> If you are going to set an exam that can be graded in 5-10 min, you are not getting a lot of signal out of it.
That's entirely false; this is why we have multiple-choice tests.
That's entirely false; this is why we have multiple-choice tests.
- They have a base marks of 20-25% (by random guessing) instead of 0.
- You never see the working. So you can't check if students are thinking correctly. Slightly wrong thinking can get you right answers.
- They don't even remotely reflect real life at all. Written worked through problems on the other hand - I still do those in my professional life as a scientist all the time. It's just that I am setting the questions for myself.
- The format doesn't allow for extended thought questions.
In my undergrad, I had some excellent profs who would set long work through exam question in such a way that you learned something even in the exams. Simply a joy taking those exams that gave a comprehensive walk through of the course. As a prof, I have always tried to replicate that.
Thinking deeper, though, multiple choice tests require SIGNIFICANTLY more preparation. I would go so far as to say almost all individual professors are completely unqualified to write valid multiple choice tests.
The time investment in multiple choice comes at the start - 12 hours writing it instead of 12 hours grading it - but it’s still a lot of time and frankly there is only very general feedback on student misunderstandings.
I don't believe that your argument is more than an ad-hoc value judgment lacking justification. And it's obvious that if you think so little of your colleagues, that they would also struggle to implement AI tests.