DOES TASK FORMAT MATTER? AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE USE OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE AND CONSTRUCTED-RESPONSE TASKS IN GEOMETRY TEACHING
Keywords:
task format; multiple-choice and constructed-response tasks, failure to respond, solving strategies.
Abstract
This paper examines the use of multiple-choice and constructed-response tasks in teaching geometry to older elementary school students, with a particular focus on solving strategies. The sample included 889 students from fifth to eighth grade. As expected, the results show that students perform better on multiple-choice tasks than on constructed-response tasks, which can be attributed to the use of guessing strategies. However, students generally fail to apply a variety of strategies in this type of task. The research indicates that both task formats have their advantages in the learning process, and the choice of format can enhance the effectiveness of teaching.
References
Andrà, C., & Magnano, G. (2011). Multiple-choice math tests : should we worry about guessing ? Quaderni Di Ricerca in Didattica (Mathematics), 235–243.
Anić, I., Košanin, R., & Savković, J. (2020). Matematika 7: udžbenik sa zbirkom zadataka. Deo 2. BIGZ školstvo d.o.o.
Barton, C. (2018). On Formative Assessment in Math: How Diagnostic Questions Can Help. American Educator, 42(2), 33–43. www.diagnosticquestions.com,
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Open-Ended Versus Multiple-Choice Response Formats - It Does Make a Difference for Diagnostic Purpoese. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 385–395.
Bonner, S. M. (2013). Mathematics strategy use in solving test items in varied formats. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727886
Bridgeman, B. (1992). A Comparison of Quantitative Questions in Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Formats Author ( s ): Brent Bridgeman Published by : National Council on Measurement in Education Stable URL : http://www.jstor.com/stable/1435138 REFERENCES Linked references are av. 29(3), 253–271.
Cascella, C., Giberti, C., & Bolondi, G. (2020). Studies in Educational Evaluation An analysis of Differential Item Functioning on INVALSI tests , designed to explore gender gap in mathematical tasks. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64(November 2018), 100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100819
Chan, N., & Kennedy, P. E. (2002). Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions. Southern Economic Journal, 68(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x
Chaoui, N. A. (2011). Finding relationships between multiple-choice math tests and their stem-equivalent constructed responses. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 166. https://doi.org/10.5642/cguetd/21
Clay, B. (2001). Is This a Trick Question? A Short Guide to Writing Effective Test Questions. Kansas Curriculum Center.
Foy, P., Arora, A., & M. Stanco, G. (Eds.). (2011). TIMSS 2011 User Guide for the International Database. TIMSS & PIRLS international Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Goecke, B., Staab, M., Schittenhelm, C., & Wilhelm, O. (2022). Stop Worrying about Multiple-Choice: Fact Knowledge Does Not Change with Response Format. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040102
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items (third).
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, C. (2002). Applied Measurement in Education A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–333.
Hollingworth, L., Beard, J. J., & Proctor, T. P. (2007). An investigation of item type in a standards-based assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(18).
Hubbard, J. K., Potts, M. A., & Couch, B. A. (2017). How question types reveal student thinking: An experimental comparison of multiple-true-false and free-response formats. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0339
Jr., H. F. O., & Brown, R. S. (1998). Differential Effects of Question Formats in Math Assessment on Metacognition and Affect. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(4), 331–351.
Katz, I. R., Bennett, R. E., & Berger, A. E. (2000). Effects of response format on difficulty of SAT-mathematics items: It’s not the strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01075.x
Kusumawati, M., & Hadi, S. (2018). An analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs): Item and test statistics from mathematics assessments in senior high school. REID (Research and Evaluation in Education), 4(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v4i1.20202
Liou, P. Y., & Bulut, O. (2020). The Effects of Item Format and Cognitive Domain on Students’ Science Performance in TIMSS 2011. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9682-7
Livingston, B. S. a. (2009). Constructed-Response Test Questions: Why We Use Them; How We Score Them. R & D Connections, 11(11), 1–8. http://144.81.87.152/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections11.pdf
Marcq, K., Donayre, E. J. C., & Braeken, J. (2024). The role of item format in the PISA 2018 mathematics literacy assessment: A cross-country study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83(September). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101401
Martinez, M. E. (1999). Cognition and the question of test item format. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3404_2
Martins, L. G., & Martinho, M. H. (2024). Types of tasks in Mathematics textbooks: A study with Portuguese’s textbooks of 10th and 11th grades. Educacion Matematica, 36(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.24844/EM3601.03
Özdemir, A. Z., & Toker, Z. (2025). Analysis of distractors in mathematics questions and their potential to lead misconceptions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56(September 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101730
Pavlović Babić, D., & Baucal, A. (2009). Matematička pismenost PISA 2003 i PISA 2006. Ministarstvo prosvete Republike Srbije, Zavod za vrednovanje kvaliteta obrazovanja i vaspitanja, Institut za psihologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I., & Triantis, D. (2021). Preference for Multiple Choice and Constructed Response Exams for Engineering Students with and without Learning Difficulties. International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU - Proceedings, 1(April), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010462502200231
Sangwin, C. J., & Jones, I. (2017). Asymmetry in student achievement on multiple-choice and constructed-response items in reversible mathematics processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9725-4
Schult, J., & Sparfeldt, J. R. (2018). Reliability and Validity of PIRLS and TIMSS: Does the Response Format Matter? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000338
Stankous, N. V. (2016). Constructive Response Vs. Multiple-Choice Tests In Math: American Experience And Discussion (Review). European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 7881(May), 308–316.
Štěpánková, B., & Emanovský, P. (2011). On Open-Ended and Closed-Ended Questions in Didactic Tests of Mathematics. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 28, 114–122.
Verbić, S. Ž. (2013). Heurisitke za maksimizaciju informacione vrednosti računarskih testova znanja. Univerzitet u Beogradu.
Vidović, N., Stanojević, G., Stuparević, Z., Stanojević, V., Vračar, L., & Stančić, M. (2015). Zbirka zadataka za završni ispit - osnovna škola, MATEMATIKA, Vežbam za malu maturu. Kreativni centar.
Zadaci iz matematike. (2017). Matematički List Za Učenike Osnovnih Škola, 2.
Zhouf, J. (2013). Categorisation of Multiple-choice Problems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.244
Anić, I., Košanin, R., & Savković, J. (2020). Matematika 7: udžbenik sa zbirkom zadataka. Deo 2. BIGZ školstvo d.o.o.
Barton, C. (2018). On Formative Assessment in Math: How Diagnostic Questions Can Help. American Educator, 42(2), 33–43. www.diagnosticquestions.com,
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Open-Ended Versus Multiple-Choice Response Formats - It Does Make a Difference for Diagnostic Purpoese. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 385–395.
Bonner, S. M. (2013). Mathematics strategy use in solving test items in varied formats. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727886
Bridgeman, B. (1992). A Comparison of Quantitative Questions in Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Formats Author ( s ): Brent Bridgeman Published by : National Council on Measurement in Education Stable URL : http://www.jstor.com/stable/1435138 REFERENCES Linked references are av. 29(3), 253–271.
Cascella, C., Giberti, C., & Bolondi, G. (2020). Studies in Educational Evaluation An analysis of Differential Item Functioning on INVALSI tests , designed to explore gender gap in mathematical tasks. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64(November 2018), 100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100819
Chan, N., & Kennedy, P. E. (2002). Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions. Southern Economic Journal, 68(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00469.x
Chaoui, N. A. (2011). Finding relationships between multiple-choice math tests and their stem-equivalent constructed responses. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 166. https://doi.org/10.5642/cguetd/21
Clay, B. (2001). Is This a Trick Question? A Short Guide to Writing Effective Test Questions. Kansas Curriculum Center.
Foy, P., Arora, A., & M. Stanco, G. (Eds.). (2011). TIMSS 2011 User Guide for the International Database. TIMSS & PIRLS international Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Goecke, B., Staab, M., Schittenhelm, C., & Wilhelm, O. (2022). Stop Worrying about Multiple-Choice: Fact Knowledge Does Not Change with Response Format. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040102
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items (third).
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, C. (2002). Applied Measurement in Education A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–333.
Hollingworth, L., Beard, J. J., & Proctor, T. P. (2007). An investigation of item type in a standards-based assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(18).
Hubbard, J. K., Potts, M. A., & Couch, B. A. (2017). How question types reveal student thinking: An experimental comparison of multiple-true-false and free-response formats. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0339
Jr., H. F. O., & Brown, R. S. (1998). Differential Effects of Question Formats in Math Assessment on Metacognition and Affect. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(4), 331–351.
Katz, I. R., Bennett, R. E., & Berger, A. E. (2000). Effects of response format on difficulty of SAT-mathematics items: It’s not the strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01075.x
Kusumawati, M., & Hadi, S. (2018). An analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs): Item and test statistics from mathematics assessments in senior high school. REID (Research and Evaluation in Education), 4(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v4i1.20202
Liou, P. Y., & Bulut, O. (2020). The Effects of Item Format and Cognitive Domain on Students’ Science Performance in TIMSS 2011. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9682-7
Livingston, B. S. a. (2009). Constructed-Response Test Questions: Why We Use Them; How We Score Them. R & D Connections, 11(11), 1–8. http://144.81.87.152/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections11.pdf
Marcq, K., Donayre, E. J. C., & Braeken, J. (2024). The role of item format in the PISA 2018 mathematics literacy assessment: A cross-country study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83(September). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101401
Martinez, M. E. (1999). Cognition and the question of test item format. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3404_2
Martins, L. G., & Martinho, M. H. (2024). Types of tasks in Mathematics textbooks: A study with Portuguese’s textbooks of 10th and 11th grades. Educacion Matematica, 36(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.24844/EM3601.03
Özdemir, A. Z., & Toker, Z. (2025). Analysis of distractors in mathematics questions and their potential to lead misconceptions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56(September 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101730
Pavlović Babić, D., & Baucal, A. (2009). Matematička pismenost PISA 2003 i PISA 2006. Ministarstvo prosvete Republike Srbije, Zavod za vrednovanje kvaliteta obrazovanja i vaspitanja, Institut za psihologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I., & Triantis, D. (2021). Preference for Multiple Choice and Constructed Response Exams for Engineering Students with and without Learning Difficulties. International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU - Proceedings, 1(April), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010462502200231
Sangwin, C. J., & Jones, I. (2017). Asymmetry in student achievement on multiple-choice and constructed-response items in reversible mathematics processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9725-4
Schult, J., & Sparfeldt, J. R. (2018). Reliability and Validity of PIRLS and TIMSS: Does the Response Format Matter? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000338
Stankous, N. V. (2016). Constructive Response Vs. Multiple-Choice Tests In Math: American Experience And Discussion (Review). European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 7881(May), 308–316.
Štěpánková, B., & Emanovský, P. (2011). On Open-Ended and Closed-Ended Questions in Didactic Tests of Mathematics. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 28, 114–122.
Verbić, S. Ž. (2013). Heurisitke za maksimizaciju informacione vrednosti računarskih testova znanja. Univerzitet u Beogradu.
Vidović, N., Stanojević, G., Stuparević, Z., Stanojević, V., Vračar, L., & Stančić, M. (2015). Zbirka zadataka za završni ispit - osnovna škola, MATEMATIKA, Vežbam za malu maturu. Kreativni centar.
Zadaci iz matematike. (2017). Matematički List Za Učenike Osnovnih Škola, 2.
Zhouf, J. (2013). Categorisation of Multiple-choice Problems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.244
Published
2026/03/02
Section
Članci