Improving Multiple-Choice Retrieval Practice
Cover image by F1Digitals on Pixabay.
by Cindy Nebel
Multiple-choice (MC) test-writing can be tricky business. Some people associate MC questions with low-level retrieval, rote memorization, or simple recognition. And while MC questions can be written that way, there are also better or worse ways to write MC questions and it has been shown that well-written MC questions can have retrieval benefits that mimic their short-answer counterparts.
Today I review a series of experiments that extends this previous research by having students provide justifications for their MC answers (1). As in other techniques for retrieval, answer justification has the potential to increase understanding and retention through elaborative retrieval, but perhaps without educators needing to rewrite their exams or take the time to grade short-answer questions.
Method
In this study, all participants first read a geology textbook chapter. Then, they were split into two groups. Each group was told that they were about to take a multiple-choice test, but one group was also told they would be asked to explain each of their answers. Participants were then asked how well they thought they would do on the test and how well they thought they would do on different topics that were covered in the chapter. After they took the MC test, they were again asked about how well they thought they did overall and on the different topics.
Image by F1Digitals on Pixabay
Results
In Experiment 1, participants who justified their answers scored about 10% higher on the test than those who did not. Importantly, that’s their MC correctness; the researchers didn’t examine their actual justifications (which happens to be great news for busy teachers). When looking at how students thought they would do, there was an interesting interaction. Participants who knew they were going to have to justify their answers were a bit underconfident in how they would perform compared to those who just took the MC test, who were overconfident. But then, after taking the test, both groups were pretty similar in metacognition.
This metacognitive effect is important. One of the benefits of retrieval practice is improved metacognition. By reducing overconfidence, students are more likely to persist in self-directed studying. Simply telling them they will need to explain their answers provided this same benefit that both groups received after practicing retrieval.
In a second experiment, the researchers wanted to see if this effect persisted over a delay, so participants were asked to take the MC test again two days later. While the answer justification group still scored 6% higher, the effect wasn’t significant. This could be due to their smaller sample size, but does give this blogger a little bit of pause. Often, we see that a strategy has an immediate effect that disappears or reverses over time. Given the mechanisms here, I highly doubt that is the case for this study, but further research is certainly needed.
Bottom Line
Answer justification has some nice potential for educators. We need more research on this, certainly, but the fact that there is a metacognitive benefit to telling students they will need to explain their answers may be benefit enough to give it a try. Personally, I’d like to see a study where this is replicated and compared to a group who is just told they will need to justify their answers. It’s possible that this effect is happening prior the MC test itself as a part of test expectancy or maybe covert retrieval.
I see the application for this as far-reaching. So many educators are now teaching online or utilizing technology in its various forms. This effect may mean that these educators can add something fairly simple to enhance the good work they’re already doing. I don’t know about you, but that’s my favorite kind of strategy.
Reference:
(1) Clark, S. A., Rivers, M. L., & Overono, A. L. (2025). The role of answer justification in multiple-choice testing: Effects on performance and metacognitive accuracy. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 477.
