Writing multiple-choice questions to access the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy

Chris Adams


I report the implementation of an activity in which students are asked to write multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on the subject of ‘orbitals’ in order to consolidate their learning on the subject. This was facilitated using the online system PeerWise, which allows students to upload MCQs that they have written and to then answer those authored by their peers. The process of writing questions accesses the upper levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, and the discussions incorporated within the activity allow for socially constructed learning as part of the pedagogy of constructive evaluation.


Chemistry; MCQs; Constructive Evaluation; Constructivism; covid-19

Full Text:



Bates, S.P., Galloway, R.K., Riise, J. & Homer, D.(2014) Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), p. 020105. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020105.

Bottomley, S. & Denny, P. (2011) A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), pp. 352–361. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20526.

Casey, M.M., Bates, S.P., Galloway, K.W., Galloway, R., Hardy, J. Kay, A.E., Kirsop, P. & McQueen, H. (2014) Scaffolding student engagement via online peer learning, European Journal of Physics, 35(4). doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/35/4/045002.

Coppola, B.P. (2015) Do Real Work, Not Homework, in Garcia-Martinez, J. and Serrano-Torregrossa, E. (eds) Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, p. 236. doi: 10.1002/9783527679300.ch9.

Denny, P. (no date) Scoring: for fun and extra credit! Available at: https://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/docs/community/scoring_for_fun_and_extra_credit/.

Devon, J., Paterson, J.H., Moffat, D.C. & McCrae, J. (2011) Evaluation of student engagement with peer feedback based on student-generated MCQs, Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 11(1), pp. 27–37. doi: 10.11120/ital.2012.11010027.

Fellenz, M.R. (2004) Using assessment to support higher level learning: the multiple choice item development assignment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), pp. 703–719. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000227245.

Fergus, S. (2019) Using PeerWise to support the transition to higher education, in Seery, M. K. and McDonnell, C. (eds) Teaching chemistry in higher education : a festschrift in honour of Professor Tina Overton. Dublin: Creathach Press, pp. 181–193. Available at: https://overtonfestschrift.wordpress.com/.

Galloway, K.W. & Burns, S. (2015) Doing it for themselves: Students creating a high quality peer-learning environment, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), pp. 82–92. doi: 10.1039/c4rp00209a.

Hardy, J., Bates, S.P., Casey, M.M., Galloway, K.W., Galloway, R.K. & Kay, A.E. (2014) Student-Generated Content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions, International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), pp. 2180–2194. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.916831.

Kay, A.E., Hardy, J. & Galloway, R.K. (2018) Learning from peer feedback on student-generated multiple choice questions: Views of introductory physics students, Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), p. 10119. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010119.

Kay, A.E., Hardy, J. & Galloway, R.K. (2020) Student use of PeerWise: A multi-institutional, multidisciplinary evaluation, British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), pp. 23–35. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12754.

King, A. (1990) Enhancing Peer Interaction and Learning in the Classroom Through Reciprocal Questioning, American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), p. 664. doi: 10.2307/1163105.

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41(4), pp. 212–218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

Luxton-Reilly, A. & Denny, P. (2010) Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student-contributed assessment, Computer Science Education, 20(2), pp. 145–167. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2010.486275.

Nicol, D. (2007) E‐assessment by design: using multiple‐choice tests to good effect, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(1), pp. 53–64. doi: 10.1080/03098770601167922.

PeerWise (no date, a) List of publications relating to PeerWise. Available at: https://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/docs/publications/.

PeerWise (no date, b). Available at: https://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/.

Race, P. (no date) Designing Multiple-Choice Questions. Available at: https://phil-race.co.uk/archive-of-downloads-from-previous-website/ (Accessed: 15 February 2021).

Mac Raighne, A., Casey, M.M., Howard, R. & Ryan, B. (2015) Student Attitudes to an Online, Peer-instruction, Revision Aid in Science Education, Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(1), pp. 49–60. doi: 10.14297/jpaap.v3i1.135.

Ryan, B.J. (2013) Line up, line up: Using technology to align and enhance peer learning and assessment in a student centred foundation organic chemistry module, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), pp. 229–238. doi: 10.1039/c3rp20178c.

Talanquer, V. (2015) Threshold concepts in chemistry: The critical role of implicit schemas, Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), pp. 3–9. doi: 10.1021/ed500679k.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i16.3852

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
We use both functional and performance cookies to improve visitor experience. Continue browsing if you are happy to accept cookies. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.

New Directions in the Teaching of Natural Sciences

eISSN: 2753-4138

University Home