TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN USING MULTIPLE-CHOICE ANSWER SHEETS IN THE 2025 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION EXAMINATION: A CASE STUDY IN NORTHERN MOUNTAINOUS PROVINCES OF VIETNAM

Tran Quang Hieu, Nguyen Thị Phuong, Tran Thi Thu

Abstract


In the context of the Ministry of Education's reform of question formats and the use of multiple-choice answer sheets in the National High School Graduation Examination from 2025, research into the difficulties students face will help provide appropriate support strategies and practical advice for students during the test-taking process. This study aims to answer two research questions: (1) What difficulties do students encounter when using the current multiple-choice answer sheets? and (2) Is the application of AI in grading multiple-choice exams feasible, and how should it be implemented? The findings reveal that students in the northern mountainous provinces of Vietnam experience significant challenges with the answer sheets, particularly in misfilling answers, time-consuming corrections, and handling short-answer items. Most teachers support replacing answer shading with direct answer writing and highly value the potential of AI in grading. However, concerns remain regarding the accuracy of handwriting recognition and data security, calling for appropriate technical solutions and communication strategies. Through this study, we emphasize the importance of guiding students on commonly mistaken areas and encourage further research and development of AI-based assessment solutions in education.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


multiple-choice answer sheets, student, national high school graduation examination

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ammar, A. (2009). An Automatic System to Grade Multiple Choice Questions paper based exams. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312136231_An_Automatic_System_to_Grade_Multiple_Choice_Questions_paper_based_exams

Bejar, I. I. (2017). A Historical Survey of Research Regarding Constructed-Response Formats. In Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment (pp. 565–633). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58689-2_18

Brady, A.-M. (2005). Assessment of learning with multiple-choice questions. Nurse Education in Practice, 5(4), 238–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2004.12.005

D. Howell, D., Tseng, D. C., & T. Colorado-Resa, J. (2017). Fast Assessments with Digital Tools Using Multiple-Choice Questions. College Teaching, 65(3), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1291489

Echternacht, G. (1976). Reliability and validity of item option weighting schemes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447603600208

Espitia, O., Paez, A., Mejia, Y., Carrasco, M., & Gonzalez, N. (2019). Optical mark recognition based on image processing techniques for the answer sheets of the Colombian high-stakes tests. Applied Computer Sciences in Engineering: 6th Workshop on Engineering Applications, WEA 2019, Santa Marta, Colombia, October 16–18, 2019, Proceedings 6, 167–176.

Frisbie, D. A. (1974). The Effect of Item Format on Reliability and Validity: a Study of Multiple Choice and True-False Achievement Tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(4), 885–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400417

Gobrecht, A., Tuma, F., Möller, M., Zöller, T., Zakhvatkin, M., Wuttig, A., Sommerfeldt, H., & Schütt, S. (2024). Beyond human subjectivity and error: a novel AI grading system. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2405.04323. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04323

Harris, F. T. C., & Buckley-Sharp, M. (2009). Automation of Multiple-choice Examination Marking. Medical Education, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1968.tb02004.x

Jingyi, T., Hooi, Y. K., & Bin, O. K. (2021). Image processing for enhanced OMR answer matching precision. 2021 International Conference on Computer & Information Sciences (ICCOINS), 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCOINS49721.2021.9497172

Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2019). A Brief History of Written Examinations. In Public Examinations Examined (pp. 43–74). The World Bank. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1418-1_ch3

Kreiter, C. D., & Frisbie, D. A. (1989). Effectiveness of multiple true-false items. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(3), 207–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0203_2

Lennox, B. (1967). Marking Multiple-choice Examinations. Medical Education, 1(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1967.tb01698.x

Linn, R. & Gronlund, N. E. (1994). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242393428_Measurement_and_Assessment_In_Teaching

Mallick, A. K., & Ahsan, M. (2019). Multiple Choice Questions: A Potent Tool for Assessment of Medical Stu dents. In Indian Journal of Medical & Health Sciences. Red Flower Publication Private, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.21088/ijmhs.2347.9981.6119.1

Miller, M. D. (2019). Reliability in Educational Assessments. Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0228

Ministry of Education and Training. (2023). The Exam Format Structure for the National High School Graduation Examination from 2025. Electronic Information Portal of the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam. Retrieved from https://moet.gov.vn/tintuc/Pages/tin tong hop.aspx?ItemID=8979

Ministry of Education and Training. (2024). Decision No. 764/QĐ-BGDĐT: Regulation on the Exam Format Structure for the National High School Graduation Examination from 2025.

Ministry of Education and Training. (2025). Official Dispatch No. 1239/BGDĐT-QLCL: Guidelines on Certain Aspects of Organizing the 2025 National High School Graduation Examination.

Mislevy, R. J. (2018). Sociocognitive Foundations of Educational Measurement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315871691

Mohd Dzin, N. H., & Lay, Y. F. (2021). Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Science Multiple Choice Test Using Rasch Dichotomous Measurement Model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(6), 924–941. m https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.927

Muller, D., Calhoun, E., & Orling, R. (1972). Test Reliability as a Function of Answer Sheet Mode. Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(4), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1972.tb00964.x

Parekh, P., & Bahadoor, V. (2024). The Utility of Multiple-Choice Assessment in Current Medical Education: A Critical Review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.59778

Patel, D., & Zaid, S. (2017). Efficient System for Evaluation of Omr Sheet-A Survey. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering, Science & Management, 3(7).

Rasaeian, N. (2004). A new methodology for comparison of three-test exam techniques in medical students. Retrieved from https://brieflands.com/articles/jme-105084.pdf

Solomon Chukwu Ohiri, D. I., & Nnennaya, C. (n.d.). Psychometric Properties of a Test: An Overview. http://dx.doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0224.0539

Stern, M. J., Harris, F. T. C., & Buckley-Sharp, M. D. (1973). Multiple-choice question paper scores in pathology: A review of scores obtained in a pretest and in four final MB examinations of London University. Medical Education, 7(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1973.tb02203.x

T., H. (1995). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Choice Reviews Online, 32(06), 32–3425. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.32-3425




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v10i2.6016

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2016-2026. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies (ISSN 2501-9120) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).