to be lower order. Better understanding of the processes through which students interpret MCQs will help us to better understand the development of clinical reasoning skills.

Citing Articles

A Qualitative Exploration of Student Cognition When Answering Text-Only or Image-Based Histology Multiple-Choice Questions.

Holland J, McGarvey A, Flood M, Joyce P, Pawlikowska T Med Sci Educ. 2025; 34(6):1317-1329.

PMID: 39758466 PMC: 11699003. DOI: 10.1007/s40670-024-02104-x.


The performance of OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in virology multiple-choice questions: a comparative analysis of English and Arabic responses.

Sallam M, Al-Mahzoum K, Almutawaa R, Alhashash J, Dashti R, AlSafy D BMC Res Notes. 2024; 17(1):247.

PMID: 39228001 PMC: 11373487. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-024-06920-7.


Efficacy of Faculty Development Training Workshops (FDTWs) on Writing High-Quality Multiple-Choice Questions at Northern Border University (NBU) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

Agarwal A, Khattak O, Esmaeel S, Fahmy E, Bayomy N, Mehmood S Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e62607.

PMID: 39027751 PMC: 11257642. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.62607.


Dynamic answer-dependent multiple-choice questions and holistic assessment analysis in high-enrollment courses.

Atwal H, Quides K J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2024; 25(2):e0004724.

PMID: 38869278 PMC: 11360413. DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00047-24.


Medical knowledge of ChatGPT in public health, infectious diseases, COVID-19 pandemic, and vaccines: multiple choice questions examination based performance.

Meo S, Alotaibi M, Sultan Meo M, Sultan Meo M, Hamid M Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1360597.

PMID: 38711764 PMC: 11073538. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1360597.


References
1.
Ross D, Loeffler K, Schipper S, Vandermeer B, Allan G . Do scores on three commonly used measures of critical thinking correlate with academic success of health professions trainees? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2013; 88(5):724-34. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828b0823. View

2.
Heist B, Gonzalo J, Durning S, Torre D, Elnicki D . Exploring Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Test-Taking Behaviors During Clinical Vignette Style Multiple-Choice Examinations: A Mixed Methods Study. J Grad Med Educ. 2015; 6(4):709-14. PMC: 4477567. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00176.1. View

3.
Surry L, Torre D, Durning S . Exploring examinee behaviours as validity evidence for multiple-choice question examinations. Med Educ. 2017; 51(10):1075-1085. DOI: 10.1111/medu.13367. View

4.
Coughlin P, Featherstone C . How to Write a High Quality Multiple Choice Question (MCQ): A Guide for Clinicians. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017; 54(5):654-658. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.07.012. View

5.
Buckwalter J, Schumacher R, Albright J, COOPER R . Use of an educational taxonomy for evaluation of cognitive performance. J Med Educ. 1981; 56(2):115-21. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-198102000-00006. View