Traditional Multiple-choice Exams Leave Room for Multiple Learning Gaps

We have all done a multiple-choice exam at some point in our lives. This is because it has become a popular tool to evaluate knowledge acquisition due to its efficient and practical nature. However, even though this mode of assessment has many advantages, it also has some significant shortcomings. 

    An Edutopia article titled “the dark history of multiple-choice exams” argues that “Multiple-choice tests are not catalysts for learning” and that “they incite the bad habit of teaching to test.” In other words, they claim that it is unclear whether this formative assessment actually promotes and reflects a deep understanding of content. For example, in multiple-choice exams, users can narrow down choices to the point where they pick the correct answer purely by ‘chance’. Therefore, not allowing them to display a conceptual understanding of their answers. Parallelly, it is difficult for moderators to provide feedback and address learning gaps  through multiple-choice mechanisms. 

​
    AcuiZen mitigates the multiple-choice format’s limitations by providing users with the possibility of indicating their level of certainty in the answers they select. Through this feedback mechanism users specify whether they are ‘sure’ or whether they are ‘not sure’ of their answer. Therefore, giving moderators an insight into the levels of consciousness and awareness that users have when answering questions. In addition, AcuiZen is equipped with an algorithm that analyzes the responses and comes up with a Knowledge Index. This Knowledge Index quite frankly, deserves its own blog post, but in a nutshell - it provides an individualized overview of user’s learning gaps. Therefore, making multiple-choice exams a more holistic tool to measure users' knowledge acquisition. 
​