ALT Conference Cardiff, 2015 Using Multiple Choice Questions in Summative Assessment Penny English, Cailin Morrison and Andrew Gilbert Anglia Law School

Context University – wide project to look at the assessments Concern that language skills are hindering students’ performance Marking loads 2

Where we started Selected two of the first year core modules with exams We then asked ourselves the questions what do we want to assess? how can we do this? 3

Would MCQs be appropriate? Emphasis on quality over quantity More time thinking and less time writing Without sacrificing breadth of knowledge 4

A changing environment Diverse student body Availability of information Employability Demands on staff time 5

Experience elsewhere From mid 20 th century in US Some reluctance to use MCQs in undergraduate legal education Seen as less realistic and rigorous 6

Benefits Perceived objectivity of marking Speed Demonstrate breadth of knowledge 7

Potential disadvantages Promote surface learning Require less critical thinking 8

Constitutional and Administrative Law module Year 1, Semester 1 Assessed 50% exam (2 hours), 50% coursework Exam now 35% MCQs, 65% seen case study 9

Outcome Overall marks in line with the previous year Of 109 students, 79 did better on the MCQ than the case study Average difference of 9.4% between the two elements 10

Failure rates by element Overall 8.26% of students failed the MCQ element (i.e. below 40%) 18.35% failed the case study element 11

Conclusions? MCQs do not appear to either advantage or disadvantage international students Overall has not improved average marks in the module (represents 17.25% of overall mark) More analysis being undertaken 12

Was there a language effect? 21.3% of UK domiciled students failed the case study and 8% failed the MCQ. 11.8% of non-UK domiciled students failed the case study and 8.8% the MCQ 13