The Bane of MCQs

 Edupreneurs love MCQ (Multiple Choice Questions) pattern of tests and examinations. That in itself is sufficient reason for me to hate them!

But, I have some more reasons and this rant is to try explaining-cum-justifying my antipathy towards MCQ pattern.

To start with, the other name of MCQ, objective type, grates on my nerves. It implies that there is one and only one objective (beyond one’s subjective interpretations) answer to a question. I believe this unnecessarily restricts the ranging of a student’s mind. Pose a question in such a way that there are more than one objective and correct response, and the edupreneur’s favourite, the MCQ compatible software, would go on the fritz; the student would be the loser.

The chances are high that a student chances upon the correct answer, and the evaluator, the software, cannot detect it! The restrictions the software imposes upon the question makes the answer, and therefore the evaluation, chancy; the much vaunted objectivity goes out the window!

Secondly, the software must be able to parse the question and the choices. Any choice on the slate must commune grammatically with the question. If the choice is such this is not possible, like “None of the above” which cannot commune with the question as it refers to the other choices, it must be indicated by a separator, say, an em-dash, your choice, but a delimiter is a necessity. Please understand that such parsing requires of the faculty a level of linguistic skills. Is this too much to ask?

I have seen enough MCQs in which the options cannot be grammatically taken as continuation of the question. So, how can the question be a legitimate one when it cannot make any sense?

Next, let me call something MCQ thinking. What kind of an animal is this? It is a way of thinking with a narrow focus, the answer to a question that needs no filtering. This is what goes for “short answer questions” and in MCQs these are typically one-word answers, at times perhaps two-word answers. You know the answer not because you have the ability to analyze but because you just recall.

In RBT (Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy), this is the lowest rung of the ladder – recall. So, MCQ thinking forces the question to the lowest rung. Is this a good measure of the students’ abilities? RBT says no. The higher rungs are “Understand”, “Apply”, Analyze” and “Synthesize”. There is one more rung and I will stop at this, already way up the ladder.

The questions demand no comparison among the options on the smorgasbord. Then, why call it an MCQ? A choice must imply a process of choosing; a careful, perhaps even an opinionated, analysis. Without these, a question is no question at all.  

Next, MCQs strip the subject of its context. Had I been honest with myself, I would have put this on the top of my list. There are teachers who refuse to acknowledge that “semantic” can be understood in two different ways – one is logical semantics and the other is, lexical. The former looks at the contexts, including history, in which the word has been used (includes etymology per force) and the latter only the meanings associated with the word, bereft of context.

It is because of the obstinacy of my colleagues and the need for detailed explanation I brought this up later in this post.

The options must include the contexts in which the questions have been framed so that the student’s comprehension encompasses the context. The consequence is that both questions and the options take on tones of an essay – the main reason I cannot show any forbearance for MCQs.

In Tamil literature, it is said that Thiruvalluvar’s couplets have to be elaborated to get the meaning, while on the other hand the gist of Kambar’s Ramayanam, despite the crisp Annalum Nokkinan Avalum Nokkinal (the exception that proves the rule), has to be extracted from his elaborate treatment. Well, to put myself on the pedestal in the context of setting question papers, I am English Kambar! (talk about vanity!).

Yes, GRE is MCQ, but remember it is an aptitude test, not a substantive one except in a general sense. The GATE exams are also MCQs, are truly substantive, but the examinees are given an extended time frame. The PE exams in the states of the US for permission to practice the profession are also MCQs, but being ready to actually doing at least quick calculations is an absolute necessity – not necessary for an MCQ.

So I conclude that MCQs to evaluate student performance in specific subjects of an academic curriculum is an exercise in futility at best. At worst? It is to fill up unnecessary paperwork.

I rest my case.

Raghuram Ekambaram