Limiting the Number of Revisions while Providing Error-Flagging Support during Tests

Error-flagging support provided during tests leads to higher scores, as reported in literature. Although many beneficial factors contribute to higher scores, one undesirable contributing factor is that students abuse error-flagging feedback to find the correct answer through trial and error even when the test is not multiple-choice in nature. A limit can be placed on the number of revisions allowed per problem to foil the trial and error approach. A follow-up study was conducted to examine whether limiting the number of revisions allowed per problem yielded the benefits of error-flagging feedback while alleviating its shortcomings. The study also considered the effects of error-flagging feedback on partial scores. The findings are: even with a limit placed on the number of revisions per problem, students revised more often and scored higher with rather than without error-flagging. When students solved problems incorrectly without revisions, their solution qualified for more partial credit when error-flagging support was provided. When a limit was placed on the number of revisions and students solved problems correctly with revisions, they did so with fewer revisions when error-flagging feedback was provided than when it was not. When students solved problems incorrectly with revisions, even with a limit placed on the number of revisions, they revised more often with error-flagging than without, scored more partial credit, but did not take more time than when error-flagging was not provided. A limit on the number of revisions may discourage students from using error-flagging feedback as a substitute for their own judgment. Overall, students solved problems faster with error-flagging feedback, even though revisions prompted by such feedback can cost time.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ, 07430, USA

   Amruth N. Kumar

Editors and Affiliations

1. University of Montpellier & CNRS LIRMM, 161 rue Ada, 34095, Montpellier, France

   Stefano A. Cerri

2. NASA and Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Human Centered Computing - Intelligent Systems Division, 94035, Moffett Field, CA, USA

   William J. Clancey

3. Department of Applied Informatics and Multimedia, Technological Educational Institute of Crete, School of Applied Technology, Stavromenos, P.O.Box 1939, 71004, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

   Giorgos Papadourakis

4. Neoanalysis Ltd., Marni 56, 10437, Athens, Greece

   Kitty Panourgia

Reprints and permissions

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Policies and ethics