TY - JOUR
T1 - Cognitive difficulty and format of exams predicts gender and socioeconomic gaps in exam performance of students in introductory biology courses
AU - Wright, Christian D.
AU - Eddy, Sarah L.
AU - Wenderoth, Mary Pat
AU - Abshire, Elizabeth
AU - Blankenbiller, Margaret
AU - Brownell, Sara
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Scott Freeman, Alison Crowe, Erin Shortlidge, and the members of the Brownell Lab Biology Education Research Group at Arizona State University for their feedback and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We thank Josh Kessack, Jack Cerchiara, Mercedes Converse, and Jennifer Mae-White Day for helping us determine the characteristics of each item; and Ben Wiggens, John Parks, and Chessa Goss for helping us with accessing course exams. Additionally, we thank Michael Angilletta and Stephen Pratt for their insights into the statistical analyses. Support for this study was provided by National Science Foundation (NSF) TUES 1118890 and NSF TUES 1322556. This research was done under approved IRB 38945, University of Washington.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 C. D. Wright, S. L. Eddy, et al.
PY - 2016/6/1
Y1 - 2016/6/1
N2 - Recent reform efforts in undergraduate biology have recommended transforming course exams to test at more cognitively challenging levels, which may mean including more cognitively challenging and more constructed-response questions on assessments. However, changing the characteristics of exams could result in bias against historically underserved groups. In this study, we examined whether and to what extent the characteristics of instructor-generated tests impact the exam performance of male and female and middle/high- and low-socioeconomic status (SES) students enrolled in introductory biology courses. We collected exam scores for 4810 students from 87 unique exams taken across 3 yr of the introductory biology series at a large research university. We determined the median Bloom’s level and the percentage of constructed-response questions for each exam. Despite controlling for prior academic ability in our models, we found that males and middle/high-SES students were disproportionately favored as the Bloom’s level of exams increased. Additionally, middle/high-SES students were favored as the proportion of constructed-response questions on exams increased. Given that we controlled for prior academic ability, our findings do not likely reflect differences in academic ability level. We discuss possible explanations for our findings and how they might impact how we assess our students.
AB - Recent reform efforts in undergraduate biology have recommended transforming course exams to test at more cognitively challenging levels, which may mean including more cognitively challenging and more constructed-response questions on assessments. However, changing the characteristics of exams could result in bias against historically underserved groups. In this study, we examined whether and to what extent the characteristics of instructor-generated tests impact the exam performance of male and female and middle/high- and low-socioeconomic status (SES) students enrolled in introductory biology courses. We collected exam scores for 4810 students from 87 unique exams taken across 3 yr of the introductory biology series at a large research university. We determined the median Bloom’s level and the percentage of constructed-response questions for each exam. Despite controlling for prior academic ability in our models, we found that males and middle/high-SES students were disproportionately favored as the Bloom’s level of exams increased. Additionally, middle/high-SES students were favored as the proportion of constructed-response questions on exams increased. Given that we controlled for prior academic ability, our findings do not likely reflect differences in academic ability level. We discuss possible explanations for our findings and how they might impact how we assess our students.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971668141&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84971668141&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1187/cbe.15-12-0246
DO - 10.1187/cbe.15-12-0246
M3 - Article
C2 - 27252299
AN - SCOPUS:84971668141
SN - 1931-7913
VL - 15
JO - CBE life sciences education
JF - CBE life sciences education
IS - 2
M1 - ar23
ER -