Cover not available
Part of
Educating in Dialog: Constructing meaning and building knowledge with dialogic technology
Edited by Sebastian Feller and Ilker Yengin
[Dialogue Studies 24] 2014
► pp. 77–95

Dialogue-oriented analysis of constructivist teaching and learning within a UK company

Within the UK company featured in this article, the use of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) has increased significantly in recent years (Foster 2013). Meta-cognitive analysis (Degrave 1996) forms part of ongoing research into the MCQ-Creation process operated by the organisation. The measurable assessments and learning outcomes from these investigations show that the internal dialogue (Hermens 1992) that occurs during MCQ-Creation facilitates constructivist learning at both individual (Mynard 2011) and corporate (Kirby 2011) levels. The recommendation is that the quality of corporate assessment and learning would be improved if the company held regular MCQ-Creation workshops. In addition to generating corporate knowledge in a usable MCQ format, MCQ-Creation workshops would also improve the overall corporate internal dialogue.

Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.24.04fos
References
Bloom, Benjamin Samuel
1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Brown, Jonathan.C., Gwen A. Frishkoff, and Maxine Eskenazi
2005 “Automatic Question Generation for Vocabulary Assessment Processing”. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empricial Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP) , 819–826. Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Butler, Andrew C., and Henry L. Roediger III
2008 “Feedback Enhances the Positive Effects and Reduces the Negative Effects of Multiple-Choice Testing.” Memory and Cognition 36 (3): 604–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crooks, Terry
2001 “The Validity of Formative Assessments.” Paper Presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference , University of Leeds . [URL]. (last date of access 17 Sept. 2013).
Cruse, D. Alan, and Joan P. Togia
1995 “Towards a Cognitive Model of Antonymy.” Lexicology 1: 113–141.Google Scholar
De Grave, Willem S., Henny P.A. Bodshuizen, and Henk G. Schmidt
1996 “Problem-Based Learning – Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes during Problem Analysis” Instructional Science 24 (5): 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, Robert Michael
2013 “Improve MCQ-Creation Skills to Support Corporate Learning” In Proceedings of Ireland International Conference on Education , Dublin, 2013, 38–41.
2012a “Using a New MCQ Generation Methodology (CAREGen) in the UK Electricity Distribution Industry.” Infonomics Society, UK – International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS) 3 (1): 643–651.Google Scholar
2012b “Evaluating an Application of the CAREGen MCQ Creation Methodology.” In Proceedings of London International Conference on Education , London, 630–634.
2011 “Creating a High Voltage Cable-Jointing knowledge check using the CARE generation methodology.” Proceedings of London International Conference on Education , London, 208–214.
2010a “Multiple Alternative Choice Test Items (MACs) Deliver more Comprehensive Assessment Information than Traditional 4-option MC Test Items.” Proceedings of London International Conference on Education , London, 26–29.
2010b “Automatic Generation of Multiple Alternate Choice (MAC) Test Item Stems by Applying Causal Relation Explication, Addition and Manipulation (CREAM) to Pre-processed Source Documents.” Proceedings of the London International Conference on Education 2010 , London.
2009 “Improving the Output from Software that Generates Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Test Items Automatically using Controlled Rhetorical Structure Theory.” Borovets, Bulgaria. Proceedings of Student Conference RANLP 2009 , 29–34.
Glickman, Carl D., Stephen P. Gordon, and Jovita M. Ross-Gordon
2009 Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach.” Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Gronlund, Norman Edward, and Susan M. Brookhart
2009 Gronlund’s Writing Instructional Objectives. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hermans, Hubert J.M., Harry J.G. Kempen, and Rens J.P. Van Loon
1992 “The Dialogical Self: Beyond Individualism and Rationalism.” American Psychologist 47: 23–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirby, Elizabeth A
2011. “A Conceptual Model for Critical Incident Analysis.” The Journal of the Academy for Critical Incident Analysis 1 (1). [URL]. (last date of access 17 Sept. 2013).Google Scholar
Mynard, Jo
2011 “The Role of the Learning Advisor in Promoting Autonomy.” Learner Autonomy in Language Learning. [URL]. (last date of access 17 Sept. 2013).Google Scholar
Mager, Robert Frank
1975 Preparing Instructional Objectives. 2nd edn. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra Annear Thompson
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8 (3): 243–281.Google Scholar
Mitkov, Ruslan, and Le An Ha
2003 “Computer-Aided Generation of Multiple-Choice Tests.” In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003. Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using Natural Language Processing , Edmonton, Canada, 17–22.
Mitkov, Ruslan, Le An Ha, and Nikiforos Karamanis
2006 “A Computer-Aided Environment for Generating Multiple-Choice Test Items.” Cambridge Journals – Natural Language Engineering 12 (2): 177–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita
2010 “Good, Better and Superb Antonyms: A Conceptual Construal Approach.” The Annual of Texts by Foreign Guest Professors, 385–402. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J.M., Wilbert P.M. Spooren, and Leo G.M. Noordman
1993 “Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation.” Cognitive Linguistics 8: 93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin’ichi, Tsumori, and Kenji Kaijiri
2007 “System Design for Automatic Generation of Multiple-Choice Questions Adapted to Students’ Understanding.” In 8th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training , Kumamoto, JAPAN, 541–546.